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

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

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 9:00:17 AM)
Duuuuuuuuuude, That wasn't even funny the first time.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 9:22:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Bush obtained congress' approval. President Obama did not. Please review Public Law 107-40. He already has it, doesn't need it again. If they don't like it, they should change it, and SCOTUS has told them so in every case that was brought forward by legislators in these sorts of matters. They have always been found to be of no standing.

farglebargle -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 9:24:04 AM)
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." SUCH BELIEF BEING BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, ET. AL. TO DEFRAUD THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THEIR LAWFUL ROLE OF OVERSIGHT. IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 371, 18 USC 1001 ET. AL. SUCH BELIEF BEING BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, ET. AL. TO DEFRAUD THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THEIR LAWFUL ROLE OF OVERSIGHT. IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 371, 18 USC 1001 ET. AL. SUCH BELIEF BEING BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, ET. AL. TO DEFRAUD THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THEIR LAWFUL ROLE OF OVERSIGHT. IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 371, 18 USC 1001 ET. AL. SUCH BELIEF BEING BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OF BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, ET. AL. TO DEFRAUD THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THEIR LAWFUL ROLE OF OVERSIGHT. IN VIOLATION OF 18 USC 371, 18 USC 1001 ET. AL.

hlen5 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 9:44:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr ... 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. Unfortunately, I have to agree that this administration is almost as scornful of the Constitution as the last one.

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 10:57:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr 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. The War Powers act is, likely, unconstutitional and has no bearing on how any President conducts his military affairs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 11:06:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri President Obama didn't make a declaration of war. He didn't send a formal diplomatic note, DesideriScuri, but he publicly put the red dot on the leader of a sovereign nation, and fired missilies down the line. That's a pretty clear declaration. Incorrect. He absolutely did engage in military actions and combat, but he did not declare war. Completely separate events. I "get" what you are saying, but there absolutely is a difference. In the case of Libya, his actions weren't wrong because he didn't go to Congress first. His actions were wrong because he didn't have the necessary reasons to take the actions.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 11:10:23 AM)
Cute but incorrect. Again Public Law 107-40.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 11:20:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: failure-in-chief Oh good grief. Truth hurts, eh? So tell us...... What "failure" are you cons talking about......so far......it`s your best kept secret. I`ll start... Hasn`t allowed a 9/11 attack on us......like bush did. Improving the economy where bush tanked it. Wrong. quote: Created more jobs in his 1st year than bush`s whole 8. Got us out of disaster-Iraq and is rapping up Afghanistan. Saved GM and Detroit. Car bailouts passed by Bush, administered by Obama. quote: No one got tortured......no CIA field agents IDs revealed.....no treason commited. Has he gotten the lobbyists out of Washington? Nope. He appointed them to the Czar positions (and, yes, I know everyone pretty much had Czar positions...not making any claim of right/wrong regarding the Czar positions, just the people put into those positions). And, the lobbyists still aren't out. Closed Guantanamo as promised. Oh, yeah. Nm. Brought both sides of the aisle together. Damn. Missed that one, too. Before you claim the R's wouldn't compromise, the "Do it our way or else" Democratic "compromise" offers don't exactly qualify, either. Cut the deficit in half. 2009 deficit: $1.413T; 2010 deficit: $1.293T (8.44% cut), 2011 deficit: $1.300T (8.01% cut), 2012 est. deficit: $1.327T (6.07% cut). Man, he's just missing his promises by a hair over 40%.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 11:30:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Cute but incorrect. Again Public Law 107-40. I would very much appreciate your copy/paste of the section of PL 107-40 that shows me to be incorrect.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 11:33:36 AM)
You will appreciate for some time.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 11:42:52 AM)
quote: 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. The Constitution doesn't require anything of the sort or in any way limit the President's use of troops, and the War Powers Act isn't the only legislation governing the use of troops. The Libya action was undertaken under the aegis of NATO, and the NATO treaty, which was approved by the Senate and so is U.S. law (that's why treaties require Senate approval) allows, and sometimes requires, the use of military force in quite a few different circumstances. As does SEATO, NORAD, the U.N., and all the other treaties to which we are party. Each one of those treaties is a U.S. law. I'm afraid it's your opinion that is rendered irrelevant by ignorance. 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.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 12:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You will appreciate for some time. So......no. Got it. I did read 107-40 but fail to see how Libya and Uganda enter the picture.

mnottertail -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 12:51:00 PM)
They probably enter into the picture as much as Iraq does, or Afghanistan. Again, thats only part of the picture, and Libya was NATO whole different deal (treaties ratified by the appropriate legislative branches), and the letter has been sent to congress re Uganda. So, in each case he has preserved, protected and defended the Constitution.

SternSkipper -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 1:04:16 PM)
quote: So, given that the current failure-in-chief has now deployed the military to two different actions without congressional approval, will the VP stand up, as he promised an room full of people he would do? I think the first "commenter" on YouTube wraps the whole importance and contextual validity of this video up in a nutshell... "whoever made this video is a total idiot. biden cant impeach obama and wouldnt if he could. thank you american education system for another success story. MachinaSapien 5 days ago" I will leave it up to the reader if "issue" as presented is of equal merit or not.

SternSkipper -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 1:25:36 PM)
quote: ... says they lady who obviously didn't watch the video and doesn't understand the point. Hearings are already being held. But, why bother yourself with factual details. Says the man who believes Breitbart class editing and out of context reporting is probably a better representation here. I think the video and the presentation are completely intellectually dishonest. I don't think for one minute that a person that can type a full page of coherent sentences would be unable to understand that there are two different forums involved in the presentation and that the VP's remarks are AT BEST, isolated to mislead the viewer as to the content of the speech. From www.senate.gov: "Representatives choose their presiding officer, the Speaker, from among the membership of the majority party. Other elected officers, such as the chaplain, clerk of the House, sergeant at arms, and doorkeeper, are not members of the House. Impeachment is the power to remove federal officers. The House initiates the process by voting to impeach, which then refers the matter to the Senate for a trial." "Once the House votes to impeach, the Senate conducts a trial to determine whether to convict or acquit. A two-thirds vote is necessary to remove the individual from office. The chief justice of the United States presides over the impeachment trial of a president." The VP Exists during his term as President of the US Senate. Could he add his voice to the Senate vote if it was 1 vote shy of 1/3? Could he refer a complaint for impeachment to Congress in the first place? Ken Star did, in a manner of speaking. HE WASN'T a congressman and had no actual power in congress, except by appointment. Could the congress recognize the VP as a duly appointed official recommending impeachment? SHOW ME where it says they can't. But the important thing to remember here is that the reader is being hoodwinked in the first place. The fact is the Vice President was stating to an audience his reassurances that the President would not cavalierly act militarily in the looming possible conflict between Iran and whomever they threaten first and most. THAT WAS THE REAL POINT OF HIS SPEECH. And anyone indicating anything else is in short bull shitting people.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 6:15:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 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. And where is the power to declare war exclusively vested, Ron?

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 6:43:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri President Obama didn't make a declaration of war. He didn't send a formal diplomatic note, DesideriScuri, but he publicly put the red dot on the leader of a sovereign nation, and fired missilies down the line. That's a pretty clear declaration. Incorrect. He absolutely did engage in military actions and combat, but he did not declare war. Completely separate events. I "get" what you are saying, but there absolutely is a difference. In the case of Libya, his actions weren't wrong because he didn't go to Congress first. His actions were wrong because he didn't have the necessary reasons to take the actions. Military actions and combat are one thing. The lawyers can play with it all day long. Deliberately, and undeniably, putting the crosshairs on a foreign head of state is a de facto declaration of war. In the beginning, we at least put a little spin on it, by attacking "command and control centers," and defining that as "anyplace we think Kuhdaffy might be at the moment," but in our last shot, even that smirking cover story wouldn't work.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail They probably enter into the picture as much as Iraq does, or Afghanistan. Again, thats only part of the picture, and Libya was NATO whole different deal (treaties ratified by the appropriate legislative branches), and the letter has been sent to congress re Uganda. So, in each case he has preserved, protected and defended the Constitution. It's good that Obama sent the letter notifying Congress. That part of the War Powers Resolution was followed. What was the reasoning behind going in in the first place? Did that align with the War Powers Act? NATO's authority to act is only when a NATO member or ally is being attacked. That's it. Libya is neither. NATO did not act according to it's charter. Nice try, but no. So, under what authority is Obama going into Uganda? Is it the newest NATO ally/member? Has the US taken ownership of the country? Yeah, didn't think so. Btw, still waiting for your application of 107-40.

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:13:29 PM)
My recollection was that the administration specifically said they were NOT going to target your terrorist/buddy.... And you have no proof that they did....... Just a "feeling".....lol and a pang to defend failure-bush........ So when ya gonna man up and tell us why speaker j-boner hasn`t done anything about the "alleged" violations? Maybe the cons have in-deed objected and brought hearings on Libya.......only they`re using code words like.....abortion......contraception......ultra-sound...... whore/slut and Kosher deli owner.[:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/20/2012 7:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri President Obama didn't make a declaration of war. He didn't send a formal diplomatic note, DesideriScuri, but he publicly put the red dot on the leader of a sovereign nation, and fired missilies down the line. That's a pretty clear declaration. Incorrect. He absolutely did engage in military actions and combat, but he did not declare war. Completely separate events. I "get" what you are saying, but there absolutely is a difference. In the case of Libya, his actions weren't wrong because he didn't go to Congress first. His actions were wrong because he didn't have the necessary reasons to take the actions. Military actions and combat are one thing. The lawyers can play with it all day long. Deliberately, and undeniably, putting the crosshairs on a foreign head of state is a de facto declaration of war. In the beginning, we at least put a little spin on it, by attacking "command and control centers," and defining that as "anyplace we think Kuhdaffy might be at the moment," but in our last shot, even that smirking cover story wouldn't work. Heretic, we are of one accord regarding Libya. Slightly different reasons, but of one accord. By the time the bombs were shelling Col. K's hideaway, we were only doing recon and intel. Ithink it was the French bombing. The whole point of us going into Libya was to set up a No Fly Zone and to protect the civilians/rebels from the Libyan military. The No Fly Zone was in place within hours of the operation's start. Why we kept bombing the batshit out of Libya is an enigma. Why we were bombing Libyan military structures/vehicles that weren't involved, nor were likely to be involved in the near future, I don't know. It doesn't go along with the reasons we were there. Then, when we were clearing the way for the rebels to advance on the pro-K areas, no one seemed to notice that wasn't aligning with our reasons for being there either. You and I may have been the only ones that saw that NATO was the rebel's air force. That action certainly didn't comply with any US authority, any NATO authority, or any UN authorization.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625