David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons

[TER]

bump!

 

[orenbus]

Rand Paul response to UK Vote and Syria strikes in general:

 

[TER]

And the American administration loses yet more allies, full steam ahead on the path of alienation and to demonization. May this give courage to the lawmakers in Washington to speak up and protect our country before we lose it. And may the lawmakers who push for war quickly come to their senses and begin working for peace. May Christ enter the hearts of the peacemakers and strengthen those who become humbled.

May this news about the British Parliament be a harbinger to what will come to pass in Congress, and it is up to us to see it happen, which is why we go ALL IN the moment Rand Paul announces he is running for President. Then we all find a role in getting him elected, whatever that role may be.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Rand Paul said a mouthful here and am glad to see him get it out there. Anyone know what kind of ratings this schmuck, Hannity has nowadays?

 

[orenbus]

By the way in case anyone is interested in watching the political aftermath of the UK vote there is a live stream of Sky News here:

http://www.livenewschat.tv/sky-news-live-stream/

 

[robert68]

 

[orenbus]

Thanks for posting that video, I didn't get a chance to see that particular speech yesterday and am glad now to have seen it as I didn't know about the Rebel leader devolving to cannibalism in Syria as described by George Galloway. These are the types of people that McCain wants to arm and support that perhaps at some point in the future if the tides turn may end up getting their hands on those same chemical weapons we are supposedly trying to neutralize through regime change by raining down tomahawk missles. One can only imagine what form of blowback may occur the further we delve into the Syrian civil war if our current course is unchanged.

 

[Mani]

And the American administration loses yet more allies, full steam ahead on the path of alienation and to demonization. May this give courage to the lawmakers in Washington to speak up and protect our country before we lose it. And may the lawmakers who push for war quickly come to their senses and begin working for peace. May Christ enter the hearts of the peacemakers and strengthen those who become humbled.

May this news about the British Parliament be a harbinger to what will come to pass in Congress, and it is up to us to see it happen, which is why we go ALL IN the moment Rand Paul announces he is running for President. Then we all find a role in getting him elected, whatever that role may be.

YES, EXACTLY! They hate us for our freedom right?




"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests of America," he said.


WTF NATIONAL SECURITY interest would that be......IN FUCKING SYRIA????????

 

[orenbus]

Commentators said it was the first time a British prime minister had lost a vote on war since 1782, when parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony's rebellion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-britain-idUSBRE97R1BD20130830

 

[ZENemy]

Now who's the good damn isolationist!?

 

[Matthew5]

On a side note, how much cooler is the House of Commons than the U.S. House? This would make a Cspan way more entertaining.

 

[Lucille]

@repjustinamash 18h UK Parliament votes on going to war. Congress votes on critical things, too, like renaming post offices.

Political tweet of the week.

 

[Lucille]

U.K. Lawmakers Actually Vote on Waging War, an Example the U.S. Should Follow
http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/30/uk-lawmakers-actually-vote-on-waging-war

The increasingly unilateral nature of U.S. foreign policy — especially in its lethal aspects — has been something of a cooperative project in constitutional dysfunction. For all that presidents of both parties are loath to ask the legislative branch to exercise its power to declare war under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, many lawmakers are equally resistant to being committed by an actual up or down vote in a way that might force them to take responsibility for the next bloody and unpopular fiasco. House Speaker John Boehner asked President Obama to “make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interest..." and whether action against Syria might require Congress to authorize more money, but he hasn't called for an actual vote. Pointedly, he hasn't signed on to Rep. Scott Rigell's (R-VA) letter (PDF) demanding that President Obama "consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria." That letter is now up to 140 signatures from lawmakers of both major parties, but that's still a minority of the membership of the House of Representatives.

President Obama, for his part, was once an enthusiastic believer in the idea that "[t]he President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." But that was before he took up residence in the White House and faced the possibility that Congress, like the U.K. parliament, might say "no."