GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: White House: Limited Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorizati
I gave up on Boo and Catawba a while ago. Some liberals will always try to find a way to avoid answering simple questions.
I have proven that Obama changed his position on the Constitutionality of Presidential use of force once he became President but they will continue to try to spin it a different way and will never answer the tough questions because they put party before country.
It blows me away that there are so many Americans who have no principals other than principles the party of their choice defines for them. It is this attitude that is destroying our great nation and it isn’t exclusive to democrats either; too many republicans do exactly the same thing.
not as illegal?
illegality by degree?
LOL!
you don't know what you're talking about
There are aras of gray, yes. Some of Bush's actions, for example, are more in a gray area than others.
oh, absolutely, sydney
barack the slasher's actions in libya are simply not quite as illegal as w-stands-for-what's-his-name's in iraq
LOL!
good thinking!
I gave up on Boo and Catawba a while ago. Some liberals will always try to find a way to avoid answering simple questions.
I have proven that Obama changed his position on the Constitutionality of Presidential use of force once he became President but they will continue to try to spin it a different way and will never answer the tough questions because they put party before country.
It blows me away that there are so many Americans who have no principals other than principles the party of their choice defines for them. It is this attitude that is destroying our great nation and it isn’t exclusive to democrats either; too many republicans do exactly the same thing.
Last edited: