Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 116

Thread: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

  1. #51
    Advisor shades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-16 @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    322

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsAProcess View Post
    Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

    We need a different way of handling something so important as our country Going To War when not under direct threat of invasion. Because Congress Cannot. Be. Trusted.
    what would you suggest, poll grunts in basic training?

    fact is someone has to decide, the president and his resources present thier case to the congress, who have to answer to their constituants, and thats it.
    otherwise I would love to entertain another method if you have one.

    Fact is the law is the law, and he is in violation.
    if one American man or woman die in Libya, he should be tried for murder.
    I'M VOTING FOR THE WHITE GUY THIS TIME

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsAProcess View Post
    Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

    All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.

    Bush and his croneys were just looking for excuses. Stop being a bigot.

    Yes, the Removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But it was not, and never will be worth the Thousands of American Lives that it cost!

    Especially not when it was NEVER the 'stated goal' of the war in Iraq.

    Don't try to tell me whether that war was Justified or not. I spent time in that Sandy Hell.

    Ikari: Congress doesn't declare war for the right reasons. They've proved it in the past. Congress should not be the Power Check on the President's ability to deploy troops.

    We need a different way of handling something so important as our country Going To War when not under direct threat of invasion. Because Congress Cannot. Be. Trusted.
    Whoa whoa whoa. I want a credible link to this clinton 2 trillion dollar surplus. At first it was 500 billion which was bullshyt in itself. Links or you're full of shyt dude.

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    I sure don't see a surplus, do you?

    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 06-16-11 at 08:45 PM.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsAProcess View Post
    Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

    All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.
    By your statement above would you say you are a politician? Or just a liar? There was no surplus. It was a lie then. It is a lie now. Debt increased under Clinton.

  4. #54
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsAProcess View Post
    Definition of Lie: An intentionally False Statement.

    All politicians lie. Yes, even Clinton. what matters is what happens after they leave office. Clinton left office with a surge of International Co-operation and respect, and a 2 Trillion Dollar Surplus.

    Bush and his croneys were just looking for excuses. Stop being a bigot.

    Yes, the Removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. But it was not, and never will be worth the Thousands of American Lives that it cost!
    And did he INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY tell a false statement to Congress regarding the war in Iraq???

    And don't call me a bigot. You discredit yourself and have no idea what you are talking about...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #55
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by W00ster View Post
    Yes, to the whole world through Colin Powell in front of the UN general assembly. There is more then enough recordings of the speech, I even watched it myself.

    - No WMD's in Iraq
    - Saddam did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda
    So Clinton lied too, huh? You know, your side likes to sidetrack this issue about Obama with false statements about Bush. Why not focus on the topic at hand. Obama is inviolation of the Constitution and the law and you can't admit it or accept the fact...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #56
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    Thanks for helping me understand the difference.

    While I will agree it is not Congress' place to niggle the President to death on the details of what he has the military doing, it absolutely is Congress' place to deny the President the ability to send the military someplace and have them fight someone that doesn't represent a direct threat to the security of our nation.

    In other words, Congress doesn't get to tell the President "no" if he's addressing a threat of invasion or attack, but Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President not to send the military in on a police action.
    At the same time, the president needs a little slack to deploy combat forces on a moment's notice, because there's no time to rangle with Congress; hence the War Powers Act. 60 days, without Congressional approval isn't too much to ask, in the event of an emergency.

  7. #57
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,891
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsAProcess View Post
    And my point is that Congress cannot be trusted with that power either. They've proven in recent history that they declare war based on what's good for them. Not based on what is good for the American People.
    Until we throw the power to make war into Mount Doom, someone has to be the ring bearer.

    It's more complicated to get 370 people to agree to go to war than it is to get 1 person to decide to. That's the rationale behind vesting that power in the legislature.
    I may be wrong.

  8. #58
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,891
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    I fear you may be right but is a Constitutional issue and it is according to that document it is up to the Supreme Court to settle any issue between the Legislative and Executive branches.
    Impeachment could settle the matter as well.
    I may be wrong.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Until we throw the power to make war into Mount Doom, someone has to be the ring bearer.

    It's more complicated to get 370 people to agree to go to war than it is to get 1 person to decide to. That's the rationale behind vesting that power in the legislature.
    And, we want war to be supported by the people. The Executive branch is just too far away from the will of the people.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: 10 U.S. lawmakers sue Obama over Libya strikes

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    At the same time, the president needs a little slack to deploy combat forces on a moment's notice, because there's no time to rangle with Congress; hence the War Powers Act. 60 days, without Congressional approval isn't too much to ask, in the event of an emergency.
    Yes, it is asking too much. A moment's notice implies immediate action. If action must be taken immediately, Congress can be informed well before 2 months time. 3 working days, 5 tops.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •