• 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!

Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

Would be pretty ironic for him to go from being held by the Taliban to being in a US prison for desertion.
 
Would be pretty ironic for him to go from being held by the Taliban to being in a US prison for desertion.

I don't know if any of this is true, but there are certainly 5 available cells at Guantanamo Bay if they are needed.
 
No, I said that his platoon reached out to a Republican strategist. Or rather, that is what has been reported.

Yes, when you denigrated the soldiers who served this country bravely in your effort to make Bergdahl appear to be the good man you claim he is.
 
Yes, when you denigrated the soldiers who served this country bravely in your effort to make Bergdahl appear to be the good man you claim he is.

The soldiers banded together and started a media smear campaign the moment Bergdahl was released. I find it very curious that it turned so ugly so quick, entirely because of what the soldiers claim.
 
That's very naïve and misinformed.

Read and learn.....

For me to read and learn you'd need to be showing me something I didn't already know.

I never suggested that a signing statement is unconstitutional. I've never suggested a signing statement was unique to Obama. I never suggested a signing statement itself is illegal. I never suggested the President can't opine and acted based on his belief of what is or isn't constitutional.

I suggested he doesn't get to declare law unconstitutional by fiat. Perhaps you should "read and learn" a bit from your link as well. It notes how the defense of the constitution is held by all three branches...and that jives with what I've said, but not what you've said.

You suggested that people are making "False" accusations of violating the law, which can only be made based off a misguided belief that the defense of the constitution is not held by all three branches, but ONLY by the Executive and that because Obama declared this "unconstitutional" it simply is and therefore is not law.

Which is ridiculous and factually untrue.

The President can declare he believes something is unconstitutional and that he will not enforce it. That does NOT invalidate the law nor remove it from the books. That law is still there and he's still acting in violation of it. At which point either it can be ignored, gone along with, or challenged.

The law only comes OFF THE BOOKS, and thus no longer "the law", at this point if it's overturned by the SCOTUS or repealed by the congress.

The President gets to determine how to execute the Law, he doesn't get to determine what IS the law. That's a distinct difference and part of the seperation of powers.

I understand you share the Presidents OPINION on the constitutionality of the law. You have that right. He has that right. Both of your OPINIONS have the same impact as to whether or not the Law is or is not "The Law" still: none.

He has the ability to "reasonably interpret" the constitutionality of a law in order to execute the law. He has no power to repeal law by fiat. Which means if the law is still on the books, and he's acting counter to it, then allegations that he's violating the law are not false but accurate.

Whether or not that violation is problematic is an ENTIRELY different thing. People violate the law in Colorado and Washington and it's largely irrelevant because nothing is done to them. Doesn't change the fact they're violating the law. There are blue laws on the books that are LAW that people violate routinely. The fact they're not enforced doesn't mean the laws not being violated, it just means for a plethora of reasons the law is not being enforced.

You want to speak of naive, we can do that. To suggest that congress agrees with the unconstitutional opinion regarding this law if they don't bring action against the President is ridiculously naive and basically demonstrates someone whose either truly ignorant of politics or who is being intentually obtuse. There are a multitude of factors that go into a congress challenging the President regarding a signing statement or an action he makes as it relates to a possible violation of a law or a constitutional interpritation that range FAR beyond whether or not they think they're correct in their beleif of the situation or not.
 
The soldiers banded together and started a media smear campaign the moment Bergdahl was released. I find it very curious that it turned so ugly so quick, entirely because of what the soldiers claim.

Of course. Why believe soldiers when you can simply attack them?
 
Of course. Why believe soldiers when you can simply attack them?

Explain why Bergdahl was promoted twice while captive, and why a Buddhist ballerina would join forces with the Taliban.
 
Explain why Bergdahl was promoted twice while captive, and why a Buddhist ballerina would join forces with the Taliban.

Deflection. I'm not talking about Bergdahl's rank or why he walked away. I'm talking about you denigrating soldiers.
 
Would be pretty ironic for him to go from being held by the Taliban to being in a US prison for desertion.

EXACTLY what I was thinking last night watching the news.
 
Explain why Bergdahl was promoted twice while captive, and why a Buddhist ballerina would join forces with the Taliban.

You need to do your own research...

1. It is pretty standard to promote those captured according to time in service in combat conditions...

2. BB pretty much told you why in his letters, emails, and other writings, and words.
 
The soldiers banded together and started a media smear campaign the moment Bergdahl was released. I find it very curious that it turned so ugly so quick, entirely because of what the soldiers claim.


This is so utterly pathetic, but not surprising coming from the left. One of the main tactics is to smear people, and that is what you are attempting. The military looked into this YEARS ago and determined the guy walked off on his own. It's a FACT.
 
This is so utterly pathetic, but not surprising coming from the left. One of the main tactics is to smear people, and that is what you are attempting. The military looked into this YEARS ago and determined the guy walked off on his own. It's a FACT.

The military determined that he probably walked off, yes. What else do you have?
 
You need to do your own research...

1. It is pretty standard to promote those captured according to time in service in combat conditions...

2. BB pretty much told you why in his letters, emails, and other writings, and words.

I did my research. His soldier critics claim that he was suspected of desertion and TREASON shortly after he disappeared. How does that translate into two promotions?
 
The military determined that he probably walked off, yes. What else do you have?

Let's see, I have someone putting out a lot of ignorance and partisan BS, trying to smear US Soldiers on this thread.
 
I did my research. His soldier critics claim that he was suspected of desertion and TREASON shortly after he disappeared. How does that translate into two promotions?

Why don't you ask the Army if you're so confused?
 
Let's see, I have someone putting out a lot of ignorance and partisan BS, trying to smear US Soldiers on this thread.

"Trying"? He actually smeared them when he called them "unprofessional right-wing jerks". Tried, and succeeded admirably.
 
"Trying"? He actually smeared them when he called them "unprofessional right-wing jerks". Tried, and succeeded admirably.

Yes, soldiers running to a Republican strategist and launching a swiftboat campaign on Bergdahl the moment he is released is an unprofessional and jerkish thing to do.
 
Yes, soldiers running to a Republican strategist and launching a swiftboat campaign on Bergdahl the moment he is released is an unprofessional and jerkish thing to do.

Please. It's not a "swiftboat campaign". (Which was spot-on, by the way, on Kerry.)

This dude abandoned his post and walked away willingly. Soldiers died trying to find him. He is a deserter, a traitor, and worthy of a firing squad. Period.

And we re-stocked the enemy with five of its leaders to get this worthless bag of crap.
 
Yes, soldiers running to a Republican strategist and launching a swiftboat campaign on Bergdahl the moment he is released is an unprofessional and jerkish thing to do.

Yes, they should have done what you did, and call Bergdahl a good person. Of course they're obviously too smart to make that mistake, and it seems that they actually care about the 6 soldiers who died because of Bergdahl.. They want the truth out there. How dare they, huh? Better to bury their heads in the sand.
 
Yes, soldiers running to a Republican strategist and launching a swiftboat campaign on Bergdahl the moment he is released is an unprofessional and jerkish thing to do.
I think Susan Rice glorifying his service is not only "jerkish" but down right insulting to the men in his unit who actually DID serve honorably. It is also incredibly insensitive to the families of the soldiers WHO DIED looking for him.

If I were any one of these people I'd be trying to set the record straight, too.
 
It is also incredibly insensitive to the families of the soldiers WHO DIED looking for him.

What were the names of the soldiers who died looking for him? Details about the deaths, please.
 
Do people not realize that Obama just endangered the lives of every American living abroad anywhere?
 
Back
Top Bottom