RE: Whats going on in the House (Full Version)

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



Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 7:04:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: errantgeek

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

You have no idea what you are talking about.

That makes me feel better about having no idea what you are talking about either.

Care to have another go at whatever point it was you tried to make?


Do the words "Operation Ajax", Laos, Cambodia, "Salvador Allende" and "Augusto Pinochet", Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan (round 1, not Bush the Lesser's little clusterfuck), al-Faw, al-Basrah, Halabjah, "Oliver North", "Charles Taylor" (we sheltered the mother fucker), "Muammar Gaddafi" (we liked him when Bush II was in office!), have any meaning to you whatsoever as pertains to this conversation? And that's what I could mention off the top of my head.

If not, kindly shut the fuck up.



Nope. You're making it sound a lot like you have the standard programming of spoiled suburbanite liberal guilt and self-loathing American indoctrination, but still no indication that you can put the pieces together in a coherent way in your own head, much less present an actual argument here.

Take a deep breath, wipe the spit you sprayed while typing off your screen, and try again. All you've accomplished is to indicate that you still haven't come to grips with how you got suckered into voting for the hopey-changey guy.



mnottertail -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 7:20:42 AM)

The politics of this is nitwittian in nature.

If they dont fund it, the house gets the 'you're trying to murder our troops' blowhole that dems got for trying to defund the Iraq invasion when they found out they'd been had. So the house is in for a penny, in for a pound. Gotta support the troops (never mind that there are none, with the hysterical public, it works)

They certainly don't want to appear as though they think Khaddaffi is a swell feller either.

But by the same token they also want to cant on about their constitutional imperatives and let that fuckin democrat know that they aint about to take any shit offa him.

Political theater, political rhetoric, much like you would hear from Iran and Korea, blowholing on a leviathon scale, backed only by velleity.  


Much ado about nothing.  They cant even get the countries finances in order, knowing that there is a global war fought with pocketbooks these days.

And we are taking the strap. And the plans are that we shall continue to ask for another, insofar as I see.




errantgeek -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 10:39:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I think Heretic is correct ... state your point in a clear and concise manner, please.  As it relates to the topic at hand.

Otherwise, you quickly be classified in the "clueless conspiracy hater" category.

Firm



All right then, you asked for it.

Republicans have for decades unilaterally, with or without Congressional approval (and in some cases, without Congressional awareness) participated in and widely supported military campaigns, and sponsored military campaigns (whether it be symmetric or asymmetric warfare, or outright criminal activities such as terror) abroad. They have, in the last few decades, gone so far as to work directly through intelligence agencies or indirectly via sponsorship to topple legitimate and democratic governments simply for having economic or policy positions which simply didn't align with ours. Quite simply put, it's nothing short of American imperialism and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom or democracy as the very same people who applaud these actions would claim.

Needless to say, many of these campaigns and actions have taken place in the so-called "third world" and in the name of the Cold War, to grant these actions an air of justification and legitimacy. We were more than happy to work with Manuel Noriega for twenty years (hell the U.S. educated and paid him!), despite his being a bureaucratic authoritarian, right-wing, illegitimate, oppressive kleptocrat who took kickbacks from and laundered money for South American drug lords, and oversaw drug smuggling through the Panama Canal. The only reason that sweet deal ended was because Reagan and the CIA, and through them both GHWB, got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and had to throw him under the bus to save face.

All of this is conducted and justified by Republicans under a litany of flag-waving, high-fiving and chest-thumping about American exceptionalism and the spread of democracy and capitalism. And if you disagree, you're an unpatriotic socialism islamofascist appeaser who's un-American to the core, or whatever the hell the current talking-points list of insults du jour says. Yet, the nanosecond a Democrat president decides to participate in a UN Security Council and NATO joint military venture to prevent the slaughter of civilians, the freedom- and democracy-loving patriot hat comes off and the isolationist, "we must respect the Constitution and procedure" hat comes on and suddenly what would have been lauded as a broad move by a proud American unitary executive becomes a willful, intentional move to subvert the power of Congress and flouting the ideals, words, and spirit of the Constitution.

Really, I think this article alone speaks precisely to the phenomenon I describe:

Newt Gringrich on Libya

Newt Gingrich was all for bombing Libya...up until Obama decided to bomb Libya. Suddenly, for no discernible rationale other than "Obama decided to bomb Libya" he completely reversed his position, down even to nuance.

All of this nonsense about the War Powers Act is political smoke and mirrors and theatrics. The original article says it all, Congress thumped its chest and "disapproved" of military action in Libya, sending what conservatives and anti-globalists would otherwise label "the UN strongly-worded letter", yet refused to exercise its fundamental authority on the matter and defund it. So, especially in light of this recent Congressional action, where is the ethical or moral authority for Republican Congressmembers and leadership to condemn Obama for military participation in Libya? I submit there is none.



TheHeretic -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 10:53:17 AM)

So is that going to be the talking point, Erran? The Republicans didn't defund it? Have you seen the bill? It would have authorized funding for all the stuff that isn't easily shifted onto the CIA budget, without prohibiting funds outside DOD being used.

Also note that both bills failed with strong bipartisan opposition.

Thanks for sounding much saner, though.



errantgeek -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 11:38:37 AM)

...and your point is what, exactly? Three months in and there's been no serious attempt by Congress to defund the action. You're right to say the only attempt thus far has not been serious, I would even argue designed to fail (just like the Ryan budget plan), and that's the point. At best, Congressional Republicans tacitly support the action but are merely using it as a quick point-grab by repeating the "Obama is bad!" narrative which has permeated the conservative sphere for three years running.

I'm hardly surprised Democrats broke from Obama on the subject, or that conservatives are quick to point this out. Isn't the running line from conservatives that Democrats are peaceniks who are soft on terror and unfriendly regimes, and prefer dialog to action, and slow to act when it is necessary? I'm not seeing a lack of consistency, there.

Which, by the way, is a nice attempt to deflect the subject. From what, exactly, does Republicans' moral/ethical authority rise in criticizing Obama over action in Libya? It's not a respect for the War Powers Act or a history of ethical conduct in international relations, that's for sure.



TheHeretic -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 5:55:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: errantgeek
From what, exactly, does Republicans' moral/ethical authority rise in criticizing Obama over action in Libya?



You might be a bit of fun. I'll have to get back to you though. It's a busy weekend.

Just so you have something to chew on, the moral and ethical authority comes from the Constitution that says Congress gets to declare war, and from the law that says the President shall seek their authorization on foreign incursions that don't wrap up in days, or weeks, no matter how quick it was all supposed to be.



slvemike4u -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 7:17:51 PM)

Rich I can not disagree with anything you have said...but please cite for me one instance in our history where any President paid anything more than lip service,or expected anything less than a rubber stamp from any Congress where the power or decision to commit American forces to a conflict is concerned ?



erieangel -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 7:25:12 PM)

Vietnam wasn't officially a war either. Of course that happened before the War Powers Act of 1973, in fact the Vietnam Conflict is what gave us that stupid act. Congress has always been the sole body to enact declarations of war. The Commander in Chief's job is simply to command the military what to do. So right now, we have a CiC commanding the military to attack and bomb yet another sovereign country that is of threat to us and a Congress which refuses to allow the Cic to actually wage war, even though they are showing they are more than willing to pony up the money we don't have to do so.



errantgeek -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/25/2011 10:20:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just so you have something to chew on, the moral and ethical authority comes from the Constitution that says Congress gets to declare war, and from the law that says the President shall seek their authorization on foreign incursions that don't wrap up in days, or weeks, no matter how quick it was all supposed to be.


Please explain the Franco-American War of 1798, then. I expect at least an ante explaining jus ad bellum, jus in bello, the implications of the war itself on executive war powers and American political dialog. Considering that you purport yourself to be nothing less than a hobbyist scholar in constitutional law, and that is the precedent for executive power in undeclared war, I want to know I'm engaging in a serious dialog with someone fundamentally educated in the topic at hand or else, without mincing words, you're so fundamentally ignorant that even engaging you in dialog grants you more credibility than you deserve.

PS: Scholarly citations necessary. CMS, APA, MLA, your choice. i've seen them all in social sciences.



TheHeretic -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/26/2011 8:14:46 AM)

Learn what it's like to want, Erran. As I said, it's a busy weekend.



TheHeretic -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/27/2011 7:03:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: errantgeek

Please explain the Franco-American War of 1798, then. I expect at least an ante explaining jus ad bellum, jus in bello, the implications of the war itself on executive war powers and American political dialog. Considering that you purport yourself to be nothing less than a hobbyist scholar in constitutional law, and that is the precedent for executive power in undeclared war, I want to know I'm engaging in a serious dialog with someone fundamentally educated in the topic at hand or else, without mincing words, you're so fundamentally ignorant that even engaging you in dialog grants you more credibility than you deserve.

PS: Scholarly citations necessary. CMS, APA, MLA, your choice. i've seen them all in social sciences.



Alrighty, then. The wife's birthday weekend has been marked off on the calendar in appropriate fashion, and with the proper rituals of tequila, spankings, and bbq by a family pool, so let's get back around to this.

Whose little monkey are you, exactly? A dissertation on the Quasi War, with scholarly citations? Really? You come into the thread swinging racial gobbledy-gook, like a 12 year old who has picked up a morning star mace from the ren-faire, and now you want to demand I jump through your ridiculous flaming hoop? Get over yourself.

What the Quasi War established is that the United States will engage in hostilities without a declaration of war. It also established that it gets messy and complicated when that happens, even when Congress is consulted and involved.

Thanks for playing. You can pick up your Rice-a-Roni on the way out.




errantgeek -> RE: Whats going on in the House (6/27/2011 10:21:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Whose little monkey are you, exactly? A dissertation on the Quasi War, with scholarly citations? Really? You come into the thread swinging racial gobbledy-gook, like a 12 year old who has picked up a morning star mace from the ren-faire, and now you want to demand I jump through your ridiculous flaming hoop? Get over yourself.

What the Quasi War established is that the United States will engage in hostilities without a declaration of war. It also established that it gets messy and complicated when that happens, even when Congress is consulted and involved.


I'll refer you to another comment you made earlier:

quote:

Nope. You're making it sound a lot like you have the standard programming of spoiled suburbanite liberal guilt and self-loathing American indoctrination, but still no indication that you can put the pieces together in a coherent way in your own head, much less present an actual argument here.

Take a deep breath, wipe the spit you sprayed while typing off your screen, and try again. All you've accomplished is to indicate that you still haven't come to grips with how you got suckered into voting for the hopey-changey guy.


Smells like astroturf to me. Lots of talking points, little substance. Can you blame me for wanting to know I'm talking to a real person who has opinions and doesn't merely watch Fox News all day to get his twenty-four hour hate on? I know that were the circumstances reversed you'd feel the same, considering you just furthered the exact same opinion of myself.

Now that we're past that, what, nothing about the Alien and Sedition Acts? That in combination with the Quasi-War causing the downfall of the Federalist Party and leading to Democratic-Republican rule up to the Civil War (read, political discourse and fallout)? Nothing about the war being entirely fought at sea to defend U.S. trade vessels that were being commandeered, because we welched on our war debt to the French? Nothing about the Supreme Court rulings in the Quasi-War Cases (which, by the way, was held to be legitimate on the basis Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules regarding naval warfare, short of declaring war and the authority to execute that fell to the President)? Come on now, that war was seminal in the foundation for undeclared war in the United States, and under which circumstances that's acceptable, and all you came up with was "they can do it"?

Hell, the Constitution specifically says in the very next clause Congress may raise armies and appropriate money for no greater than a period of two years, but where is the respect for and deference to the Constitution coming from the right on that matter? Where's the much-flaunted by the right respect for the founders -- who in case you weren't aware, strongly opposed the idea of standing armies and foreign interventionism (that was one of the key points in Washington's farewell address for crying out loud!)? There is none, it's nothing but partisan point-scoring in the political theater when the right tacitly supports the war. The right's "problem" with Libya isn't that we're there or whether it's justified or authorized, it's that the guy in charge of it has a (D) by his name. Period, end of story.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02