RE: Impeachment?

RE: Impeachment? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:43:31 PM)
I just figured out why Obama bombed the hell out of Libya. He hasn't thrown away several billion recently thanks to the tea party, and he was having withdrawal symptoms. He just fired off about 100 cruise missiles at approximately $1 million a piece which equates to $100,000,000. It's not $100 billion like he's used to throwing around, but he's hoping no one will notice.

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:46:02 PM)
And another sensible argument has been put forth.....Panda,Lucy...what say we jump on this and "straw-man" for awhile.

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:47:35 PM)
Oh fine, leave me out!

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:48:26 PM)
The president doesnt need Congress' permission initially quote: The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls Even the national news asked today 'why aren't we defending the protestors of Bahrain and Yemen if the basis of our attack in Libya is to defend citizens?' I't's impeachment time folks. Obama didn't even check with Congress first and last time I checked, bombing another country unprovoked was an act of war which requires Congress to support.

tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:49:19 PM)
Wow, thanks Sanity.

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Sounds like an argument to me. You stated a position and supported that position with a link. I don't know about you, but where I grew up, that was called making an argument. Why are you weaseling away from it now and pretending that you weren't? Maybe you should think these things through a little more thoroughly before making such brash statements and backing yourself into these sticky corners. I'm afraid your red herring argument isn't going to work with me. If you'd like to join Lucy in the battle over definitions in order to avoid addressing the issues at hand, you'll have to find some other patsy. I honestly don't care if you'd like to define my appeal as an argument. Go fish. Pun intended. [:D]

eihwaz -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:51:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Even though many prominent neo-cons refer to themselves by that term? As I said before, start a seperate thread if you want this debate to continue. It's not worth a separate thread,... quote: ORIGINAL Neoconservatism, Wikipedia The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right." Sociologist Michael Harrington coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 article concerning welfare policy... The first major intellectual to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is often called the founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative'."... Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy." [...] Initially, the neoconservatives were less concerned with foreign policy than with domestic policy. Irving Kristol's journal, The Public Interest, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences. Norman Podhoretz's magazine Commentary, formerly a journal of the liberal left, had more of a cultural focus, criticizing excesses in the movements for black equality and women's rights, and in the academic left... Irving Kristol wrote: "If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture. Norman Podhoretz agreed: "Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor." Ira Chernus argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all... According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism . . . The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological." In other words, what is called neoconservatism has cultural, domestic policy, and foreign policy aspects and has evolved over time. The Wikipedia article states that the intellectual lineage of neoconservative foreign policy combines militant anticommunism and Wilsonian idealism (i.e., interventionism). The term is, or has been, used self-descriptively by certain adherents, but pejoratively by opponents. To some, neoconservatism is a philosophical outlook; to others, more of an ideological subspecies or even a movement.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:51:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Under international law, Iraq's fictitious WMD program was the sole justification for invading Iraq. You will have to source this claim for me, panda, as I seem to remember other valid reasons. And, if that assertion fails, this one ... quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Arguing that Bush invaded Iraq for reasons other than their non-existent WMDs is admitting that he lied, and launched illegal and unprovoked war of aggression. ... is invalid and your entire argument fails on the logic. Firm You guys must be out of practice. You.re usually not this easy. Under international law, the sole legal justification for invading Iraq was UN Resolution 1441, which basically authorized use of military force of Iraq failed to demonstrate that they did not possess WMD. If you're aware of some other legal justification for the invasion, please post it. I'm sure we'd all find it quite fascinating. I could spend a couple of hours dragging up articles and law, but it really a waste of time if you have no desire to read them, and will ignore them anyway. To put it simply, the "cease fire" from the Gulf War was breached by SA many times. Any one of those breaches was sufficient under international law and UN resolutions to resume the hostilities against Iraq. As well, SA attempted several other things that were casus bellum under international law: not the least of which was the attempted assassination of the US President. Firm

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:53:55 PM)
Says who? John Woo? Who are these legal scholars you're quoting, or is this just your personal opinion?

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda If you're aware of some other legal justification for the invasion, please post it. I'm sure we'd all find it quite fascinating. You refused to read the link I posted. Sorry... can't help you any more than that. So you've got nothing, then? Pity. As i said, you guys didn't used to be so easy. You were more fun when you were good at this. I suppose it depends on perspective. From this side, it appears you've got nothing... and are perfectly happy with it. Good for you. [;)]

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 7:57:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Says who? John Woo? Who are these legal scholars you're quoting, or is this just your personal opinion? lol... Oh wow! Now that's an intelligent and compelling argument!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:03:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Says who? John Woo? Who are these legal scholars you're quoting, or is this just your personal opinion? Panda, Since you have already shown that you have no interest in actually looking at the facts, and I have said that I'm not going to do your work for you because of that, your attempt to bait me into putting more effort into it (to discourage me from even commenting, I'd bet) will not be successful. I'm pretty comfortable with my assertions however. Unlike some, I actually have a Masters Degree in this fucking area. And that's not the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority" btw, because my degree is in this specific area. Firm

Sanity -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:08:18 PM)
Just the facts ma'am quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Wow, thanks Sanity.

Brain -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:09:31 PM)
No, he did it because he didn't want innocent civilians murdered. quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls I just figured out why Obama bombed the hell out of Libya. He hasn't thrown away several billion recently thanks to the tea party, and he was having withdrawal symptoms. He just fired off about 100 cruise missiles at approximately $1 million a piece which equates to $100,000,000. It's not $100 billion like he's used to throwing around, but he's hoping no one will notice.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How many times has it been pointed out to you that President Clinton repeatedly warned the world of the grave dangers presented by Saddam Hussein, and that the majority of Dems in the Senate were on record since the Clinton administration warning of the dangers... Really, George Bush was the new kid on the block to all of this. Why do you ignore all of this so easily? And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Reagan warned of the dangers of Gadaffi that were not only ignored by Bush but he had an active appeasement policy? Why do you ignore all of this so easily?

slvemike4u -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:20:08 PM)
Allow me to take a swing at that...it does not fit,nor support his agenda. How did I do ?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Says who? John Woo? Who are these legal scholars you're quoting, or is this just your personal opinion? Panda, Since you have already shown that you have no interest in actually looking at the facts, and I have said that I'm not going to do your work for you because of that, your attempt to bait me into putting more effort into it (to discourage me from even commenting, I'd bet) will not be successful. I'm pretty comfortable with my assertions however. Unlike some, I actually have a Masters Degree in this fucking area. And that's not the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority" btw, because my degree is in this specific area. Firm In what fucking area is that? Trolling? OK then, I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I was mistaken when I said you guys aren't good at this. You're obviously a qualified expert. I just didn't know they awarded advanced degrees in the... fucking area. I'm not trying to bait either of you into doing anything other than making a cogent, comprehensive argument and defending it. For once. Neither one of you like to do that. Treasure, with all due respect to her, likes to dangle things and back away from them like a matador, and then when someone charges at the cape, they suddenly find that she's not really standing behind it after all. For your part, you like to be as noncommittal and minimal as possible, trying to goad people into overextending themselves in their response, and then attack their argument from behind by claiming that you didn't say what they accused you of. This is the game you guys play. It gets pretty tiring, and most of us don't care to play anymore. And this thread is a perfect example. Neither of you has made much of an argument at all - in fact Treasure is denying that she even made an argument, while at the same time lambasting me for not addressing the argument she didn't make. She threw up a link and said, "you're all wrong, go read this," and refuses to even summarize what's in the link because after all, she's not really making an argument. Well, fuck that. I'm not going to read a 134 page PDF file, and then at the end of it still have to figure out exactly what point the person is trying to make by posting it. I'm not going to do your thinking and make your argument for you, for god's sake. If you think that PDF file supports your argument, summarize it and explain why. Or, if all you want to do is troll and then whine because nobody takes the bait anymore, then keep on doing that. Whatever floats your boat.

TreasureKY -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:22:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How many times has it been pointed out to you that President Clinton repeatedly warned the world of the grave dangers presented by Saddam Hussein, and that the majority of Dems in the Senate were on record since the Clinton administration warning of the dangers... Really, George Bush was the new kid on the block to all of this. Why do you ignore all of this so easily? And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Reagan warned of the dangers of Gadaffi that were not only ignored by Bush but he had an active appeasement policy? Why do you ignore all of this so easily? So you agree then, that Bush was justified just as President Obama is justified. Got it.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Theres no evidence that Bush ever lied about anything, taz. Theres just far left hyperbole. Wild eyed, fanatical, empty claims. How much nonsense is this? There is plenty of evidence that has been widely published. Including on these boards.

rulemylife -> RE: Impeachment? (3/21/2011 8:25:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity How many times has it been pointed out to you that President Clinton repeatedly warned the world of the grave dangers presented by Saddam Hussein, and that the majority of Dems in the Senate were on record since the Clinton administration warning of the dangers... Really, George Bush was the new kid on the block to all of this. Why do you ignore all of this so easily? And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Reagan warned of the dangers of Gadaffi that were not only ignored by Bush but he had an active appeasement policy? Why do you ignore all of this so easily? So you agree then, that Bush was justified just as President Obama is justified. Got it. No, I don't agree it was justified in either case. If you had read my posts on other threads you would realize I am very much against our intervention in Libya.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875