RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

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



Message

RacerJim -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:33:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoreBook

She did, she does, and her remarks still stand.

quote:

We're done here.

I think we were done 45 minutes ago when you clicked "New Post".

The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.


You've been shown the facts/truth yet still stand by your remarks?

Your ability to debate on a factual/truthful basis ended when you clicked "OK" to post the above.



Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:33:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoreBook

A declaration of war isn't required to send troops to fight somewhere, so the OP's point, like most right-side-of-the-isle anti-Obama garbage, has no relevance or basis in fact, its just the result of being misguided and ill-informed.

The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.


A Congressional declaration of war is indeed not required for the president to send troops to fight somewhere, but Congressional authority to do so damn sure is required...either prior to or in a timely manner after sending troops. Like most left-side-of-the-isle pro-Obama garbage, your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act renders your opinion irrelevant.

So why hasn`t j-boner done anything........but blubber?


[image]http://www.punditmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/BoehnerJohnCrying1.jpg[/image]

If you cons had the "facts" behind you......it wouldn`t be a question.....



RacerJim -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:36:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Honestly, I think the Panetta portion of the video is far more serious than the opportunity to slap Vice-President Biden (figuratively, of course) on his hypocritical grandstanding. Joe, and all the Obamabots as well, will only care about this stuff when a future President they don't like, makes use of the precedents of this administration.

Indeed.



Nosathro -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:36:53 AM)

Actually he does have a small part. He is President of the Senate and can cast a vote when there is a tie. The Senate also conducts the trial and votes



farglebargle -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:38:04 AM)

I'd go with "General Welfare", but that wouldn't count outside the territorial boundaries.



RacerJim -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:40:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Well, I think, since he's on record being so adament, it points out the hypocrisy. Worse yet, it's his duty to defend the constitution.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Only the deaf, dumb and blind believe Obama, Biden, Panetta, Holder et al in this administration give a hoot about defending the U.S. Constitution. They have, in fact, proven exactly the opposite.



RacerJim -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:43:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I certainly see it, Michael, and I hope he catches some hell over it. Panetta sitting there in front of the committee though, claiming that the legal authority for the US to go to war comes from NATO or the UN, and they just need to advise Congress about what they are up to... As the Congressman said, breathtaking.

Exactly. I may have missed it but I don't believe Panetta ever said that the (Obama) administration would seek Congressional authority, a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution AND the War Powers Act.



mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:47:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoreBook

She did, she does, and her remarks still stand.

quote:

We're done here.

I think we were done 45 minutes ago when you clicked "New Post".

The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.


You've been shown the facts/truth yet still stand by your remarks?

Your ability to debate on a factual/truthful basis ended when you clicked "OK" to post the above.


I am unaware of any facts or truth that have been placed in evidence by the side that is arguing a violation of constitution and war powers act.

I am not going to go thru an exhaustive litany of how absolutely devoid of fact or truth these positions are, since I have done it (as have others) quoting the constitution and the war powers act.  But here is a list for your inital reading, as it is apparent you (I use that in the royal sense) havent done any yet: 

W gets a 'war on terrror' resolution championed and agreed to by congress.(this unintended consequence is fucking up alot of you folks.)

The war powers act does not demand congressional agreement a priory.

The president is commander-in-chief.
The president upholds treaties. (all currently in force). (Senate)
The president can make and uphold international agreements. (all currently in force.) (congress, right?  I may be off on who approves that).

and so on. 

  



mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:49:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I certainly see it, Michael, and I hope he catches some hell over it. Panetta sitting there in front of the committee though, claiming that the legal authority for the US to go to war comes from NATO or the UN, and they just need to advise Congress about what they are up to... As the Congressman said, breathtaking.

Exactly. I may have missed it but I don't believe Panetta ever said that the (Obama) administration would seek Congressional authority, a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution AND the War Powers Act.


Panetta's not saying that they would seek congressional approval prior to an action violates neither.




Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:04:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Well, I think, since he's on record being so adament, it points out the hypocrisy. Worse yet, it's his duty to defend the constitution.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Only the deaf, dumb and blind believe Obama, Biden, Panetta, Holder et al in this administration give a hoot about defending the U.S. Constitution. They have, in fact, proven exactly the opposite.

Then why hasn`t the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES done anything?

You could answer the question and have a debate .....................or you can trade gum with your buddies......[:D]



RacerJim -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:07:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

bush is as guilty as sin and you cons will never live that down.......no matter how much you think President Obama has done the same FUBAR stuff bush did.


Fucking Plamegate for goodness sake.....

Lying us into the damm war in the 1st place.

And getting 4500 good,brave,courageous men and women killed for NOTHING

But we know you cons need your coping methods......make pretend is one of them...........just behind denial........just ahead of shirk.

President Bush sought and obtained Congressional approval/authority to do what usurper Obama has done without seeking, much less obtaining, Congressional approval......no matter how much you say Bush is guilty as sin it is in fact Obama who is guilty as sin of violating the U.S. Constitution AND the War Powers Act.

How dispicably disrespectful of you to say that 4500 good, brave, courageous men and women died for NOTHING. I dare you to say that in person to any family member or close friend thereof, or to any Veteran like myself.




Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:14:52 AM)

With fraud and lies and fake white powder.....

So it doesn`t count..............and makes bush that much more of an asshole`s asshole.

Anything gotten through fruad....... is null.




So if Obama used fraud and lies to get "congressional approval/authority",tortured false confessions ,got thousands of our soldiers killed and destroyed a whole country....ya`ll wouldn`t be eating crow right now?



mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:16:33 AM)

You may say that millions of times in a row, and it will still be untrue.

There is no violation of US Constitution or War Powers act.

Please direct your attention to public law 107-40.  That is just for starters. 

Then you will need no longer 'wonder why' about so many things, you will be at least in that respect, informed.



Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:22:35 AM)


We can not wait for the final proof.....a smoking gun.....that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.....



DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:45:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Actually he does have a small part. He is President of the Senate and can cast a vote when there is a tie. The Senate also conducts the trial and votes

He only has a vote in case of a tie vote and that isn't possible in an impeachment trial so the VP has absolutely no constitutional role in an impeachment trial.



mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:48:06 AM)

Well, it is all a moot point, there is nothing impeachable. And not that an impeachment is necessarily cause to remove from office, that is a separate issue, since Clinton wiped his ass with one of those.

As he should have.



DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:52:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Unfortunately, there is no answer. That the current president has violated the constitution and the war powers act (put there to allow more leeway to the C-I-C so that he need not "telegraph his punch" to enemies) is fact. There's no disputing it.

I'll dispute your nonsense.
There is not a single word in the Constitution limiting the President's use of the military.
The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, Congress does not have the power to limit the President in that way. Therefore the President cannot violate a law that has no effect.

http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
Quite an amazing read, actually. even though this is in response to actions in Afghanistan, it is informative in that pretty much all the power given to the CIC in the Constitution is to be used to protect American Citizens or American land. So, which was Obama doing in Libya or Uganda?

That's an opinion by the GWB DoJ OLC. The same people who said crushing children's anatomy was a good idea.
In reality the Constitution places no limits on the Presidents use of the military. Congress has only one recourse, not paying for it.


Did you read the opinion? Did you see the sections of the Constitution in where it was delineated and further supported with references from the Federalist Papers? While I don't dispute that my link was to a Justice Department opinion supporting Bush's actions, the reasoning behind said actions doesn't line up with what President Obama is doing.

If a wrong opinion is reason to ignore all opinions from that same body, should Obama be labeled a racist for his opinions about whites, as detailed in his book?

I don't need people who found ways to justify torture telling me what the US Constitution says.

The Constitution says this (paraphrased):
The President is the Commander in Chief of all our armed forces.
Congress has the power to declare war (undefined).
Congress must authorize all spending.

Therefore the President can deploy US forces any way he pleases and the only recourse the Cogress has is to cut off funding. The era of Republican Presidents sending our troops in to defend Dole and United Fruit without anything resembling a war declration pretty much sets the precedent.




DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:53:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors.



I'm pretty sure the lawyers of the House and Senate could draft something on usurping a power that is granted exclusively to Congress.

The President has not done anything of the sort. Even if he had we have long precedent of litigating such matters in court not attempting to remove a Constitutional office holder.



DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:57:06 AM)

I think we need HUAC to look into not only the current office holder but some of his more vigorous supporters. I'd vote for that palin, Maher being first on the list LOL



Peace and comfort,



Michael



DaddySatyr -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 8:58:10 AM)

Double post. I swear it wasn't intentional but, since I'm here:

The correct paraphrase would be:

The president is the commander in chief of all our armed forces.
Only congress can declare war.
For the sake of expediency, the president can send troops into battle but he is required to make a case to the congress for having done so and if the Congress does not agree (declaring war in a post hoc fashion) then the president must order a withdrawl(War Powers).
Congress must authorize all necessary spending for an action that they have given their blessing.

How anyone can say that president Bush didn't do this obviously didn't hear an articulate and impassioned speech on October 9, 2002; in which Sen. Kerry said: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

President Bush obtained congress' approval. President Obama did not.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625