*OMG!! Obama BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!!!

VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
Obama's votes on HR2863...."YES"

Vote adopt a conference report that appropriates $450.13 billion to the Department of Defense and related agencies, including funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for hurricane relief activities and does not include a provision allowing the leasing of land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)....

$50 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
Click to expand...
Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama on Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
 
Inneedofbuds

Inneedofbuds

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
Obama's votes on HR2863...."YES"


Project Vote Smart - Senator Obama on Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
Click to expand...
that's not the right vote. That vote is
HR 2863: Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

What you are looking for is:

Vote 181: On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics. A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.
Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.
According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15.
Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”
Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill. VOTE NO
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
Inneedofbuds said:
that's not the right vote. That vote is
HR 2863: Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

What you are looking for is:

Vote 181: On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics. A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.
Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.
According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15.
Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”
Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill. VOTE NO
Click to expand...

Excerpt-

Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”


Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill.


:shock::cry:
 
Inneedofbuds

Inneedofbuds

Well-Known Member
quick lesson in politics C. When politicians want a bill passed, they load it with all kinds of other bullshit in order to gain favor for it. It's called pork barrel, McCain and Palin made it an art form. I know it must be confusing that the person you've labeled a socialist turned down relief aid, but he was smart enough to understand it was bullshit attached to a pro-war bill.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
Dems-

Yes-Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Sherrod Brown, Robert Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Ben Cardin, Thomas Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Carl Levin, Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Robert Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Jim Webb


No-Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Russell Feingold, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Barack Obama, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ron Wyden

Undecided-Tim Johnson, Chuck Schumer
 
Big P

Big P

Well-Known Member
Inneedofbuds said:
I swear to god, refuting lies has become a full time jobs in this forum. So, anyone ready for a dose of reality?

First off, what Obama propsed was a delay in negotiations until the new administration had been sworn in. You see, like many of us, he sees the current adminisration as a complete and total failure, so why would we want them involved in one of the biggest withrdawal negotions in history. I mean, doesn't it makes sense that something that is taking place in 2010 should be handled by the administration that will be there at the time? This is an easy way for Repubs to convince weak minded people that Obama wants to keep troops in Iraq. Do you need a reminder he voted against the war to begin with? The idea that delay of 3 months would make it impossible to withrawal troops by 2010 its just downright stupid. Oh, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari was appointed by the Bush Administration, like much of Iraq's new leadership.
Click to expand...

the above would be true if the agreement was set in a stone testicale lock box but the fact is the next president will dictate his own deals with the iraqis as he pleases and does not have to follow the previous administartion tac

so this proves that he was mostly doing it for political purposes and self serving purposes

like barak would hold to any of the deals bush has made while president, that my friend is a falicy trust me hes blowing smoke

this is a big story

you could say he would allow additonal troops die unessesarily just so he can get some clout:spew:
 
Inneedofbuds

Inneedofbuds

Well-Known Member
Big P said:
you could say he would allow additonal troops die unessesarily just so he can get some clout:spew:
Click to expand...
No, that would be an ignorant thing to say. Absolutely no timetable has been set forth for troop withdrawal. You can't delay something that hasn't happened. Bush has suggested that he will have them out by 2010. Are you suggesting that 3 months delay will keep that goal from being possible? Do I need to remind you that Obama supported a bill that would have had troops out already? A bill that Bush vetoed.
 
Big P

Big P

Well-Known Member
Inneedofbuds said:
No, that would be an ignorant thing to say. Absolutely no timetable has been set forth for troop withdrawal. You can't delay something that hasn't happened. Bush has suggested that he will have them out by 2010. Are you suggesting that 3 months delay will keep that goal from being possible? Do I need to remind you that Obama supported a bill that would have had troops out already? A bill that Bush vetoed.
Click to expand...

actually decisions have just been made to send 8,000 troops out of iraq

he was trying to prevent any withdrawls until he could be crowned with them
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
Inneedofbuds said:
It's called pork barrel, McCain and Palin made it an art form.
Click to expand...
HAH! Little do you know! McCain promised to make famous members of Congress who stuffed in little earmark projects in legislation! And if he's promised to do it, surely he will fulfill that goal! So there! ;) :lol:
 
Inneedofbuds

Inneedofbuds

Well-Known Member
VTXDave said:
I believe one candidate has set forth the goal to retask troops to Afghanistan as we all know, the Taliban are a threat to our national security.
Click to expand...
and i completely disagree with that. Much like I disagree with his support of continued sanctions against Iran.
 
tipsgnob

tipsgnob

New Member
VTXDave said:
HAH! Little do you know! McCain promised to make famous members of Congress who stuffed in little earmark projects in legislation! And if he's promised to do it, surely he will fulfill that goal! So there! ;) :lol:
Click to expand...
McCain repeated his promise to eliminate "earmarks" from federal spending bills, saying "the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it." That drew applause, but the fact is that earmarks amount to only $16.9 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Meanwhile, the deficit is expected to be more than $200 billion in 2009. And McCain's tax cuts will add billions more to future deficits unless offset by spending cuts, which he so far has not been willing to identify. What would he cut?
fact.....courtesy of factcheck.org
 
Garden Knowm

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
VTXDave said:
the Taliban are a threat to our national security.
Click to expand...

yeah.. i see them everyday.. all over the usa... I am sooooooo scared..

i found one under my computer today...

listen goof ball

there are way more MURDERS in the usa everyday then the Taliban will ever commit in their entire existence...

so please.. stop beliving the hype..

put the problems in perspective.. and the taliban fall off the radar

and I thought you were a shepherd... but you're just a sheep :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top