RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why?

RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:21:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still waiting for this explanation. How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? Well perhaps while you wait, Ken, take yourself back over to the space colonization thread and answer the questions put to you there? What thread? And just to make clear if you are demanding a quid pro quo I demand you answer the above question fully and to my satisfaction no bullshit evasions and no running away. That....would involve thinking and debating.......don`t hold your breath.......

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:30:09 PM)
quote: How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? I can answer that. The President who did the first was on his side and the President who did the second isn't. And in America today, that's all that seems to matter. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What thread? And just to make clear if you are demanding a quid pro quo I demand you answer the above question fully and to my satisfaction no bullshit evasions and no running away. You're in no position to be making demands for anything, Ken, and certainly not be using the word "waiting" while I'm out earning a living to do my little part to finance the safety net. The particular thread I'm referring to had some "newty moonbeam," nonsense for a title, and you are welcome to hunt it up. No quid pro quo. Just man up. Panama was a piss-poor choice of an example to counter the Libya question with (though I seem to recall Muse wasn't doing so hot in that other thread either, but at least he had the stones to make a cop-out about how "he was only kidding" before he bailed on it).

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:31:42 PM)
AND addresses the precedent setting he's pretending to be outraged about.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:36:02 PM)
That too. [:D]

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What thread? And just to make clear if you are demanding a quid pro quo I demand you answer the above question fully and to my satisfaction no bullshit evasions and no running away. You're in no position to be making demands for anything, Ken, and certainly not be using the word "waiting" while I'm out earning a living to do my little part to finance the safety net. The particular thread I'm referring to had some "newty moonbeam," nonsense for a title, and you are welcome to hunt it up. No quid pro quo. Just man up. Panama was a piss-poor choice of an example to counter the Libya question with (though I seem to recall Muse wasn't doing so hot in that other thread either, but at least he had the stones to make a cop-out about how "he was only kidding" before he bailed on it). I just wasted my time and dug up the thread and found, to my complete lack of surprise, only a single question in your post directed at me. quote: Does that about cover your question, Ken? Since your post did not and showed a complete inability to address the facts with something more than a lengthy handwave I let the matter slide since Newt will never be President and no consortium of private companies will invest the money needed to build a permanent lunar colony in either of our lifetimes. But to make you happy, no, you did not cover my question. Now back to this thread, why exactly was it legal to target Noreiga but legal to target Qadafi?

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:45:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: How precisely was it legal to target Noreiga but not legal to target Quadafi? I can answer that. The President who did the first was on his side and the President who did the second isn't. And in America today, that's all that seems to matter. If you are referring to me, Lorebook, then you couldn't be more wrong. The President in question happened to be my Commander in Chief at the time, but I hadn't voted for him, and I actually did a fair bit of volunteering a couple years later, to help send him back to Kennebunkport. My final rejection of the Democrats was still years away at that point. I am honest about what happened there, though, and as I said earlier, Noriega was incredibly fucking stupid.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:58:31 PM)
I didn't say you voted for him did I? I said he was on your side, and in the political climate of today, that means you're supposed to defend everything he does. And Obama isn't on your side, so you're supposed to condemn everything he does, even if its the same thing you're praising and defending the guy on your side for doing. For example, the "precedent" you're accusing Obama of setting, was set long before Obama was born, and has been used repeatedly by those on your side, but you're only rather belatedly concerned about it when somebody on the other side makes use of that precedent. So in order to hide that little fact, you claim that its Obama setting the precedent. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 8:59:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook Oh God, I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. I'll give it one last try. Point by point. All you have done is repeat the same bullshit over and over again. You aren't even trying anymore. I am glad that was the last time you're going to attend to this matter since you're not willing to consider that you could very well be wrong. I have shown you point by point how you are incorrect, and, yet, all you do is accuse me of of the same. It truly is amazing.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:06:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, hold on there uganda is not on the table at the moment, you conflated the two and have since your first response to me. And you are one of the only people on the planet earth that does not know that Khaddafi has continuously funded and trained terrorists within the organizations that attacked us 9/11. That isn't why we went in and you know damn well it isn't why we went in. So, 107-40 does not, in fact, apply. quote: I have said and I will say again, there was a document of notification sent to the congress on uganda, which is within the directives in the war powers act. So far, I have proof, and all you have is an unsupported, and untutored opinion that hasn't emitted a fact. You have offered no proof of anything. You have offered, as proof, incorrect analyses. The War Powers Resolution has strict guidelines regarding when the President is allowed to send troops in somewhere prior to notifying Congress. He then has to notify Congress within 48 hours of the onset of military action. I am not disputing that he has notified Congress. He notified Congress about Libya within the 48 hours, too. My allegations are that he did not have standing to order the troops in. His decisions in both cases do not stand up to the War Powers Resolution requirements. Regarding Libya, he notified Congress within 48 hours, but never asked for or got the green light from Congress, as he was required. He never asked for a 30 day extension prior to the 60 day deadline. His legal team made up some bullshit excuse as to why Libya wasn't affected by the WPR. You have yet to make a rational and accurate case. I have done so several times now.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:08:28 PM)
quote: I have shown you point by point how you are incorrect, Again, not quite correct. What you have shown, by ignoring the salient points and continuing to hammer away at the irrelevant ones, is that you are not only incorrect, but incognizant as well.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:11:03 PM)
quote: You have yet to make a rational and accurate case. I have done so several times now. No you haven't, not even once. You are arguing that he didn't pay the price charged for apples, all the while ignoring the fact that he bought oranges.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Add this background to Kens question.....particularly in light of the fact that public law 107-40 was not enacted at that time. You aren't going to show how 107-40 applied to Libya or Uganda, are you? I understand. You can't. You'll keep ignoring that fact so you can keep blathering on about it. You have been called out. I dont understand, I have repeatedly shown how it applied to libya and uganda, as well as it did to iraq and afghanistan. And I have asked you how it doesnt apply, no answer from you, other than to keep yakking about constitution and war powers act, none of which you have read, or understand. so call your own self out. But tell you what, you been wrong on the constitution, the war powers act, so lets make this a trifecta; here is the first of 2 specifics to the law: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons *he determines* planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. We're fucked if we ever get a woman president, hah? That is still law, no sunset, no recension, no deprecation, no repeal, no superseding. OMG!!! He actually explained himself!! Woo Hoo!! This is the first time I've seen any sort of explanation on how Libya or Uganda situations apply to 107-40. So, what did President Obama determine Uganda did? Did Uganda plan, authorize, commit or aid the terrorists in the attacks on 9/11? Are they harboring such organizations or persons that were involved in the 9/11 attacks? I have yet to see anything where the President has stated his determinations to that effect. 107-40 does not apply unless he actually has made that determination. I'm not going to type it all out, but 107-40 has nothing to do with our Libyan military actions either. Now, you can stop referring to 107-40 with regards to Libya and Uganda. It does not apply. And, I have read the US Constitution. I have read the War Powers Resolution. I have read the Federalist Papers. I'm still working on getting my very own copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers so I can read those, too. Ok, now you explain how this document relates to Iraq since we have proof that they did not have a thing to do with 9/11 nor did they harbor or organize or train any group associated with it. And knew that none of those things were true at the time of the documents signing. you have been called out for at least the 3rd time. Well, I don't agree that we knew that Saddam wasn't continuing to make WMD's, nuclear weapons and the like. If Bush and Co. knew this, they were wrong for going in. I have already stated in another thread, that I don't know what is true and what isn't true. I can see your side of it, where the attack on Iraq wasn't necessary. Bush did get Congressional approval prior to attacking Iraq, though. Don't forget that Hilary Clinton and John Kerry have already been quoted as believing that Iraq had WMD's. While in office, Bill Clinton made the claim that Saddam had WMD's. Under 107-40, Bush had the authority because he determined Iraq harbored, trained, or funded the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook quote: I have shown you point by point how you are incorrect, Again, not quite correct. What you have shown, by ignoring the salient points and continuing to hammer away at the irrelevant ones, is that you are not only incorrect, but incognizant as well. Hmmm...thought you were done? I don't expect you to see anything anymore. You have blinders on and aren't even willing to consider taking them off. Best of luck to you.

Musicmystery -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:19:29 PM)
quote: I don't know what is true and what isn't true. That's true.

LoreBook -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:29:12 PM)
quote: Hmmm...thought you were done? I don't expect you to see anything anymore. You have blinders on and aren't even willing to consider taking them off. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] You must be overflowing in blissfulness.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:32:23 PM)
Ken, I am trying to honor the new ways in here, so I'll pass on a description of that last reply. It's what I expect from you. None the less, it's hardly fair to leave everyone else hanging, over your inadequacies. Two things put the Panama operation into a completely different class than Libya. The first (and this should be a "duh," even for the special needs kid who gathers up the shopping carts at the local grocery store) is certain waterway running through the country. The Panama Canal was more than enough as a national security interest to put it on Bush's plate, and Noriega let himself be baited into making an incredibly rash and foolish statement about the state of relations between our countries. Now I do know how much you love to argue semantics, Ken especially with your habit of putting the bar wherever you find it convenient at the time of a particular post, but for good or ill, those two critical differences put the decision well within the President's proper discretion as CIC.

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoreBook For example, the "precedent" you're accusing Obama of setting, was set long before Obama was born, and has been used repeatedly by those on your side, but you're only rather belatedly concerned about it when somebody on the other side makes use of that precedent. So in order to hide that little fact, you claim that its Obama setting the precedent. Really, Lorebook? The precedent I've accused Obama of setting is the remote control exclusion on the War Powers Act. Set before he was born? And you select an (admittedly, very cool) avatar picture of someone who reads?

DomKen -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 9:53:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Ken, I am trying to honor the new ways in here, so I'll pass on a description of that last reply. It's what I expect from you. None the less, it's hardly fair to leave everyone else hanging, over your inadequacies. Two things put the Panama operation into a completely different class than Libya. The first (and this should be a "duh," even for the special needs kid who gathers up the shopping carts at the local grocery store) is certain waterway running through the country. The Panama Canal was more than enough as a national security interest to put it on Bush's plate, and Noriega let himself be baited into making an incredibly rash and foolish statement about the state of relations between our countries. Now I do know how much you love to argue semantics, Ken especially with your habit of putting the bar wherever you find it convenient at the time of a particular post, but for good or ill, those two critical differences put the decision well within the President's proper discretion as CIC. So having a drug dealer running a cuntry adjacent to the Panama Canal was a bigger national security issue than the guy who actually tried to recruit US citizens to blow up planes and buildings in the US? http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/31/us/five-draw-long-sentences-for-terrorism-scheme.html Qadafi was also responsible for Lockerbie, and the Berlin nightclub bombing as well as supporting and directly funding many different terrorist groups around the world. But according to you none of that is as bad as a drug dealer running Panama. Is that really your argument?

TheHeretic -> RE: A War That The Press Isn't Talking About. I Wonder Why? (3/22/2012 10:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen But according to you none of that is as bad as a drug dealer running Panama. Is that really your argument? No, and I've long since learned there is no point trying to work out where you come up with such fabrications. Goodbye, Ken.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875