- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 5, 2008 at 8:12 pm #617967
JoBParticipantThis conversation has once again entered the absurd…
Anyone catch Howard Dean on the Daily Show? Surprise.. they are going to seat Florida and Michigan…
just what the deal will be he didn’t say. They are apparently still negotiating it… and still hoping someone will drop out so it doesn’t have to be hardball:)
told you it would be difficult to write off the votes in Florida since both candidates were on the ballot.
it ain’t over till it’s over…
it’s a campaign.. full of all the attendant political posturing of a campaign…
why that surprises anyone is a real mystery to me.
for a little balance.. try Bill Moyers show this weekend with an analysis of the two campaigns…
it’s equal opportunity.
May 5, 2008 at 9:20 pm #617968
beachdrivegirlParticipantIt doesnt really matter because Obama is going to be way ahead in the Delegate count on Wednesday Morning.
May 5, 2008 at 9:42 pm #617969
JoBParticipantPandering to get votes?
What Senator Obama said to get elected to the Senate…
But until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq.
2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05;
2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05;
2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06;
2006 Vote # 239;
2006 Vote # 186,
S2766, 6/22/06,
HR5631, 9/7/06
Nothing but the facts…
You decide.
May 5, 2008 at 9:44 pm #617970
beachdrivegirlParticipantObama picks up three superdelegates today. Considerin we are on the Go Barack webstie pretty sure most here have already decdiced.
May 5, 2008 at 10:02 pm #617971
rs261MemberI’d support funding bills so our troops get paid, I dont see how that is so wrong.
May 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm #617972
beachdrivegirlParticipantto humor myself i actually googled one of your many supposive facts that he supported the Iraq war and you may have wanted to do a bit more homework.
2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05;
rs261 is correct the only thing this bill supports in Iraq is to maintain the funding of troops already there. oh yeah and to rebuild the US Embassy…Obama sure is threatenign.
I also would like to see these troops get paid. And more importantly this billed addressed things like Domestion appropriations on the war on terror and the Indian Ocean Tsunami relief fund. And you did get this same post from a very pro-hillary site. Might as well been another Penn article as far as I am concerned.
May 5, 2008 at 10:19 pm #617973
beachdrivegirlParticipantFurthermore, I checked into the Florida and Michingan delegate seating.
From what I understand one of three things will take place.
Either they will allow superdelegates but not pledged delegates be seated (real big threat) or they will seat the deledgates from Florida in one of two ways.
Either they will count the delegtes as half coutns or split the delegates 50/50. Obama has a big enough lead and needs so few delegates it really is not even a concern of his.
May 5, 2008 at 10:39 pm #617974
walfredoMemberJoB- what part of supporting funding for troops once they are already in combat, but being against the war and speaking out against its authorization prior to the war is inconsistent?
Please help me out with that? I have never once heard Obama say he regrets the votes he made in support of providing funding for the troops. To flip-flop, or pander, you would have to do something inconsistent. Once the bus is in the ditch, well you have to get it out of the ditch. What is important, is finding someone who has the judgement not to drive the bus into the ditch into the future…
May 6, 2008 at 1:47 am #617975
TrickParticipantHeaven forbid there was an ear mark on one of those bills he disagree’s with and votes no….could you imagine the incessant discussions they would have about “Obama doesn’t support troops”
Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t…
May 6, 2008 at 2:57 am #617976
beachdrivegirlParticipantI actually was going to stop posting on this site because of the anomisty some posters have decided to create. But after researching some of these “funding bills” I had to educate others out there of the misleading information that was posted by some on this site.
None of the bills listed above actually supported the Iraq war. Furthermore, i found this bill the most interesting: HR5631, #236, 09/07/06
“Motion to Table Menendez Amdt. No. 4909; To prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle East and create a database of news stories to promote positive coverage of the war in Iraq.” I think that proves Obama opposes the war.
Here is a very good site that is not a pro-obama or a pro-clinton site, but factual instead. I highly urge anyone with concerns to follow the link.
Obama ’08 and ’12
May 6, 2008 at 4:01 am #617977
JoBParticipantwalfredo…
the only problem with Senator Obama voting to fund the war in Iraq… which he really did… is that his campaign promise when he was campaigning as a senator was not to…
all you have to do is play the video of him that i linked to first…
he didn’t start voting not to support funding for the war and war related issues until he announced his intention to run for President.
May 6, 2008 at 4:02 am #617978
JoBParticipanthow well do you know him?
no tricks.. i only scored 52%.. but not becasue i didn’t know the answers on anything pretaining to his performance or voting records…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-quiz,0,234858.triviaquiz
May 6, 2008 at 4:18 am #617979
JoBParticipantI’ve got to ask beachdrivegirl…
what were we supposed to learn at…
because i scrolled through the entire list on that site and found only one vote where they differed.. Obama voted to confirm Casey.. Clinton didn’t.
so.. your point?
May 6, 2008 at 4:41 am #617980
JoBParticipantThese are the bills i cited as those which included funding for the Iraq war…
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama voted yes on these bills.
all of these bills included provisions for funding for the Iraq war..
from the US Senate Roll call site.. about as accurate as you can get…
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_
Question: On the Conference Report (H. R. 1268 Conference Report )
Vote Date: May 10, 2005, 05:50 PM
Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
H.R. 1268
An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 1042 As Amended )
Vote Number: 326 Vote Date: November 15, 2005, 12:50 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 1042
Measure Title: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 4939 As Amended )
Vote Number: 112 Vote Date: May 4, 2006, 12:04 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 4939
Measure Title: A bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 2766 As Amended )
Vote Number: 186 Vote Date: June 22, 2006, 05:11 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 2766
Measure Title: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 5631 As Amended )
Vote Number: 239 Vote Date: September 7, 2006, 06:08 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 5631
Measure Title: A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
On the senate roll call website.. i believe you can link to the listing which includes the entire wording of any bill.
May 6, 2008 at 5:12 am #617981
rs261MemberThe video clip references 87 billion dollars…now which one of those is that? The searches I found (only archived speeches from people) had a year of 2003, all the bills he voted on are from 2006 or later. And as it happens Obama didnt enter the senate until 2005…so he couldnt have voted no or yes on that bill he referenced in the speech.
He mentions nothing about not supporting future bills especially if tied to Tsunami relief etc. Time passes, and things change…our troops still need a salary and equipment.
May 6, 2008 at 5:12 am #617982
JanSParticipantOK…this is a general question about any candidate….are they never allowed to change their mind once they have said “I’m not gonna do so-and-so”? Funding the soldiers, i.e., the war, is necessary now that we’re there. And we don’t even do that all that well..as in bad or no body armor, faulty humvees, etc. etc. Sometimes things change…sometimes one has to decide to do things a little differently because it’s the right thing to do.I’m sure all the candidates have done that at some point…it doesn’t mean that Mr. Obama is a liar…just as it wouldn’t mean that if the person had been Hillary..or Mr. Edwards…or even John McCain….
just an observation…
May 6, 2008 at 5:29 am #617983
JoBParticipanti didn’t call him a liar..
and i don’t have a problem with him changing his mind…
but then i don’t expect him to be anything but a politician…
however.. if Hillary is pandering to the voters to sponsor a bill supporting a gas tax holiday…
then certainly Obama is pandering as well to promise one thing while campaigning… and then deliver another… because regardless of the justification … that is exactly what he did.
That was just the easy example. With a little work.. i could produce quite a few more.
The point is all politicians pander…
You just overlook or justify or forgive pandering, dirty tricks and all the rest of that political stuff when it comes to Senator Obama… but overlook nothing when it comes to Clinton.
You had better hope he is a politician… i certainly do.. because if he’s not and he gets the nomination.. we’re toast.
And saying i told you so isn’t going to make me a happy camper. I am in this to win this fall.
May 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm #617984
KayleighMemberNice ads Ms. Hillary is running once again (“Obama doesn’t care about people” etc.)
She oughta be on the McCain campaign payroll.
May 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm #617985
rs261MemberThinking about it even more, I believe the 87 billion dollars he was refering too was the initial funding of the war (funding for the second invasion). So he stated no, and then later he says, I’ve always been against it, and it turns out to be true! Now thats politics.
May 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm #617986
beachdrivegirlParticipant“You just overlook or justify or forgive pandering, dirty tricks and all the rest of that political stuff when it comes to Senator Obama… but overlook nothing when it comes to Clinton.”
Once again putting words in others mouths I think many of us Obama supporters have stated when we felt our canidate may have a weak stance. Although we do also reassure others on why he is still the only canidate for the people. If Clinton didnt keep getting caught in these outright lies and stopped attacking Obama I may have been more likely to overlook some things but it is lie after lie after lie and she has openly supported McCain.
And yes Kayleigh, I loved Ms.Hillary’s ads myself. It really does show her true class and character.
Also rs261 thanks for the facts.
May 6, 2008 at 1:33 pm #617987
beachdrivegirlParticipantIt should be a great day for Obama today. If Hillary does not get the 70% landslide win she has to have to stay in the race the primaries will be over.
May 6, 2008 at 2:38 pm #617988
beachdrivegirlParticipantFor anyone who missed the Daily Show last night, you can see it at http://www.thedailyshow.com/
click on ‘Panderer’s Box’.
I needed a good laugh.
May 6, 2008 at 7:14 pm #617989
JoBParticipantthe trail of misleading ads starts in Ohio i think…
and those were Senator Obama’s…
the dirty tricks started much earlier…
and i still think the first illegal act was Senator Obama’s and involved not dissolving his PAC fund when he announced his intention to run…
illegal? yes… illegal.
As for Hillary needing 70% today to stay in the race… is this another of your improbable standards she has to meet before you respect her? Or is that one set by the network news?
Because she can stay in the race until the convention if she wants to… even with a 70% loss today … candidates get to decide for themselves when to file and when to withdraw…
What would Senator Obama have to do today to convince the other half of the democratic party that he is their candidate?
i wonder.
perhaps you should see how much of that overwhelming black vote he keeps in North Carolina before you get too taken with yourselves…
i am going to be watching this primary with interest.
May 6, 2008 at 7:20 pm #617990
JoBParticipantrs261…
now do you really want me to go looking for written documentation of his campaign pledge?
if i thought it would matter.. i would.. but you would just find some way to split hairs with that one too…
Although.. the progressives in Illinois who elected him …
even those who still support him..
didn’t mince words about their disappointments between his campaign promises and the reality of his service in the senate.
May 6, 2008 at 10:01 pm #617991
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl..
please source this…
“Furthermore, I checked into the Florida and Michingan delegate seating.
From what I understand one of three things will take place.
Either they will allow superdelegates but not pledged delegates be seated (real big threat) or they will seat the deledgates from Florida in one of two ways.
Either they will count the delegtes as half coutns or split the delegates 50/50. Obama has a big enough lead and needs so few delegates it really is not even a concern of his. “
The reason i ask for sourcing is that i can find a ton of speculation… but no definitive answers even though Howard Dean has apparently been saying that they will find a compromise to seat the Florida delegation since early April.
The latest Michigan compromise… offered by Michigan.. would seat a certain number of delegates according to the vote split.. 55% Clinton and 40% other (the write in that Obama organizers promoted there)… i think.. and a certain proportion split according to the popular vote… which is currently about 50/50.. slightly favoring clinton.
I haven’t seen a Florida compromise that has actually been offered by either the DNC or Florida yet…
if you have a source i have overlooked, i’d be interested.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.