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

Boo Radley · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
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.

Deuce · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
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.

(none of these things are true)

Grant · May 23, 2011

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

liblady said:
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.

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

liblady said:
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

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
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

Grant · May 23, 2011

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

Deuce said:
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.

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

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

Deuce said:
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.

(none of these things are true)

Inane personal attack, and off topic....

j-mac

liblady · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
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.

Boo Radley · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
Off Topic.

j-mac

:clap: No to our discussion. :coffeepap

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

liblady said:
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

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
: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

Boo Radley · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
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

liblady · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
Inane personal attack, and off topic....

j-mac

lol! 12345

Deuce · May 23, 2011

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

Grant said:
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.

liblady · May 23, 2011

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

j-mac said:
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.

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

liblady said:
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

j-mac · May 23, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
That or you really know better. :coffeepap

I am a humble man Joe.

j-mac

apdst · May 23, 2011

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

liblady said:
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.

Grant · May 23, 2011

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

Deuce said:
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.

PzKfW IVe · May 23, 2011

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

Choosing to ignore the law is an impeachable offense.

apdst · May 23, 2011

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

donsutherland1 said:
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.

American · May 23, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
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.

Deuce · May 23, 2011

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

Grant said:
Then lets have the quotes, or we can just forget about past debates and move on to the present.

Common:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ama-invites-rapper-common-poetry-reading.html
Karl Rove Calls Common a 'Thug': Accurate or Lame Name-Calling? - Page 8
Twitter

Israel:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/99573-obama-press-conference-netanyahu.html
YouTube - ‪Bush called for pre-1967 Israeli borders‬‏

Global Warming:
Let me google that for you

Hey, you asked.

PzKfW IVe · May 23, 2011

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

Boo Radley said:
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.

Grant · May 23, 2011

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

PzKfW IVe said:
Choosing to ignore the law is an impeachable offense.

There is talk of impeachment already.

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

Boo Radley

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Grant

j-mac

j-mac

Grant

j-mac

liblady

pirate lover

Boo Radley

j-mac

j-mac

Boo Radley

liblady

pirate lover

Deuce

Outer space potato man

liblady

pirate lover

j-mac

j-mac

apdst

Grant

PzKfW IVe

apdst

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Deuce

Outer space potato man

PzKfW IVe

Grant

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

Outer space potato man

pirate lover

pirate lover

Outer space potato man

pirate lover

Trump Grump Whisperer

Outer space potato man

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency