Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.Because they supported the policy and voted to fund it. Obviously.ok, Here is his statement:
"I would say it's exactly the opposite," Paul said. "ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier."
Now, can anyone tell me how just the Hawks sent guns indiscriminately to anyone or anywhere? Wouldn't in this situation be the President's job? Aka Benghazi. And how does wanting to bomb Assad help ISIS?
Screw Paul, he has some good ideas but in reality is an idiot.
So there are so many Hawks in congress that they needed no one else to vote? They themselves passed whatever it is they did pass? Can you link us to a story about how Congress and not the President supplied the arms? Did Obama protest or was it something he wanted? Paul is full of crap.
Why is it obvious? Because Paul said so? Hardly.
Well, Rand Paul's point is valid. We unintentionally provided ISIL with tons of weapons by foolishly arming Assad's opposition without thoroughly vetting who would get the weapons.
Yes, so moderate wanting to arm a group one day and declaring them the world's greatest evil the next.Maybe he thinks he can jump aboard the democrat anti-Bush train but I think Senator Paul cut his own libertarian throat with that comment.
So what you're saying is that 159 Republicans own this as much as Obama, right? Meaning the majority of Republicans.House approves US arms for Syrian rebels Al Jazeera America
The House of Representatives has approved President Barack Obama's plan to train and arm Syrian rebels that the U.S. classify as moderate, but questions remain over whether Washington will hand over advanced weapons that such groups say they need in order to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The House voted 273 to 156 on Wednesday to authorize the strategy in a test of support for Obama's stepped-up campaign to, as he put it, "degrade and destroy" ISIL fighters who have seized swaths of Iraq and Syria as they seek to expand a self-declared caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.
Written as an amendment to a stopgap spending bill, the measure does not earmark any new money to pay for the arms or training. It passed with support from Democrats and Republicans, despite significant opposition from members of both parties.
Voting for the amendment were 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats, and 71 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted against.
Rand is not a libertarian. Rand is a fraud.Rand is a libertarian who believes (quite rightly) that we (as well as all other countries) have no biz at all having troops in other countries, nor getting involved in other country's wars. No country dares to attack ANY nuke power that has an Air Force or missile capable of carrying nuke weapons. To do so is simply suicidal.
So what you're saying is that 159 Republicans own this as much as Obama, right? Meaning the majority of Republicans.House approves US arms for Syrian rebels Al Jazeera America
The House of Representatives has approved President Barack Obama's plan to train and arm Syrian rebels that the U.S. classify as moderate, but questions remain over whether Washington will hand over advanced weapons that such groups say they need in order to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The House voted 273 to 156 on Wednesday to authorize the strategy in a test of support for Obama's stepped-up campaign to, as he put it, "degrade and destroy" ISIL fighters who have seized swaths of Iraq and Syria as they seek to expand a self-declared caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.
Written as an amendment to a stopgap spending bill, the measure does not earmark any new money to pay for the arms or training. It passed with support from Democrats and Republicans, despite significant opposition from members of both parties.
Voting for the amendment were 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats, and 71 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted against.
As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.Because they supported the policy and voted to fund it. Obviously.ok, Here is his statement:
"I would say it's exactly the opposite," Paul said. "ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier."
Now, can anyone tell me how just the Hawks sent guns indiscriminately to anyone or anywhere? Wouldn't in this situation be the President's job? Aka Benghazi. And how does wanting to bomb Assad help ISIS?
Screw Paul, he has some good ideas but in reality is an idiot.
So there are so many Hawks in congress that they needed no one else to vote? They themselves passed whatever it is they did pass? Can you link us to a story about how Congress and not the President supplied the arms? Did Obama protest or was it something he wanted? Paul is full of crap.
Why is it obvious? Because Paul said so? Hardly.
Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
Of course they own it as much as Bush does. If you'd stop trying to deflect with your partisan nonsense perhaps you could make a relevant point.So what you're saying is that 159 Republicans own this as much as Obama, right? Meaning the majority of Republicans.House approves US arms for Syrian rebels Al Jazeera America
The House of Representatives has approved President Barack Obama's plan to train and arm Syrian rebels that the U.S. classify as moderate, but questions remain over whether Washington will hand over advanced weapons that such groups say they need in order to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The House voted 273 to 156 on Wednesday to authorize the strategy in a test of support for Obama's stepped-up campaign to, as he put it, "degrade and destroy" ISIL fighters who have seized swaths of Iraq and Syria as they seek to expand a self-declared caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.
Written as an amendment to a stopgap spending bill, the measure does not earmark any new money to pay for the arms or training. It passed with support from Democrats and Republicans, despite significant opposition from members of both parties.
Voting for the amendment were 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats, and 71 Republicans and 85 Democrats voted against.
It was Obama's plan. Or are you saying that the democrats that voted for military action in Iraq own it as much as did Bush. If that is what you are now saying it sure doesn't sound like what most on the left have been saying.
No, and I wouldn't discount Rand being a hawk. He wants to take military action against ISIS after all. What I said was that I could count the members of Congress who aren't hawks on one hand.As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.Because they supported the policy and voted to fund it. Obviously.ok, Here is his statement:
"I would say it's exactly the opposite," Paul said. "ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier."
Now, can anyone tell me how just the Hawks sent guns indiscriminately to anyone or anywhere? Wouldn't in this situation be the President's job? Aka Benghazi. And how does wanting to bomb Assad help ISIS?
Screw Paul, he has some good ideas but in reality is an idiot.
So there are so many Hawks in congress that they needed no one else to vote? They themselves passed whatever it is they did pass? Can you link us to a story about how Congress and not the President supplied the arms? Did Obama protest or was it something he wanted? Paul is full of crap.
Why is it obvious? Because Paul said so? Hardly.
You contention is that all the Republicans are Hawks, except Paul? Really?
More then one Republican did support the President and more then one Democrat did also. The vote was bipartisan no need for a super majority.
Then you have no idea what you're talking about. Everyday Rand moves further away from his father. Wanting to take military action against ISIS, for example.Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
I have seen no indication of that he is no mre serious about taking military action against ISIS than Obama is. He might talk that way in a Republican primary but that's as far as it would go.Then you have no idea what you're talking about. Everyday Rand moves further away from his father. Wanting to take military action against ISIS, for example.Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
If you consider burying your head in the sand a good quality then I guess so.Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
It's one of the few good qualities either of them has.
If you consider burying your head in the sand a good quality then I guess so.Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
It's one of the few good qualities either of them has.
Most of Europe would have been under the control of Nazi Germany and Russia if the United States had not dropped the silly isolationist mindset after Pearl Harbor. Pretty every nation they conqured had the same mindset if it's not us being attacked it's not our problem in other words isolationist.If you consider burying your head in the sand a good quality then I guess so.Rand is becoming more like his father every day Ron Paul was an isolationist in my opinion and Rand is closing in on that fast or sure seems to be.
It's one of the few good qualities either of them has.
Name the isolationist nations of the world that have met their downfall because of it.
No, and I wouldn't discount Rand being a hawk. He wants to take military action against ISIS after all. What I said was that I could count the members of Congress who aren't hawks on one hand.As to your first question, yes, of course. The hawks have a super majority. And nobody said Obama had nothing to do with it. It's his policy after all. However, I can count on one hand how many Republican Representatives and Senators oppose such a policy, so it's as much their baby as Obama's. So yes, it is obvious when you take your partisan blinders off and stop deflecting.Because they supported the policy and voted to fund it. Obviously.ok, Here is his statement:
"I would say it's exactly the opposite," Paul said. "ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad, which would have made ISIS's job even easier."
Now, can anyone tell me how just the Hawks sent guns indiscriminately to anyone or anywhere? Wouldn't in this situation be the President's job? Aka Benghazi. And how does wanting to bomb Assad help ISIS?
Screw Paul, he has some good ideas but in reality is an idiot.
So there are so many Hawks in congress that they needed no one else to vote? They themselves passed whatever it is they did pass? Can you link us to a story about how Congress and not the President supplied the arms? Did Obama protest or was it something he wanted? Paul is full of crap.
Why is it obvious? Because Paul said so? Hardly.
You contention is that all the Republicans are Hawks, except Paul? Really?
More then one Republican did support the President and more then one Democrat did also. The vote was bipartisan no need for a super majority.
Yes, so moderate wanting to arm a group one day and declaring them the world's greatest evil the next.Maybe he thinks he can jump aboard the democrat anti-Bush train but I think Senator Paul cut his own libertarian throat with that comment.
