• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Signs of declining economic security

ItAin'tFree said:
Not at all.

No war(congress)+No war(president)=No War
No War(congress)+Yes War(president)= No War
Yes War(congress)+Yes War(president)=War

Now a third grader could understand that. If you can't, ask yourself why.
Click to expand...

A false equation. When congress votes yes war, it's called a declaration of war. Didn't happen.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Not at all.

No war(congress)+No war(president)=No War
No War(congress)+Yes War(president)= No War
Yes War(congress)+Yes War(president)=War

Now a third grader could understand that. If you can't, ask yourself why.
Click to expand...


When did congress ever declare war?
 
TheNextEra said:
When did congress ever declare war?
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
...When congress votes yes war, it's called a declaration of war. Didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Both you TNE, and Boo, are being just a tad bit disingenuous here....I know that in today's world of political division, and derision it is common to not remember what was said, and done yesterday in order to constantly change the goal posts of position, and therefore deny culpability.

WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

After the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations spent nearly a decade committing U.S. troops to Southeast Asia without Congressional approval, in 1973 Congress responded by passing the War Powers Resolution. The Resolution sought to halt the erosion of Congress's ability to participate in war-making decisions, an aim furthered by the Resolution's requirement that the President communicate to Congress the commitment of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.

Commander in Chief Powers | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

To constantly further the liberal progressive argument that Bush on his own placed troops in Iraq, or that he kept them there without congressional approval in the process is dishonest.

COMMANDER IN CHIEF POWERS POST-9/11

The terrorist attacks of September 2001 created new complications for the separation of powers within the war powers sphere. After September 11, the United States Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF). While the AUMF did not officially declare war, the legislation provided the President with more authority upon which to exercise his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Presidential Commander in Chief powers increase when Congressional intent supports the actions taken by the Commander in Chief. The AUMF served as that expression of Congressional intent.
Click to expand...

In this day and age post WWII (where to my knowledge was the last official DoW issued by Congress) the AUMF as ruled by the SCOTUS effectively served as a DoW. You can NOT come in here and argue with any credibility what so ever, that Bush acted unilaterally, or illegally in his prosecution of the War in Iraq without congressional approval, and culpability in the matter, (that includes the democrats in congress as well) with a straight face. It is laughable, and an attempt to re write history period.
 
j-mac said:
Both you TNE, and Boo, are being just a tad bit disingenuous here....I know that in today's world of political division, and derision it is common to not remember what was said, and done yesterday in order to constantly change the goal posts of position, and therefore deny culpability.



To constantly further the liberal progressive argument that Bush on his own placed troops in Iraq, or that he kept them there without congressional approval in the process is dishonest.



In this day and age post WWII (where to my knowledge was the last official DoW issued by Congress) the AUMF as ruled by the SCOTUS effectively served as a DoW. You can NOT come in here and argue with any credibility what so ever, that Bush acted unilaterally, or illegally in his prosecution of the War in Iraq without congressional approval, and culpability in the matter, (that includes the democrats in congress as well) with a straight face. It is laughable, and an attempt to re write history period.
Click to expand...

Not disingenuous. Because congress has shirked their responsibility before doesn't mean it's no longer shirking. The only way congress can vote for wr is to declare war. If the president can not go to war after the vote, then it is not congresses choice or decision, but the presidents. Part if my argument is that tis needs to stop, and congress needs to do their job.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not disingenuous. Because congress has shirked their responsibility before doesn't mean it's no longer shirking. The only way congress can vote for wr is to declare war. If the president can not go to war after the vote, then it is not congresses choice or decision, but the presidents. Part if my argument is that tis needs to stop, and congress needs to do their job.
Click to expand...

I have already shown the flaw in this line of thinking, because you either don't understand it, or don't want to acknowledge the fact is neither my fault, nor do I care much for your feigned ignorance. If, you'd like to discuss Iraq endlessly, then start another thread, this one is for talking about our economic security, and thus to continue down this path after you have been proven to be less than genuine in the debate, is to argue with the leg of a kitchen table....Worthless.
 
j-mac said:
I have already shown the flaw in this line of thinking, because you either don't understand it, or don't want to acknowledge the fact is neither my fault, nor do I care much for your feigned ignorance. If, you'd like to discuss Iraq endlessly, then start another thread, this one is for talking about our economic security, and thus to continue down this path after you have been proven to be less than genuine in the debate, is to argue with the leg of a kitchen table....Worthless.
Click to expand...

No, I understand what you said, and what you think is flaw. However, the fact remains, congress did not vote for war. And again you mistake who salted down this track. Hint: it wasn't me.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I understand what you said, and what you think is flaw. However, the fact remains, congress did not vote for war. And again you mistake who salted down this track. Hint: it wasn't me.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference who, only that you perpetuate it.
 
j-mac said:
Makes no difference who, only that you perpetuate it.
Click to expand...

And that you choose not to tell that person to start another thread. Wonder what that tells us? :coffeepap
 
j-mac said:
Both you TNE, and Boo, are being just a tad bit disingenuous here....I know that in today's world of political division, and derision it is common to not remember what was said, and done yesterday in order to constantly change the goal posts of position, and therefore deny culpability.



To constantly further the liberal progressive argument that Bush on his own placed troops in Iraq, or that he kept them there without congressional approval in the process is dishonest.



In this day and age post WWII (where to my knowledge was the last official DoW issued by Congress) the AUMF as ruled by the SCOTUS effectively served as a DoW. You can NOT come in here and argue with any credibility what so ever, that Bush acted unilaterally, or illegally in his prosecution of the War in Iraq without congressional approval, and culpability in the matter, (that includes the democrats in congress as well) with a straight face. It is laughable, and an attempt to re write history period.
Click to expand...

None of that changes the fact that if Bush said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Bush is the one that ultimately made the call to go in. You can argue till the cows come how that he was justified in that, but the decision was his regardless. IF he said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
 
TheNextEra said:
None of that changes the fact that if Bush said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Bush is the one that ultimately made the call to go in. You can argue till the cows come how that he was justified in that, but the decision was his regardless. IF he said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
Click to expand...

We tried that years earlier with his dad, Bush I....Did that good will do any good at persuading Saddam to give up his evil in the region?
 
j-mac said:
We tried that years earlier with his dad, Bush I....Did that good will do any good at persuading Saddam to give up his evil in the region?
Click to expand...

Saddam was a paper tiger. Outside of Iraq, he had little ability to do anything. However, that really wasn't the point of what TNE said.
 
Boo Radley said:
Saddam was a paper tiger. Outside of Iraq, he had little ability to do anything. However, that really wasn't the point of what TNE said.
Click to expand...


Don't you just love the ability to call it after the fact? I mean you must really be the smartest guy on the planet as long as you can use hindsight for your proclamations.
 
j-mac said:
Don't you just love the ability to call it after the fact? I mean you must really be the smartest guy on the planet as long as you can use hindsight for your proclamations.
Click to expand...

If you'd recall, I called before the fact, as did a lot of others. You sued asking foresight isn't Monday morning qbing. Foresight s war leaders need. And frankly, it never was as questionable as your side likes to pretend. Try to show that to you pre war as well.
 
j-mac said:
We tried that years earlier with his dad, Bush I....Did that good will do any good at persuading Saddam to give up his evil in the region?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Bush being the one who ULTIMATELY made the decision to go into Iraq? BTW, Saddam was contained and Bush I had it right. Given more time, his regime would have collapsed under Iraqi revolution.
 
j-mac said:
Don't you just love the ability to call it after the fact? I mean you must really be the smartest guy on the planet as long as you can use hindsight for your proclamations.
Click to expand...

Actually we DID see how well Saddam was contained after Bush I decision. There was no "after the fact", there was containment and eventually would have led to Iraqi revolution. The simple fact remains though, Bush II made the decision ultimately to go into Iraq.
 
TheNextEra said:
What does this have to do with Bush being the one who ULTIMATELY made the decision to go into Iraq? BTW, Saddam was contained and Bush I had it right. Given more time, his regime would have collapsed under Iraqi revolution.
Click to expand...


Come on man, I know you are more honest than this TNE....At least I hope so....I was in during Gulf I, and we went in to Kuwait....Some of my very close friends were less than 100 K outside Baghdad, and had intel on Saddam's location. They were told to stand down, pull back....They saw Saddam's sadistic forces attacking their own people as we pulled out....How many died because we didn't have the balls to take Saddam out when we had the chance in the late 80s?

Actually we DID see how well Saddam was contained after Bush I decision. There was no "after the fact", there was containment and eventually would have led to Iraqi revolution. The simple fact remains though, Bush II made the decision ultimately to go into Iraq.
Click to expand...

Ah Bull! People like you TNE are quick to always tell us slogan crap like, "if it saves just one life....", or "it's for the children....", well, it must be awful self gratifying to you to sit back in your comfortable life and pronounce the risk others should take with theirs, huh? At least when Bush went in to Iraq it was a decisive move. He didn't have to hid behind skirts, sent out to lie for him while others died....The world at least respected his resolve, unlike our current coward, criminal....

You don't have the slightest clue about what intel, and circumstances swirled around the POTUS at that time, other than what you read, written by biased, lying pieces of journalistic malpractice committing pieces of trash spewing propaganda, and you bought it like a 7 year old at a garage sale full of .25 cent toys....Good job. Truth the world is a better place without Hussein in it, and it kills people like you to admit it. Well, too bad for you.
 
TheNextEra said:
None of that changes the fact that if Bush said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Bush is the one that ultimately made the call to go in. You can argue till the cows come how that he was justified in that, but the decision was his regardless. IF he said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
Click to expand...

Correct. And had congress said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. So if you wish to blame that war on Bush fine but in the same sentence you have to equally blame congress. If you wish to address "blame" honestly. I find most people that want to assign "blame" prefer to lie or are just to dumb to know that nothing happened without action from congress.
 
j-mac said:
Come on man, I know you are more honest than this TNE....At least I hope so....I was in during Gulf I, and we went in to Kuwait....Some of my very close friends were less than 100 K outside Baghdad, and had intel on Saddam's location. They were told to stand down, pull back....They saw Saddam's sadistic forces attacking their own people as we pulled out....How many died because we didn't have the balls to take Saddam out when we had the chance in the late 80s?
Click to expand...

How many people die to the U.S. inaction EVERY DAY? What about the people in Africa who are slaughtered, what about the citizens in North Korea who are starved and persecuted each day if they speak against their government? What about the middle east? What about the people that die due to drug cartels in other foreign nations? What about the oppressive government in Iran that the people suffer under.

The truth that YOU and your ilk hate is that we can't save EVERYONE.

j-mac said:
Ah Bull! People like you TNE are quick to always tell us slogan crap like, "if it saves just one life....", or "it's for the children....", well, it must be awful self gratifying to you to sit back in your comfortable life and pronounce the risk others should take with theirs, huh? At least when Bush went in to Iraq it was a decisive move. He didn't have to hid behind skirts, sent out to lie for him while others died....The world at least respected his resolve, unlike our current coward, criminal....

You don't have the slightest clue about what intel, and circumstances swirled around the POTUS at that time, other than what you read, written by biased, lying pieces of journalistic malpractice committing pieces of trash spewing propaganda, and you bought it like a 7 year old at a garage sale full of .25 cent toys....Good job. Truth the world is a better place without Hussein in it, and it kills people like you to admit it. Well, too bad for you.
Click to expand...

It's funny how YOU are using the "If it saves just one life" excuse with Saddam and COMPLETELY IGNORE all the wrong doings that are going on in the world that the U.S. does NOTHING about.

Sorry, but I live in the real world and in the real world Bush was the one that decided to go into Iraq. If you don't like the FACT that Bush was ultimately the one who decided to go into Iraq, you can go pound sand because you can't dispute that FACT.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Correct. And had congress said "No", we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. So if you wish to blame that war on Bush fine but in the same sentence you have to equally blame congress. If you wish to address "blame" honestly. I find most people that want to assign "blame" prefer to lie or are just to dumb to know that nothing happened without action from congress.
Click to expand...

See, here's the thing though, even if Congress said YES, if Bush said NO, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The last and most important decision was on Bush as HE was the one that decided if we went or didn't go. Can't change that FACT.
 
TheNextEra said:
See, here's the thing though, even if
Congress said YES, if Bush said NO, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The last and most important decision was on Bush as HE was the one that decided if we went or didn't go. Can't change that FACT.
Click to expand...

So what ? The entire Iraq War left wing narrative has been blown way out of proportion.


And you people pretending that Congress had no idea where we were headed is laughable.
 
Fenton said:
So what ? The entire Iraq War left wing narrative has been blown way out of proportion.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a concession from your part that indeed Bush made the decision to go into Iraq thank you.

Fenton said:
And you people pretending that Congress had no idea where we were headed is laughable.
Click to expand...

What's laughable is watching you and others try to dance around the FACT that Bush made the call to go into Iraq. Why do you hate the FACT that Bush made the decision to go into Iraq?
 
TheNextEra said:
See, here's the thing though, even if Congress said YES, if Bush said NO, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. The last and most important decision was on Bush as HE was the one that decided if we went or didn't go. Can't change that FACT.
Click to expand...

100% correct, you can't change facts. Congress had the chance to stop it before it started but they thought it was the best thing to do. Just as Bush did. But one yes from Bush wasn't enough to get us into war with Iraq. I know it hurts when the facts hit you in the face when it's pointed out that Bush could not have done it by himself. See, if congress says no, Bush is not even part of the equation. The last decision carried no more weight than the first.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
100% correct, you can't change facts. Congress had the chance to stop it before it started but they thought it was the best thing to do. Just as Bush did. But one yes from Bush wasn't enough to get us into war with Iraq. I know it hurts when the facts hit you in the face when it's pointed out that Bush could not have done it by himself. See, if congress says no, Bush is not even part of the equation. The last decision carried no more weight than the first.
Click to expand...

Don't waste anymore thought replying to TNE, or Boo on this one. They are hopelessly lost on the truth concerning this. They have traded honesty, and objectivity for hyper leftists ranting like petulant children...Not really worth the aggravation addressing this 10 year old meme anymore. They are on the wrong side of history as usual. In fact the only reason they derail any thread talking about the declining economic security in this country (the thread title) is because they can not bring themselves to be honest about the fact that Obama has, and continues to put in place policies, and laws that are bringing this about in this country, therefore they instead of addressing the topic of the thread they must attack Bush on the Iraq war some 10 years plus after the fact. It's pathetic.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
100% correct, you can't change facts. Congress had the chance to stop it before it started but they thought it was the best thing to do. Just as Bush did. But one yes from Bush wasn't enough to get us into war with Iraq. I know it hurts when the facts hit you in the face when it's pointed out that Bush could not have done it by himself. See, if congress says no, Bush is not even part of the equation. The last decision carried no more weight than the first.
Click to expand...

No one disagrees with the notion congress could have stopped. Hey could have. No me is claiming they made a stand or even did their job. But the vote was not for war. It was to let Bush decide. There comments when they voted, as I tried to point out with Kerry made clear their reservations. So, while congress deserves contempt for cowardice, the decision was Bush's. give him credit and blame for his decision. Quit trying to water it down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom