• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Speaker John Boehner will support strike on Syria

Article is here.



OK, it's good that Boehner, along with Cantor, are putting aside differences to back Obama on this............. But do we really need to do this? That is the question. Whatever intel Obama showed Boehner, it evidently persuaded him. However, Obama needs to persuade the American people, and keeping the reasons secret from the American people is not going to cut it.

Obama, show the American people what you have. We demand it.

You don't have the right to demand anything. The POTUS doesn't work for you; he works for Google, Microsoft, some top law firms, and other interests.
 
Okay I have seen this episode a couple of hundred times. Right when Charlie Brown is about to kick the football, Lucy pulls it away?? Am I missing something here.
 
Okay I have seen this episode a couple of hundred times. Right when Charlie Brown is about to kick the football, Lucy pulls it away?? Am I missing something here.

Other than maybe being led around by the nose by men in flowing robes, and turbans......I get the feeling that rather than Charlie Brown, and the football, it is more like chasing our tail....
 
Obama: "Plan is a 'limited, proportional' strike to 'degrade' Syrian capacity and 'send a message'".

DanaRhea: You can send a message to Assad on Facebook. It's a lot cheaper. :mrgreen:
Assad's son is already reported to have sent Obama a message on Facebook. Called him a little bitch.
 
Article is here.



OK, it's good that Boehner, along with Cantor, are putting aside differences to back Obama on this............. But do we really need to do this? That is the question. Whatever intel Obama showed Boehner, it evidently persuaded him. However, Obama needs to persuade the American people, and keeping the reasons secret from the American people is not going to cut it.

Obama, show the American people what you have. We demand it.


I could care less what intel they have or how good it is. Syria is not our problem.
 
I do pretty much agree with your commentary but I don't think Israel benefits from the Syrian body count, particularly the civilians who seem to be getting the short end here.

Also, I question that we are "supporting Al Qaeda". I doubt we are "supporting" anyone beyond our weapon manufacturers. Every President is obligated to have a war or two during their term and historically, we never really win anything (possible exception was the Gulf War 1 where we came, saw, conquered and departed) but billions change hands among a small, select group. Business as usual.

I wasn't speaking of each dead body individually being a benefit to israel.
israel benefits by the overall turmoil and division in the area because it keeps them away from focusing on destroying israel.

I agree. The only people benefiting is business and weapons mfgr.s..

If we arm/support both sides, they make 2x as much money.
 
I'll play!
Boehner is a RINO.

IMO we have no reason to bother with Syria!:twocents:

Liberals were all for dictators gassing their own people (Iraq) before they were against it
 
I don't think it's necessary, but with Republican backing it will happen. With Congressional approval which will blow some minds here.

How many posts until Boehner and Cantor get called "RINOs?"

I don't think that will happen - Boehner was on record before as being supportive but indicated that neither he nor the Republican leadership in the House would whip up the vote for this and it was up to Obama and the administration to muster the votes.

To my knowledge, you're only a RINO if you support financial and social positions that are counter to the mainstream Republican platform. Supporting a President proposing military action in the name of national defense would not make you a RINO at all.
 
CanadaJohn said:
..... a President proposing military action in the name of national defense....

National defense? Say What? We might attack syria to protect our nation (u.s.) ?
I need to have that explained to me?
 
Article is here.



OK, it's good that Boehner, along with Cantor, are putting aside differences to back Obama on this............. But do we really need to do this? That is the question. Whatever intel Obama showed Boehner, it evidently persuaded him. However, Obama needs to persuade the American people, and keeping the reasons secret from the American people is not going to cut it.

Obama, show the American people what you have. We demand it.

I have been upset with Boehner from the beginning. The guy is the antithesis of say one thing then do another because it is politically expedient....the "see, we worked with you now work with us" compromises he always gets booted in the face with doesnt work...unless you are getting your part of the deal first, you get screwed. Boehner still hasnt learned that lesson yet, and how many years has it been?

He is a big government Republican - a liberal republican - not a RINO but a true Republican. Cantor I would have been shocked about him siding with the use of force a year or two ago...but he is also showing that he is nothing more than a big government republican too.

Big government Republican, big government Democrat...one and the same...blah blah blah.

No sense making demands to them for proof, they only ignore us then tell us it is in our National Defense's best interest...we are supposed to fall in line with their rhetoric and follow them like lemmings.
 
National defense? Say What? We might attack syria to protect our nation (u.s.) ?
I need to have that explained to me?

It's not for me to explain - your President claims that the military action against Syrian targets is in the US national interest and in defense of US interests in the region. If you don't believe your President, and I wouldn't blame you, insist that he explain himself clearly, fully, and directly to you, the citizens of the country. My point was simple - Boehner and other Republicans supporting any President who claims a need for congressional sanction of military action in the national interest are not being RINO's, they are simply being patriots.
 
National defense? Say What? We might attack syria to protect our nation (u.s.) ?
I need to have that explained to me?

Good afternoon, P. Kersey. :2wave:

Some of the President's comments are certainly hard to understand! This one seems to be a bit an overreach, though. :thumbs: Now if he had said Russia, that might be worth considering.
 
Good afternoon, P. Kersey. :2wave:

Some of the President's comments are certainly hard to understand! This one seems to be a bit an overreach, though. :thumbs: Now if he had said Russia, that might be worth considering.

Hi ya polgara! Hope you're doing well today.

obama will say just about anything..and say it in soothing, reasonable tones so that the most overt lies seem plausible and the sycophants nod and clap and cheer.


"...he [ Obama ] goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician."
Jeremiah Wright

See anything familiar in these below?
obama learned how to divide and breed envy to galvanize his target audience...

Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."

"But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: “Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this only swings people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.” — xxiii

The preferred world can be seen any evening on television in the succession of programs where the good always wins — that is, until the late evening newscast, when suddenly we are plunged into the world as it is. Political realists see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest.

MY EDIT;(or as Rahm Emanuel said "never let a good crisis go to waste")

"One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. — P.26

The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead. — P.59

The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion. — P.96

If the organizer begins with an affirmation of love for people, he promptly turns everyone off. If, on the other hand, he begins with a denunciation of exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, gouging merchants, he is inside their experience and they accept him. — P.98

The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” — P.100

The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. — P.116-117

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.

…The third rule is: Whereever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.

…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

…The twelth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — P.126-129

For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsbility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their “book” of rules and regulations.
 
Or the Cloward-Piven strategy...
This is his main tactic

"manufacturing a crisis and then implementing a solution that actually makes the crisis much worse and moreover, makes implementation of a real solution to the crisis next to impossible; and every solution to the crisis must invariably entail purposefully overwhelming federal government programs in an effort to cause those programs and the federal government to implode under its own weight"
 
Hi ya polgara! Hope you're doing well today.

obama will say just about anything..and say it in soothing, reasonable tones so that the most overt lies seem plausible and the sycophants nod and clap and cheer.


"...he [ Obama ] goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician."
Jeremiah Wright

See anything familiar in these below?
obama learned how to divide and breed envy to galvanize his target audience...

Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."

"But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: “Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this only swings people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.” — xxiii

The preferred world can be seen any evening on television in the succession of programs where the good always wins — that is, until the late evening newscast, when suddenly we are plunged into the world as it is. Political realists see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest.

MY EDIT;(or as Rahm Emanuel said "never let a good crisis go to waste")

"One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. — P.26

The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead. — P.59

The moment one gets into the area of $25 million and above, let alone a billion, the listener is completely out of touch, no longer really interested because the figures have gone above his experience and almost are meaningless. Millions of Americans do not know how many million dollars make up a billion. — P.96

If the organizer begins with an affirmation of love for people, he promptly turns everyone off. If, on the other hand, he begins with a denunciation of exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, gouging merchants, he is inside their experience and they accept him. — P.98

The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” — P.100

The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. — P.116-117

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.

…The third rule is: Whereever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.

…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

…The twelth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — P.126-129

For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsbility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each others), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organizations, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book. You can club them to death with their “book” of rules and regulations.

Good afternoon, P. Kersey. :2wave:

I'm doing well, thanks, and I expect you are, too! :mrgreen:

Excellent post! :thumbs:
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be a good thing??

Yea, I sure need to pay attention more to the choices they give you when a word is underlined in red...antithesis & epitome are not spelled nearly the same... :confused:
 
Article is here.



OK, it's good that Boehner, along with Cantor, are putting aside differences to back Obama on this............. But do we really need to do this? That is the question. Whatever intel Obama showed Boehner, it evidently persuaded him. However, Obama needs to persuade the American people, and keeping the reasons secret from the American people is not going to cut it.

Obama, show the American people what you have. We demand it.

Nothing he shows you will be evidence, first of all, and secondly even IF Assad used chemical weapons, he didn't attack the US with them. Therefore there is no bases in law for us to attack Syria. And we'll of course you know that there is no bases in international law.
 
I wouldn't be so sure that Boehner was persuaded by evidence. Wouldn't be surprised if Obama offered him a few political carrots in the coming political battles to sweeten the deal. Can't believe Boehner is going along with this.


Or the NSA sent his file to the White House.
 
First if the President WANTED to do something he would have already. I'm beginning to believe this was his tactic to hopefully get Congress to say 'NO' thus giving him shelter. If Congress says 'yes' they are basically calling the President's hand...THEN what WILL he do?

Consider that IF he does respond AND we find out down the road that the rebels are responsible for the gassing the **** storm will reek of Iraq. Personally I can think of no reason for Assad to gas anyone. He is reportedly winning and gas attacks would empower the rest of the globe to potentially get involved. This global involvement would ONLY help the rebels thus their motivation...?

The possibility of that is looking less and less likely as more and more congress is supporting, and as the White House and a willing press peddle their propaganda and hyperbole, the ever gullible American public also starts leaning in the pro war direction. In one weeks time public support for military action in Syria went from 9% to 38% and almost certainly will continue to climb. Americans are sorely ignorant of what our constitution and subsequent acts like WPA have to say about attacking countries that aren't imminently threatening us or actually attacking us. So we will continue to see such miscarriages of justice.
 
National defense? Say What? We might attack syria to protect our nation (u.s.) ?
I need to have that explained to me?

Yeah I need to hear the exact freedoms Syria is envading on. Since we are protecting Merica and all. Honestly I am getting to the point that someone needs to smack the hell out of US. Where did the Politicans get the gall to invade, bomd, other countries, and tell us that they are protecting our freedoms?? Buncha jerks, the sad part is people believe these loons.
 
Last edited:
It's not for me to explain - your President claims that the military action against Syrian targets is in the US national interest and in defense of US interests in the region. If you don't believe your President, and I wouldn't blame you, insist that he explain himself clearly, fully, and directly to you, the citizens of the country. My point was simple - Boehner and other Republicans supporting any President who claims a need for congressional sanction of military action in the national interest are not being RINO's, they are simply being patriots.


Our constitution does NOT allow us to attack countries for "US Interests" (read, natural resource exploitation) it is for defensive purposes not offensive.
 
Last edited:
Our constitution does NOT allow us to attack countries for "US Interests" (read, natural resource exploitation) it is to be defense not offense.

Then how about defending the Syrian people from Assad? Russia has supplied 1.5 billion dollars worth of weapons to the regime and yet has spent less than 100 million in aiding the Syrian refugees, the United States has supply's more aid to the refugees then Russia and china combined.

Here is a breakdown of humanitarian aid

http://fts.unocha.org/reports/daily/ocha_R24_E16303___1309021603.pdf


And this is Russia trading cash for weapons with the Assad regime.
Insight: Syria pays for Russian weapons to boost ties with Moscow
 
I wouldn't be so sure that Boehner was persuaded by evidence. Wouldn't be surprised if Obama offered him a few political carrots in the coming political battles to sweeten the deal. Can't believe Boehner is going along with this.

The military industrial complex needs a war.
 
Back
Top Bottom