RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (Full Version)

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



Message

RacerJim -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 7:11:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I wonder if the neo-cons are getting this.......kinda kills all their fake outrage about the presidents use of force in Libya.


But shameless is after all,shameless.

Obvious the Obots aren't getting this -- the usurper POTUS's ILLEGAL (not authorized by Congress) use of force in Libya definitely renders their outrage about President Bush's LEGAL (authorized by Congress) use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 7:13:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I wonder if the neo-cons are getting this.......kinda kills all their fake outrage about the presidents use of force in Libya.


But shameless is after all,shameless.

Obvious the Obots aren't getting this -- the usurper POTUS's ILLEGAL (not authorized by Congress) use of force in Libya definitely renders their outrage about President Bush's LEGAL (authorized by Congress) use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're just pissed off because Obama spent 0.1% of what Bush spent and actually got the damn job DONE.

Let me put it in terms you can understand. If you spend $100 dollars for something and I get the same thing for a dime, who is a better negotiater?



mnottertail -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 7:19:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I wonder if the neo-cons are getting this.......kinda kills all their fake outrage about the presidents use of force in Libya.


But shameless is after all,shameless.

Obvious the Obots aren't getting this -- the usurper POTUS's ILLEGAL (not authorized by Congress) use of force in Libya definitely renders their outrage about President Bush's LEGAL (authorized by Congress) use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.



There was no illegal use of force in Libya; that is just an old teabaggers tale.




slvemike4u -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 11:59:21 AM)

In addition there is no usurper( what is this a fucking monarchy,complete with a muddles bloodlines...lol) President.
While you are completely free to rail about concerning the Constitutional question of Congressional authority ,you are not free to question a valid and aboveboard election,one in which candidate Obama prevailed and consequently morphed into President- elect Obama...which quite naturally led to his taking the oath of office on Jan 20 2008, I know this because I was there dips hit and witnessed his being sworn in as President of this great republic.
Perhaps you might want to attend his oath taking on Jan 20 2013 once he is re-elected to put any more silliness to rest [:D]



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 1:03:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
Obvious the Obots aren't getting this -- the usurper POTUS's ILLEGAL (not authorized by Congress) use of force in Libya ...
Can you please show us the Congress authorisation on the bombings of Tripoli by Reagan, 1986?
Thank you very much.

PS: After you do that I am curious about other, let us say, 60 forceful interventions of the USA in the last 110 years.



luckydawg -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 1:06:07 PM)

Span...there is a law called War Powers Act, the president can use force at will, for up to 60 days.



mnottertail -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 2:00:35 PM)

That is not quite what it says, it says where troops are involved in hostilities, or in hostile situations (meaning they dont actually have to be fighting but in close proximity to it, and in this day and age I would take it to mean they could be fighting or bombed quite easily (expanding on the close proximity deal)) and gives the Prez an additional 30 days to withdraw after the 60 should congress turn it down.

But in the broad brush, dawgs right about it.



Politesub53 -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 4:44:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

In addition there is no usurper( what is this a fucking monarchy,complete with a muddles bloodlines...lol) President.



Dont start me off on the Monarchy and usurpers Mike......... [8D]



thompsonx -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 6:55:58 PM)

quote:

Obvious the Obots aren't getting this -- the usurper POTUS's ILLEGAL (not authorized by Congress) use of force in Libya definitely renders their outrage about President Bush's LEGAL (authorized by Congress) use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Do you only open your mouth to change feet?
Perhaps you might want to look up the "war powers act"



Lucylastic -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 6:59:14 PM)

the whole post is a hodgepodge of stupidness
if any of it were true, they would have him in jail by now
foot stomping whinearse he is, thats why he is so upset



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 8:56:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
Span...there is a law called War Powers Act, the president can use force at will, for up to 60 days.

Only if the territory, posessions or army of the USA are under attack and this provokes a national emergency ( see SEC. 2.(c)(3) ), which was not the case of the bombings of Lybia by Reagan in 1986.
So again... where was the Congress resolution for that one?

FOR ALL
I found this informative:
* Text of the War Powers Act: http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm
* Compliance around year 2000 (includes war in the former Yugoslavia) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/waract.htm



FirstQuaker -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 9:41:54 PM)

The US Senate abdicated its war making suthority a couple decades ago. Now kinetic actions and humanitarian interventions can be done at whim.

"An anonymous  tourist heard about seeing some nerve gas, and hearing about rockets,lets send the the whole military in to give them a good dressing down, and hang their leader." or "Some French agents provocateur got their arses shot off for shooting at the Libyan police, time to go kinetically energize those flying tanks KDaffy got from the Russians, to protect the civilians."

What will the excuse be next time, that the White House Ouija board selected the country, or will they roll dice in the Oval Office to select the lucky winner?



Masta808 -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 9:52:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I wonder if the neo-cons are getting this.......kinda kills all their fake outrage about the presidents use of force in Libya.


But shameless is after all,shameless.

Obvious the Obots aren't getting this -- the usurper POTUS's ILLEGAL (not authorized by Congress) use of force in Libya definitely renders their outrage about President Bush's LEGAL (authorized by Congress) use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Exactly, President Obama is NOT the Command and Chief of the US Military. He is NOT able to order Military operations based on what happens from Allies that were created by treaties. And NO its not similar to when George W. Bush asked for NATO help with Afghanistan.



FirstQuaker -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/26/2011 10:07:51 PM)

I remember when Dennis Kucinich talked about Obama's impecachment over Libya last spring , and nobody sane would accuse him of being any sort of Tea Party member or GOP stalwart.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/27/2011 1:19:22 AM)

It is interesting. None of the people I am asking are answering my questions.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/27/2011 1:22:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808
Exactly, President Obama is NOT the Command and Chief of the US Military. He is NOT able to order Military operations based on what happens from Allies that were created by treaties.

It is the Commander in Chief, not "and Chief", of the United States Armed Forces. There you are right.
But he is able. He has done it.
And it is also legal, as stated in the law whose text I have linked in the post #50.
Samples of a President using exactly the NATO treaty and that law is seen in the next link, with the explanation why it is valid.
There you are wrong.



Kirata -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/27/2011 1:57:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

It is interesting. None of the people I am asking are answering my questions.
_____________________________

I am not answering? Probably I "hid" you. Don't take it too bad...

Don't take it too bad [:D]

K.



hlen5 -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/27/2011 2:00:38 AM)

Pssst....SMM. Check the 3rd sentence in your sig line. "To say me something"?



DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/27/2011 3:06:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808
Exactly, President Obama is NOT the Command and Chief of the US Military. He is NOT able to order Military operations based on what happens from Allies that were created by treaties.

It is the Commander in Chief, not "and Chief", of the United States Armed Forces. There you are right.
But he is able. He has done it.
And it is also legal, as stated in the law whose text I have linked in the post #50.
Samples of a President using exactly the NATO treaty and that law is seen in the next link, with the explanation why it is valid.
There you are wrong.


Keep in mind that a treaty of mutual defense, such as our commitment to NATO, is a declaration of war addressed 'to whom it may concern'. It's not a promise to 'consider' whether to come to an ally's aid. Our NATO commitment was signed by a previous President (Eisenhower?), and duly ratified by the Senate, as all treaties must be.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Latest GOP-Libya gripe...you should have done it sooner?!?!?! (10/27/2011 9:43:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
It is interesting. None of the people I am asking are answering my questions.
____________________________

I am not answering? Probably I "hid" you. Don't take it too bad...

Don't take it too bad [:D]
K.

I do not. Actually it is a bit funny.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875