• 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!

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

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

First of all how is it 'off topic' to address a direct quote from another member?

Second, 'Blame it on Bush'? Really? that's all you got? Any reasonable person would have to say at this point that with responses like that, debating the issue with people like you is a useless exercise.

j-mac

Bush is to blame for what Bush is to blame for. He doesn't get a pass just because his term ended. He did lose focus, choosing to go on the snipe hunt. It left Afghanistan in a bad position. This is simply fact.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

To discuss Afghanistan and leave the current Commander n Chief out of the discussion is not only void of reality, but disingenuous to the extreme.

I have no problem with you liblady, I don't know you. Just as you don't know me, however, whether or not I enjoy jousting with you on these boards is what is really off topic here. You accuse me of injecting an off topic remark, when the whole thread is on how Obama says he doesn't need Congress to approve his actions in Lybia, and YOU injected Afghanistan into the discussion.

This really is some kind of alternate universe you libs live in isn't it?

j-mac

Says the guy from the general group of people who think a "thug" rapper performed at the white house recently, that Obama's suggestion for Israel is substantially different from Bush or Clinton's, that global warming stopped in 1995, and that rich people hire new employees based solely on the number of dollars in their pocket. :D

(none of these things are true)
 
Last edited:
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

if you don't like my posts, don't read them. and of course, afghanistan is right ON topic as we are engaged in war there, right now, and we were discussing the me. we were not discussing obama. i'm beginning to think you like me, j-mac. you sure seem to read my posts very thoroughly.

"Afghanistan is right ON topic", "we are engaged in a war there right now" and yet we cannot discuss, President Obama, the current leader of that war?

That seems odd.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

yeah, but we weren't discussing afghanistan per se. you just felt the need to bash obama, as you always do. that's ok, it must suck to be impotent.

So you agree that Obama needs no congressional approval under the war powers act for Lybia, but also agree that Bush did need it....There is a word for that ma'am, hyp......


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

Bush is to blame for what Bush is to blame for. He doesn't get a pass just because his term ended. He did lose focus, choosing to go on the snipe hunt. It left Afghanistan in a bad position. This is simply fact.

Off Topic.

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

Says the guy from the general group of people who think a "thug" rapper performed at the white house recently, that Obama's suggestion for Israel is substantially different from Bush or Clinton's, that global warming stopped in 1995, and that rich people hire new employees based solely on the number of dollars in their pocket. :D

If 'the guy' says this then you should have the quotes available. Do you?
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Says the guy from the general group of people who think a "thug" rapper performed at the white house recently, that Obama's suggestion for Israel is substantially different from Bush or Clinton's, that global warming stopped in 1995, and that rich people hire new employees based solely on the number of dollars in their pocket. :D

(none of these things are true)


Inane personal attack, and off topic....

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

So you agree that Obama needs no congressional approval under the war powers act for Lybia, but also agree that Bush did need it....There is a word for that ma'am, hyp......


j-mac

you frequently put words in other's mouths, mac. not becoming.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Off Topic.

j-mac

:clap: No to our discussion. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

you frequently put words in other's mouths, mac. not becoming.


If you would be clear about what you want to say, and not try and be clever with nuance that escapes your posting, then maybe you wouldn't feel this way. But do tell me then in crystal clear language, what you are saying.

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

:clap: No to our discussion. :coffeepap

Sorry, no side discussions can be had in threads. Liblady get seriously offended when topics are subverted.

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

Sorry, no side discussions can be had in threads. Liblady get seriously offended when topics are subverted.

j-mac

That or you really know better. :coffeepap
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

If 'the guy' says this then you should have the quotes available. Do you?

You missed some key words. "Group of people."

He did, after all, make his comments about liberals in general.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Sorry, no side discussions can be had in threads. Liblady get seriously offended when topics are subverted.

j-mac

you've got it wrong, i only get offended when YOU subvert topics.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

you've got it wrong, i only get offended when YOU subvert topics.


Sorry, this is off topic. I would ask that you stick to the topic of the thread please.

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

how are things in afghanistan?

How many Americans died, because we totally ignored the threat that existed in Afghanistan, prior to 9/11?

My point being, that ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away by itself doesn't work.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

You missed some key words. "Group of people."

He did, after all, make his comments about liberals in general.

Then lets have the quotes, or we can just forget about past debates and move on to the present.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Choosing to ignore the law is an impeachable offense.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Germany's rise and its impact on the balance of power in Europe in the 1930s posed a growing and serious threat to critical U.S. interests and allies in the region. In contrast, the civil war in Libya is of little consequence. Although the rebels might be marginally better than the Gadhafi dictatorship (quite uncertain given their gross political and military incompetence, lack of coherent policy program, recent evidence of their own human rights abuses, etc.,) the outcome won't have a material adverse impact on critical U.S. interests and allies.

Hitler invading Austria was of little consequence, as well; or so, that was the school of thought then.

IMO, U.S. foreign policy should be anchored in its interests. Priority should be given where critical interests and allies are at stake. An example would be a more robust policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear activities. Libya, though, simply does not rise anywhere close to that level.

I agree that Iran should take priority over Libya, but Libya can still become a major threat, if she unites with other Arab countries under a central government. (Personally, I'm starting think we're shooting at the wrong people in Libya, but that remains to be seen.) Which is why I think Obama is missing a huge oppurtunity, by allowing the Iranian/Venezuala missile situation go unchallenged.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

No, it doesn't. Congress did not declare war and the UN did not sanction our invasion. These are facts. Sorry. :coffeepap

You're mincing words, Congress supported the war. That's an undeniable fact. Have another cup of coffee.
 
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati

Congress did not declare war and the UN did not sanction our invasion.
A resolution of force by Congress is a de facto delclaration of war.
The Constitution does not specify how a declaration need be made, and so the effect, not the text, of the resolution is all that matters.
 
Back
Top Bottom