Page 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 503

Thread: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization

  1. #191
    Advisor shades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-16 @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    322

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    False.
    You cited your preferred definition, not "the" defintion.
    You have admitted that there is no Constitutional or legislative defintion.
    As such, your argument stands on nothing other than your preference, which means nothing to anyone but you.

    I ask again:
    How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
    of course its a definition of war, and he knows it too.

    My point concerning media bias, is that attacking another country should be page 1, top of page, every day page 1 top of page until Obama acts in a manner the office requires he acts.

    he is kiling people under our flag, youd think that following the rules is the least he could do..

    I am preparing myself for more liberal "hes our man, if he cant do it nobody can" for an entire campaign cycle from the media.. because its going to happen, I'm just praying to God, our creator, the same God that the people that started this great country believed in nd openly worshipped, that the GOP puts up the right candidate, thereby making it easy to knock clown boy back to a community leader or whatever it is an ousted president goes and does in his late 40's. write books I suppose about how racism cost him his second term...

    theres a change a comin, change and hope to quote an ex president.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    That's completely ridiculous and ignores reality. The reason that the Arab Spring is occurring is because people are tired of dealing with crappy, oppressive governments that only care about themselves.

    If things go as I hope, which now look quite iffy, the people of the Middle East will be functioning democracies.
    That was the same argument used with the Shah in Iran!

  3. #193
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,418

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If Obama is allowed to get away with this, let's make no mistake about it: It will mean that the War Powers Act is dead, because every future president will simply cite Obama's Libyan adventure as a precedent. It will mean that the president will have the power to wage war anywhere in the world, for any reason, on any scale, for any length of time, without any checks or balances on his power. This is NOT a path that the United States of America should go down.
    The only thing wrong with your post, is that Obama hasn't violated the war powers act.

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Perefered?
    Yes. You use it because it suits you and the postion you have chosen to take.
    As I said - you have a conclusion and have found 'facts' to support it.

    Yes, a dictionary definition is what I used.
    A dictionary defintion is not a binding legal defintion, especially of concern when discussing constitutional and legal issues, as we are here.
    There is, as you have admitted, no constitutional or legislative specification as to the contents of a declaration or war, and so the condtiitons and requirements you have tried to place here have absolutely no constitutional or legal basis to them.

    As such, while your definion has meaning to you, it is in no way compelling to anyone who posesses a clue.

    And I've answered you
    Not with any degree of efficacy, as your answer cites conditions that do not exist in the question.

    You may try again:
    How is legislation that authorizes the government of the United States to go to war with, to commit acts of war against and to make war upon another state not a declaration of war?
    Last edited by PzKfW IVe; 05-23-11 at 04:50 PM.

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    The text is in declaring war. Declaring war has a definition and isn't subject to whatever you want it to mean. Believe it or not, there is an assumption that you look up what words mean. They rarely stop and define words for you for every sentence. The text says congress is charged with declaring war and not that it can pass the buck to the president and let him declare. But hell, he didn't do that either. He just invaded.
    But hell, he didn't do that either. He just invaded
    You are referring to Barrack Obama, the subject of this thread, right??

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If Obama is allowed to get away with this, let's make no mistake about it: It will mean that the War Powers Act is dead, because every future president will simply cite Obama's Libyan adventure as a precedent. It will mean that the president will have the power to wage war anywhere in the world, for any reason, on any scale, for any length of time, without any checks or balances on his power. This is NOT a path that the United States of America should go down.
    Certain people used to care about these things.
    The Obama, with a (D) next to His name, changed all that.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    no, I'm saying Obama is working with the UN and as such is different. Bush was both outside the UN and without a declaration of war, giving little to no legitimacy to his actions.

    and no, I don't believe Obama has broken his oath even though I would have prefered he went to congress.
    Both of those assertions are false.

  8. #198
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Perefered? Yes, a dictionary definition is what I used.
    perefered?

    are you DRUNK?

    Yes, that is what we normally used to define words.
    oh, what's funk and wagnalls say about promenate?

    LOL!

  9. #199
    Advisor shades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-28-16 @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    322

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The only thing wrong with your post, is that Obama hasn't violated the war powers act.
    you have been removed from any serious converstaion in this regard..

    so go play in another thread..
    but please feel free to check back in from time to time

  10. #200
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,418

    Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

    Quote Originally Posted by shades View Post
    you have been removed from any serious converstaion in this regard..

    so go play in another thread..
    but please feel free to check back in from time to time
    Ok. Question: are U.S. combat units--of any branch, or arm--currently operating in Libya?

Page 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •