Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   GOP: OMG, Obama, you're a dictator who's taking ar freedoms and killing us with drones. Obama: OK, fine, how about I repeal the law that gives me that power? GOP: OMG, Obama, you're so weak on terrorists it's like you're surrendering ar freedoms   (foxnews.com) divider line 150
    More: Stupid, President Obama, GOP, Republican, John McCain, warrantless wiretapping  
•       •       •

2313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2013 at 2:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-24 01:21:16 PM  
The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?
 
2013-05-24 01:43:25 PM  
Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.
 
2013-05-24 01:50:46 PM  
Barack Obama - The most tyrannical and uncompromising empty suit that is soft on defense.
 
2013-05-24 01:53:53 PM  
Obama should come out in favor of breathing.
 
2013-05-24 01:56:19 PM  

coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.


Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.
 
2013-05-24 02:01:42 PM  

Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.


Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
 
2013-05-24 02:08:50 PM  

Sgt Otter: Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.

Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.


To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."
 
2013-05-24 02:11:42 PM  
Just like invading Libya, the GOP makes their position the exact opposite of Obama's position.
 
2013-05-24 02:12:23 PM  
+1 for the use of "ar" in the headline. That's my favorite way to make fun of these morons.

/"Obama's gonna take are guns!"
 
2013-05-24 02:14:11 PM  

Serious Black: Just like invading Libya, the GOP makes their position the exact opposite of Obama's position.


And yet again, within 24 hours of having derpgarbled for months on the  exact opposite position.
 
2013-05-24 02:14:57 PM  
img267.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-24 02:15:16 PM  
Let's be fair.  Republicans have TRIED to reach across the aisle since 2009 and they've TRIED to work with him.  Obama still won't even release his birth certificate.  He refuses to resign or at least appoint a Republican shadow President.

He needs to stop being so stubborn.
 
2013-05-24 02:15:27 PM  

Serious Black: Just like invading Libya, the GOP makes their position the exact opposite of Obama's position.


One of my favorite greens:

New Gingrich two weeks ago: Obama should do something about Libya, I would. Newt today: Obama shouldn't have done anything about Libya, I know I wouldn't have
 
2013-05-24 02:17:38 PM  
Truly a tyrannical appeaser.
 
2013-05-24 02:18:19 PM  
 
2013-05-24 02:18:46 PM  
Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.
 
2013-05-24 02:20:40 PM  
Why do we keep negotiating with these domestic terrorists?
 
2013-05-24 02:21:23 PM  

Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?


They want to give Obama power and then attack him for having that power. They have done that very thing multiple times. They actually have attacked him for just having (not using) powers given to him by the AUMF that they gave to the executive branch themselves.
 
2013-05-24 02:21:35 PM  
McCain agreed.
"I believe we are still in a long drawn-out conflict with Al Qaeda. To somehow argue that Al Qaeda is ... on the run, comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible," he said.


To believe that having Sarah Palin as a running mate would attract disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible.

/To be fair, from what I heard, he wanted to pick Lieberman.
//Pancakes!
 
2013-05-24 02:23:12 PM  
Obamas trolling next week:
We have identified those people that have leaked National security secrets to our enemies. Heres a series of clips of Senator/Congressman GOP doing it on TV and other speech venues.
 
2013-05-24 02:23:34 PM  

vernonFL: Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.


Saying you won't do something is, frankly, not good enough. No one should be permitted to. When Obama leaves office, his replacement has the authority. There is your problem.

So, you can trust your guy and believe he's being sincere. But, the next guy may not be trustable or sincere.
 
2013-05-24 02:24:45 PM  

vernonFL: Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.


Just to be clear Obama said he would not use them unless there was some sort of direct threat and there wasn't really any other option. But yeah basically unless it was some crazy hypothetical circumstance.
 
2013-05-24 02:25:45 PM  
Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.
 
2013-05-24 02:26:49 PM  

Sgt Otter: Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.

Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.


None of these farkers are against drone strikes. They're just against Obama using drone strikes.
 
2013-05-24 02:28:27 PM  

coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.


What?

He is not against drone strikes. He just a piece of shiat who attacked Obama for drone strikes saying that Obama would not answer question that Obama had already answered and criticized for drone strikes that later he said he would do under more circumstances if he was commander in chief.

I had this about Rand Paul, many of his supporters actually have no idea what he actually stands for.
 
2013-05-24 02:28:50 PM  

Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.


Easily.

McCain is a tortured soul who absolutely worships militarism. He has no business in the senate and absolutely zero business as commander in chief.
 
2013-05-24 02:29:25 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Sgt Otter: Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.

Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

None of these farkers are against drone strikes. They're just against Obama using drone strikes.


They are just against it when the president is a Democrat or blah or something.
 
2013-05-24 02:30:30 PM  
Wait 'til they get to the part in the video where he says he's gonna close Gitmo...

www.uppitywis.org
 
2013-05-24 02:31:45 PM  

phenn: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Easily.

McCain is a tortured soul who absolutely worships militarism. He has no business in the senate and absolutely zero business as commander in chief.


Serious I think if McCain was president, and this is not hyperbole, that there would have been a good chance we would be having a "world war 3" now of battles in the middle east backed by super powers. He has basically said at one time or another we should have got more involved with almost every country having any strife in the middle east.
 
2013-05-24 02:32:44 PM  

phenn: vernonFL: Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.

Saying you won't do something is, frankly, not good enough. No one should be permitted to. When Obama leaves office, his replacement has the authority. There is your problem.

So, you can trust your guy and believe he's being sincere. But, the next guy may not be trustable or sincere.


If only Obama wanted to do away with that authority altogether. Oh wait, he does, as he stated yesterday in his speech.

HeartBurnKid: Sgt Otter: Car_Ramrod: coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.

Rand Paul is not against drone strikes.

Rand Paul is also not against drone strikes against U.S. citizens.

Rand Paul is not even against drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

None of these farkers are against drone strikes. They're just against Obama using drone strikes.


FTFY
 
2013-05-24 02:33:32 PM  
And if it were up to McCain, we'd probably be in Syria and Iran, definitely wouldn't be pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, He'd most likely be dead of a heart attack... so there there would be thousands more dead Americans and Sarah Palin holding the launch codes. Dammit I'm sorry I voted for that Kenyan Romulan socialist.
 
2013-05-24 02:33:43 PM  

Corvus: phenn: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Easily.

McCain is a tortured soul who absolutely worships militarism. He has no business in the senate and absolutely zero business as commander in chief.

Serious I think if McCain was president, and this is not hyperbole, that there would have been a good chance we would be having a "world war 3" now of battles in the middle east backed by super powers. He has basically said at one time or another we should have got more involved with almost every country having any strife in the middle east.


Bomb bomb bomb, bomb Iran.
 
2013-05-24 02:34:12 PM  
It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."
 
2013-05-24 02:34:14 PM  

Car_Ramrod: If only Obama wanted to do away with that authority altogether. Oh wait, he does, as he stated yesterday in his speech


Yes, I realize that. I'm agreeing with him on this.
 
2013-05-24 02:35:09 PM  

HighOnCraic: To believe that having Sarah Palin as a running mate would attract disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible.


One middle aged woman is as good as another, right?

I mean, women don't pay attention to issues and policy, they're just voting for the vagoo.
 
2013-05-24 02:35:23 PM  

Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."


I wonder what would happen if  Republican did an honest self-examination.
 
2013-05-24 02:35:35 PM  

phenn: Car_Ramrod: If only Obama wanted to do away with that authority altogether. Oh wait, he does, as he stated yesterday in his speech

Yes, I realize that. I'm agreeing with him on this.


*sulks away*
 
2013-05-24 02:37:52 PM  

Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."


I see so believing in limiting executive powers is evil when Obama does it. Got it.
 
2013-05-24 02:39:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: Truly a tyrannical appeaser.


Obama's a spineless bully
 
2013-05-24 02:39:39 PM  

Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."


Or "quit your biatching and do something if you really care"
 
2013-05-24 02:41:55 PM  

Notabunny: Fart_Machine: Truly a tyrannical appeaser.

Obama's a spineless bully


F@rtb0|\|Geau is a communist fascist atheist theocrat.
 
2013-05-24 02:44:01 PM  
I made this in 2008, when it was reported by the press that Obama didn't visit the troops in Germany (HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OUR WOUNDED TROOPS TO VISIT THEM)...

i301.photobucket.com

...but then it was revealed it was cancelled at the last minute, and he visited wounded troops at Walter Reed Medical Center just the month before (WHY IS EVERYTHING A PHOTO OP FOR THIS MAN?).

We get it. If he started walking on water, you'd accuse him of depriving life-guards of employment.
 
2013-05-24 02:46:37 PM  

Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009 2008.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?


I posted two links to their tactic above from 2008. WOW, they are sore losers.
 
2013-05-24 02:47:42 PM  

Jackpot777: We get it. If he started walking on water, you'd accuse him of depriving life-guards of employment.


I've been assured by hardcore Tea Partiers that this is simply not true. What IS true, however, is that Obama would only walk on water if it would advance his freedom-crushing ideology and satisfy his hedonistic drive.
 
2013-05-24 02:48:02 PM  

Jackpot777: Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009 2008.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

I posted two links to their tactic above from 2008. WOW, they are sore losers.


I almost posted 2007, but I couldn't remember if they were that rabid from the start, so I played the safe game. But point taken.
 
2013-05-24 02:52:06 PM  

sheep snorter: Obamas trolling next week:
We have identified those people that have leaked National security secrets to our enemies. Heres a series of clips of Senator/Congressman GOP doing it on TV and other speech venues.


Let's start with that traitor Issa, who kept on yammering about the CIA having a (not so much anymore) secret compound in the consulate in Benghazi.

Shut your pie-hole, you seditious wankstain.
 
2013-05-24 02:52:47 PM  
 

Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?


Here's the thing though - given that the Republicans are going to rant, rave, obstruct and refuse to compromise about anything Obama does, then they should no longer be a consideration in the direction he chooses to take on an issue and can't be used as an excuse when he fails to do the right thing.

As in: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops." Not good enough.

Frankly, it's got to the stage where constantly raising the GOP's behavior as mitigation just looks like defensive misdirection.
 
2013-05-24 02:55:45 PM  

Corvus: Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."

I see so believing in limiting executive powers is evil when Obama does it. Got it.


I don't think so. It was just weird is all.

Maybe he should wave a fully automatic rifle around the Capitol while pushing for sane gun laws.
 
2013-05-24 02:58:32 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

Here's the thing though - given that the Republicans are going to rant, rave, obstruct and refuse to compromise about anything Obama does, then they should no longer be a consideration in the direction he chooses to take on an issue and can't be used as an excuse when he fails to do the right thing.

As in: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops." Not good enough.

Frankly, it's got to the stage where constantly raising the GOP's behavior as mitigation just looks like defensive misdirection.


How about we stick to this topic. The AUMF. In order to prevent Obama and future presidents from acting unilaterally without much oversight, the AUMF should be repealed, yes? Obama agrees with this. He wants it gone. He said so last night. But he can't get rid of it without Congress, which, because of gerrymandering and filibustering, is under the guidance of the GOP. So in this instance, talking about the GOP's behavior is pretty apropos, don't you think?
 
2013-05-24 03:07:59 PM  

Corvus: They want to give Obama power and then attack him for having that power. They have done that very thing multiple times. They actually have attacked him for just having (not using) powers given to him by the AUMF that they gave to the executive branch themselves.


They haven't given Obama  any power. They've played with weasel words and monkeyed with legislation already on the book, to zero practical effect, then played it up as if Obama put a gun to their head and forced them to pass it.  Then, they attacked Obama for having power given to his predecessor.
 
2013-05-24 03:09:52 PM  

that bosnian sniper: They haven't given Obama  any power. They've played with weasel words and monkeyed with legislation already on the book, to zero practical effect, then played it up as if Obama put a gun to their head and forced them to pass it.  Then, they attacked Obama for having power given to his predecessor.


Hell, if anything they've  reduced Obama's power, since the 2012 NDAA was actually a  rollback of executive powers granted by the 2001 AUMF and later clarified by  Boumediene, Rasul, Hamdi,and  HamdanThen they played it up as some major power-grab by the Obama admin.
 
2013-05-24 03:13:44 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops."


NDAA is the name given to military appropriations bills - these bills pass Congress with majorities that are not only veto-proof but near-unanimous. I don't know what people think they mean when they say "Veto the NDAA", but whatever it is, there looks to be some distance between that and what it would entail in real life.
 
2013-05-24 03:16:23 PM  
So......Nothing has changed then.
 
2013-05-24 03:16:41 PM  

Car_Ramrod: And I've just finished my milk: Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

Here's the thing though - given that the Republicans are going to rant, rave, obstruct and refuse to compromise about anything Obama does, then they should no longer be a consideration in the direction he chooses to take on an issue and can't be used as an excuse when he fails to do the right thing.

As in: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops." Not good enough.

Frankly, it's got to the stage where constantly raising the GOP's behavior as mitigation just looks like defensive misdirection.

How about we stick to this topic. The AUMF. In order to prevent Obama and future presidents from acting unilaterally without much oversight, the AUMF should be repealed, yes? Obama agrees with this. He wants it gone. He said so last night. But he can't get rid of it without Congress, which, because of gerrymandering and filibustering, is under the guidance of the GOP. So in this instance, talking about the GOP's behavior is pretty apropos, don't you think?


He also said last night that he won't sign laws expanding the mandate of the AUMF, which is nice and all, but comes a little late after already signing the 2012 NDAA, which contained a clear expansion of the mandate for the AUMF.
 
2013-05-24 03:22:31 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: They want to give Obama power and then attack him for having that power. They have done that very thing multiple times. They actually have attacked him for just having (not using) powers given to him by the AUMF that they gave to the executive branch themselves.

They haven't given Obama  any power. They've played with weasel words and monkeyed with legislation already on the book, to zero practical effect, then played it up as if Obama put a gun to their head and forced them to pass it.  Then, they attacked Obama for having power given to his predecessor.


These powers were only intended for a legitimate President.
 
2013-05-24 03:23:12 PM  
Obama has a cure for cancer.

GOP reply; why does Obama hate oncologists?
 
2013-05-24 03:23:25 PM  
The president should hold a press conference to renounce his current policies which are obviously based on Islamo-Communist-Homosexual-Statist-Fascist-Race Mixing-Anarchy (his words, not mine) and announce fealty to the Tea Party.

For the lulz.
 
2013-05-24 03:23:42 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: He also said last night that he won't sign laws expanding the mandate of the AUMF, which is nice and all, but comes a little late after already signing the 2012 NDAA, which contained a clear expansion of the mandate for the AUMF.


Which was passed with a veto-proof majority.  So had he tried to veto it, all it would have done was delay it's going into effect.  Which would have drawn squeals of OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS because the NDAA funds the military.

Have some more milk.
 
2013-05-24 03:28:31 PM  
Seems like there is no limit to GOP indignation.

Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."


I didn't think it was possible for my opinion of you to sink any lower... I was wrong.
 
2013-05-24 03:34:08 PM  

Tor_Eckman: And I've just finished my milk: He also said last night that he won't sign laws expanding the mandate of the AUMF, which is nice and all, but comes a little late after already signing the 2012 NDAA, which contained a clear expansion of the mandate for the AUMF.

Which was passed with a veto-proof majority.  So had he tried to veto it, all it would have done was delay it's going into effect.  Which would have drawn squeals of OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS because the NDAA funds the military.

Have some more milk.


Had Obama shown a bit of leadership on the issue, things could have been different, but thanks for being a perfect example of my original point.
 
2013-05-24 03:36:51 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: Had Obama shown a bit of leadership on the issue, things could have been different, but thanks for being a perfect example of my original point.


HAHAHAHA! You think Republicans would do something President Obama asked them to do! THAT is hilarious.
 
2013-05-24 03:38:40 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: Car_Ramrod: And I've just finished my milk: Car_Ramrod: The GOP: Rabidly Anti-WhateverObamaIsCurrentlyDoing since 2009.

Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed? Are McCain and the rest worried that they'll have to actually make a decision at some point? Are they just scared they won't be able to be armchair quarterbacks any longer?

Here's the thing though - given that the Republicans are going to rant, rave, obstruct and refuse to compromise about anything Obama does, then they should no longer be a consideration in the direction he chooses to take on an issue and can't be used as an excuse when he fails to do the right thing.

As in: "Veto the NDAA - well he couldn't have done that or Republicans would have screamed about him not supporting the troops." Not good enough.

Frankly, it's got to the stage where constantly raising the GOP's behavior as mitigation just looks like defensive misdirection.

How about we stick to this topic. The AUMF. In order to prevent Obama and future presidents from acting unilaterally without much oversight, the AUMF should be repealed, yes? Obama agrees with this. He wants it gone. He said so last night. But he can't get rid of it without Congress, which, because of gerrymandering and filibustering, is under the guidance of the GOP. So in this instance, talking about the GOP's behavior is pretty apropos, don't you think?

He also said last night that he won't sign laws expanding the mandate of the AUMF, which is nice and all, but comes a little late after already signing the 2012 NDAA, which contained a clear expansion of the mandate for the AUMF.


So, no response as to whether the GOP is needed to act in order to repeal the AUMF? Is it not appropriate to have them in the discussion?

And I've just finished my milk: Tor_Eckman: And I've just finished my milk: He also said last night that he won't sign laws expanding the mandate of the AUMF, which is nice and all, but comes a little late after already signing the 2012 NDAA, which contained a clear expansion of the mandate for the AUMF.

Which was passed with a veto-proof majority.  So had he tried to veto it, all it would have done was delay it's going into effect.  Which would have drawn squeals of OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS because the NDAA funds the military.

Have some more milk.

Had Obama shown a bit of leadership on the issue, things could have been different, but thanks for being a perfect example of my original point.


Your original point is basically "people recognize the politics of reality".
 
2013-05-24 04:02:02 PM  

phenn: So, you can trust your guy and believe he's being sincere. But, the next guy may not be trustable or sincere.


That has been the biggest shift in government power in the last 100+ years.
For a while it was, "we dont want the president to have this power becuase someone we dont like may one day be president and abuse that power."
Today it is, "Shame on that other president for using this power.  Just wait until we are in office so we can REALLY use that power."
 
2013-05-24 04:04:34 PM  
 
2013-05-24 04:09:33 PM  

FatherChaos: "That's what our democracy demands."

America is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.


America is not a constitutional republic. America is a Constitutionally-limited democratically-elected federal bicameral presidential republic.

/i just went all pedant on your ass, biatch
 
2013-05-24 04:18:18 PM  
I love this:

"I believe we are still in a long drawn-out conflict with Al Qaeda. To somehow argue that Al Qaeda is ... on the run, comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible," he said, saying the terror network is "expanding" across the Middle East.  "To somehow think that we can bring the authorization of the use of military force to a complete closure contradicts reality of the facts on the ground," he said.

What he meant to say was "We don't make money from defense contracts during peace time.  Americans need to be convinced that there's a war on terror going so we can profit."

Here.  Numbers and stuff:

cdn1.globalissues.org
 
2013-05-24 04:22:09 PM  
In related news, the Republican chickenhawks were the ones complaining at the top of their lungs that the Obama administration wasn't involved enough in the civil war in Libya and didn't have an active enough presence on the ground there.  Then an ambassador gets killed and suddenly they reverse course, demanding to know why he was being put into such a dangerous situation.
 
2013-05-24 04:24:53 PM  

Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.


Besides a few standouts, who in congress or the white house doesn't want a perpetual war that requires no debate, or hell, even acknowledgement?
 
2013-05-24 04:26:47 PM  

Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."

I see so believing in limiting executive powers is evil when Obama does it. Got it.

I don't think so. It was just weird is all.

Maybe he should wave a fully automatic rifle around the Capitol while pushing for sane gun laws.


No I think it's weird Republicans going "We don't trust you Obama but instead of passing a law so you can't do what we say we don't want you to do we instead want to just criticize you for it." And it was a law that most of them passed in the first place and still support.

Isn't that more weird?
 
2013-05-24 04:28:29 PM  
The current GOP is what nearly 1/2 of U.S. citizens want for their representation.........we are farked.
 
2013-05-24 04:28:48 PM  

lockers: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Besides a few standouts, who in congress or the white house doesn't want a perpetual war that requires no debate, or hell, even acknowledgement?


Obama wants perpetual war? Is that why he pushed for Iraq and Afghanistan time frames and wants to get rid of gitmo? Wow he is doing a pretty bad job at it then. Because it would have been a lot easier for him not to be fighting for those things if that's what he wanted like you said.
 
2013-05-24 04:30:00 PM  

And I've just finished my milk: Tor_Eckman: And I've just finished my milk: He also said last night that he won't sign laws expanding the mandate of the AUMF, which is nice and all, but comes a little late after already signing the 2012 NDAA, which contained a clear expansion of the mandate for the AUMF.

Which was passed with a veto-proof majority.  So had he tried to veto it, all it would have done was delay it's going into effect.  Which would have drawn squeals of OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS because the NDAA funds the military.

Have some more milk.

Had Obama shown a bit of leadership on the issue, things could have been different, but thanks for being a perfect example of my original point.


"The number-one job is to make Obama a one-term president."- Mitch McConnell

That's what they did for four years, ignoring and fighting against every other topic. When that failed, they basically went completely insane. They're going to do as much damage as possible to America completely out of spite.

Republicans turn on their own if they show any niceness towards Obama and fight against their own policies and propositions if Obama agrees with them. I've lost count of how many times they propose something that Obama agrees to only to attack it and him as some new outrage.
 
2013-05-24 04:30:00 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: They want to give Obama power and then attack him for having that power. They have done that very thing multiple times. They actually have attacked him for just having (not using) powers given to him by the AUMF that they gave to the executive branch themselves.

They haven't given Obama  any power. They've played with weasel words and monkeyed with legislation already on the book, to zero practical effect, then played it up as if Obama put a gun to their head and forced them to pass it.  Then, they attacked Obama for having power given to his predecessor.


Yeah I meant "The executive branch" not Obama personally.
 
2013-05-24 04:33:56 PM  
You want me to repeal the law?
Yeah, sure.
Oh, I can't. Bazinga!
 
2013-05-24 04:35:54 PM  
Republicans use to have national defense as one of their core strengths. Now that Democrats are willing to slap other nations around, the GOP lost a big part of their identity so they're flailing around trying to find anything to get it back. They need authorization for drones but only when a Republican is president. It doesn't work out for them when a Democrat makes use of military power.
 
2013-05-24 04:39:48 PM  

Corvus: lockers: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Besides a few standouts, who in congress or the white house doesn't want a perpetual war that requires no debate, or hell, even acknowledgement?

Obama wants perpetual war? Is that why he pushed for Iraq and Afghanistan time frames and wants to get rid of gitmo? Wow he is doing a pretty bad job at it then. Because it would have been a lot easier for him not to be fighting for those things if that's what he wanted like you said.


No no no. Obama is one of those insignificant "few standouts" he mentioned. He wins no points with lockers for actually calling to end America's wars though.

I guess coz freedom or something.

Libertarians: I was told politicians, especially liberal politicians, only ever want to expand government power. But here's Obama calling for a very significant retraction of power from his own branch of government.

Because I take the ideological bullsh*t internet libertarians routinely spout seriously, I'm now experiencing cognitive dissonance. Please help me reconcile how politicians only ever want to expand government power, but the tyrant Barack Obama himself is now calling to retract it. Your espoused principle doesn't seem reconcilable with reality, and it's making my head hurt.
 
2013-05-24 04:40:00 PM  

FatherChaos: "That's what our democracy demands."

America is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.


Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive you stupid farkwit:

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally-either directly or through elected representatives-in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.

A republic is a form of government in which the country is a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers. In a republic, officers of state are appointed or elected rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch

I take it this is some stupid Republican talking point "America is a Republic not a Democracy so therefore everyone should vote for Republicans not Democrats"?
 
2013-05-24 04:43:02 PM  

wxboy: Obama should come out in favor of breathing.


Or against smashing your balls into a gooey paste with a meat tenderizer.
 
2013-05-24 04:45:51 PM  

FatherChaos: I love this:

"I believe we are still in a long drawn-out conflict with Al Qaeda. To somehow argue that Al Qaeda is ... on the run, comes from a degree of unreality that to me is really incredible," he said, saying the terror network is "expanding" across the Middle East.  "To somehow think that we can bring the authorization of the use of military force to a complete closure contradicts reality of the facts on the ground," he said.

What he meant to say was "We don't make money from defense contracts during peace time.  Americans need to be convinced that there's a war on terror going so we can profit."

Here.  Numbers and stuff:

[cdn1.globalissues.org image 551x556]


"And yeah, you, sorority girl. Just in case you accidentally wander into a voting booth one day, there's some things you should know, and one of them is, there's absolutely no evidence to support the statement that we're the greatest country in the world. We're 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, number 4 in labor force, and number 4 in exports. We lead the world in only 3 categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined. 25 of whom are allies." --  Will McAvoy, The Newsroom.
 
2013-05-24 04:54:03 PM  

Serious Black: FatherChaos: "That's what our democracy demands."

America is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.

America is not a constitutional republic. America is a Constitutionally-limited democratically-elected federal bicameral presidential republic.

/i just went all pedant on your ass, biatch


Yabut did you use a link from a conspiracy website?

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-05-24 04:55:42 PM  
So at what point do you cross the line from "freedom of the press" to going after damaging propaganda like Rupert Murdoch puts out?

Where does this become more than just speech we don't like hearing, but an outright threat to social progress?
 
2013-05-24 04:58:15 PM  

xria: FatherChaos: "That's what our democracy demands."

America is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive you stupid farkwit:

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally-either directly or through elected representatives-in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.

A republic is a form of government in which the country is a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers. In a republic, officers of state are appointed or elected rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch

I take it this is some stupid Republican talking point "America is a Republic not a Democracy so therefore everyone should vote for Republicans not Democrats"?


Actually, this tends to be more of the Libertarian-types who find deep meanings in admiralty flags and turns of phrases like "New World Order". To them, it's a shocking revelation that they think most people don't actually know and think make all the difference in the world.

/If I ever run for office, I'm using "New World Order" in at least one speech, preferably in relation to a sports franchise, just to see how the paranoiacs interpret it
 
2013-05-24 04:59:41 PM  

Corvus: lockers: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Besides a few standouts, who in congress or the white house doesn't want a perpetual war that requires no debate, or hell, even acknowledgement?

Obama wants perpetual war? Is that why he pushed for Iraq and Afghanistan time frames and wants to get rid of gitmo? Wow he is doing a pretty bad job at it then. Because it would have been a lot easier for him not to be fighting for those things if that's what he wanted like you said.


Has he given a time frame for when we should wind down the war on terror? I am pretty sure he pushed for support in Libya. I seem to recall him wanting to send troops, you know boots on the ground, to root out Koney. Just like every president reaching back through to at least reagan, they have all had pet conflicts.
 
2013-05-24 05:01:02 PM  

vygramul: Serious Black: FatherChaos: "That's what our democracy demands."

America is not a Democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic.

America is not a constitutional republic. America is a Constitutionally-limited democratically-elected federal bicameral presidential republic.

/i just went all pedant on your ass, biatch

Yabut did you use a link from a conspiracy website?

[www.bitlogic.com image 800x459]


Son of a biatch. I did not. I guess that means I lose. What's my punishment again? Shoving a carnivorous earwig into my brain?
 
2013-05-24 05:03:52 PM  

Serious Black: Son of a biatch. I did not. I guess that means I lose. What's my punishment again? Shoving a carnivorous earwig into my brain?


Nono... we're not barbarians. Just allow a couple of them to slowly dissolve under your tongue.
 
2013-05-24 05:04:23 PM  

coco ebert: Besides Rand Paul who in the GOP is against drone strikes (and that's only for American citizens)? It seems like it's one of the few Obama policies the GOP supports.


Ironic as Obama has been pretty clear that he doesn't support strikes against US citizens outside situations that fit within the legal definition (not an everyday language, vague definition) of imminent threat. Some dude who just knocked off a liquor store is NOT an imminent threat.
 
2013-05-24 05:04:46 PM  
Also, the AUMF is un-Constitutional as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was justified to use either our military force, or the UN's.
 
2013-05-24 05:05:36 PM  

bugontherug: Corvus: lockers: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Besides a few standouts, who in congress or the white house doesn't want a perpetual war that requires no debate, or hell, even acknowledgement?

Obama wants perpetual war? Is that why he pushed for Iraq and Afghanistan time frames and wants to get rid of gitmo? Wow he is doing a pretty bad job at it then. Because it would have been a lot easier for him not to be fighting for those things if that's what he wanted like you said.

No no no. Obama is one of those insignificant "few standouts" he mentioned. He wins no points with lockers for actually calling to end America's wars though.

I guess coz freedom or something.

Libertarians: I was told politicians, especially liberal politicians, only ever want to expand government power. But here's Obama calling for a very significant retraction of power from his own branch of government.

Because I take the ideological bullsh*t internet libertarians routinely spout seriously, I'm now experiencing cognitive dissonance. Please help me reconcile how politicians only ever want to expand government power, but the tyrant Barack Obama himself is now calling to retract it. Your espoused principle doesn't seem reconcilable with reality, and it's making my head hurt.


Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."
 
2013-05-24 05:09:38 PM  

lockers: Corvus: lockers: Corvus: Serious McCain thinks the US should be at a war footing forever. He does. I thank God we didn't make him president. He might have been worse than Bush.

Besides a few standouts, who in congress or the white house doesn't want a perpetual war that requires no debate, or hell, even acknowledgement?

Obama wants perpetual war? Is that why he pushed for Iraq and Afghanistan time frames and wants to get rid of gitmo? Wow he is doing a pretty bad job at it then. Because it would have been a lot easier for him not to be fighting for those things if that's what he wanted like you said.

Has he given a time frame for when we should wind down the war on terror? I am pretty sure he pushed for support in Libya. I seem to recall him wanting to send troops, you know boots on the ground, to root out Koney. Just like every president reaching back through to at least reagan, they have all had pet conflicts.


Or you're right he hasn't done EVERYTHING he can therefor he has done NOTHING and he wants it still going?

Obviously you haven't done EVERYTHING you can do to stop world slavery therefore you have done NOTHING and therefor you support world slavery and are trying to keep it going.

This is fun!
 
2013-05-24 05:10:58 PM  

lockers: Has he given a time frame for when we should wind down the war on terror?


Nope. can he? Can he unilaterally cancel the AUMF without congress?
 
2013-05-24 05:14:39 PM  

lockers: Has he given a time frame for when we should wind down the war on terror? I am pretty sure he pushed for support in Libya. I seem to recall him wanting to send troops, you know boots on the ground, to root out Koney. Just like every president reaching back through to at least reagan, they have all had pet conflicts.


I'm sorry do you think we are still fighting in Libya?

He wanted troops? Since we are not fighting there this is irrelevant in you argument that people want a war footing forever but do you have a citation for this?
 
2013-05-24 05:29:11 PM  

whidbey: Also, the AUMF is un-Constitutional as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was justified to use either our military force, or the UN's.


Afghanistan was certainly justified. Iraq, not so much.
 
2013-05-24 05:29:42 PM  
that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.
 
2013-05-24 05:31:35 PM  

Corvus: lockers: Has he given a time frame for when we should wind down the war on terror?

Nope. can he? Can he unilaterally cancel the AUMF without congress?


The best he can do is not act on it.
 
2013-05-24 05:33:02 PM  

relcec: that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.


It did and it didn't. The NDAA wording said something different and then said the changes do not expand the right to indefinite detention against citizens. I'm not sure how the Court would interpret that, but to pretend that clause doesn't exist is dishonest.
 
2013-05-24 05:38:23 PM  

vygramul: whidbey: Also, the AUMF is un-Constitutional as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was justified to use either our military force, or the UN's.

Afghanistan was certainly justified. Iraq, not so much.


We've been over this in god knows how many threads:

Finding Bin Laden might have been justified, using international pressure and above all, diplomacy.

But there was no justification in attacking Afghanistan. All we succeeded in doing is was providing a very expensive demonstration of pathetically wasteful military resources, and continuing to serve as an example of how the US really isn't interested in international law or any sort of collective world representation.

And I would have settled for 10 years of back and forth international diplomatic push and pull over the horribly failed conflict we initated. Bonus: we would have still found Bin Laden, and perhaps even in a shorter amount of time.
 
2013-05-24 05:41:21 PM  

relcec: that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.


[ha-ha.jpg]
 
2013-05-24 05:47:18 PM  

whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: Also, the AUMF is un-Constitutional as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was justified to use either our military force, or the UN's.

Afghanistan was certainly justified. Iraq, not so much.

We've been over this in god knows how many threads:

Finding Bin Laden might have been justified, using international pressure and above all, diplomacy.

But there was no justification in attacking Afghanistan. All we succeeded in doing is was providing a very expensive demonstration of pathetically wasteful military resources, and continuing to serve as an example of how the US really isn't interested in international law or any sort of collective world representation.

And I would have settled for 10 years of back and forth international diplomatic push and pull over the horribly failed conflict we initated. Bonus: we would have still found Bin Laden, and perhaps even in a shorter amount of time.


Whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things. I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.
 
2013-05-24 05:48:44 PM  

whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: Also, the AUMF is un-Constitutional as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was justified to use either our military force, or the UN's.

Afghanistan was certainly justified. Iraq, not so much.

We've been over this in god knows how many threads:

Finding Bin Laden might have been justified, using international pressure and above all, diplomacy.

But there was no justification in attacking Afghanistan. All we succeeded in doing is was providing a very expensive demonstration of pathetically wasteful military resources, and continuing to serve as an example of how the US really isn't interested in international law or any sort of collective world representation.

And I would have settled for 10 years of back and forth international diplomatic push and pull over the horribly failed conflict we initated. Bonus: we would have still found Bin Laden, and perhaps even in a shorter amount of time.


And I guess there should be some differentiation between Afghanistan and Iraq because one was agruably criminal.
 
2013-05-24 05:49:13 PM  

vygramul: It did and it didn't. The NDAA wording said something different and then said the changes do not expand the right to indefinite detention against citizens. I'm not sure how the Court would interpret that, but to pretend that clause doesn't exist is dishonest.


I'm pretty sure he thinks Obama raped his entire family to death, such is the irrational deep-seated hatred he has for the president. Or he's Darrel Issa 's FARK handle, whichever.
 
2013-05-24 05:54:01 PM  

ManRay: You want me to repeal the law?
Yeah, sure.
Oh, I can't. Bazinga!


More like:

Sheldon: It's dangerous for you to have such power, no one should have it.
Leonard: I agree, I'm actually able to do what I need to with more conventional tools if necessary.
Sheldon: Nope, we want that power the next time we're in power, so keeping that law we're criticizing you for. Bazinga!
 
2013-05-24 05:54:11 PM  

vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.



Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.
 
2013-05-24 06:02:32 PM  

Corvus: Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."

I see so believing in limiting executive powers is evil when Obama does it. Got it.

I don't think so. It was just weird is all.

Maybe he should wave a fully automatic rifle around the Capitol while pushing for sane gun laws.

No I think it's weird Republicans going "We don't trust you Obama but instead of passing a law so you can't do what we say we don't want you to do we instead want to just criticize you for it." And it was a law that most of them passed in the first place and still support.

Isn't that more weird?


Not really. Seems like business as usual.
 
2013-05-24 06:06:17 PM  

Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."


That will never stop being hilarious.
 
2013-05-24 06:06:41 PM  

Corvus: Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."


What are you on about? I am a democrat. Recognition of the fact that we are in one military action after another, without debate or vote, does not make me a fark independent. If Obama wasn't complicit, he certainly could do something about it, namely, stop starting new military adventurism.
 
2013-05-24 06:14:26 PM  
"But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.

Guantanamo bay is a military, not civilian, facility. If he can't close it as President why can't he close it as Commander in Chief?

/who is john galt?
 
2013-05-24 06:15:30 PM  

whidbey: vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.


Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.


That's not how it works. International law has long recognized that providing protection is choosing a side and therefore becoming a belligerent. Throughout history, for example, it was recognized that neutral ports could allow warships from countries at war, but could not let them stay indefinitely. They had to either expel the ship, impound it, or become a belligerent. Afghanistan, but not even trying to interfere with bin Laden but allowing him to operate from their territory is not magically immune from belligerency. They chose a side. If the U.S. were to allow British skinheads to come here and conduct raids into Mexico, the U.S. would be committing an act of war. If we weren't, we could make tons of money on white supremacist tourism as they come here, get armed by the border-state Tea Partiers, and get let loose into Mexico to beat up on the brown-skinned people and the U.S. would be totally immune to reprisals? Nonsense.
 
2013-05-24 06:16:23 PM  

DigitalCoffee: History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat


The War on Drugs=The DEA

We are talking about the AUMF. This is a completely separate issue.
 
2013-05-24 06:16:50 PM  

DigitalCoffee: "But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.

Guantanamo bay is a military, not civilian, facility. If he can't close it as President why can't he close it as Commander in Chief?

/who is john galt?


He can close it, but what can he do with the prisoners? Presidential Pardon? Maybe on his way out, if he wants a GOP president to follow him.
 
2013-05-24 06:25:31 PM  

vygramul: whidbey: vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.


Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.

That's not how it works. International law has long recognized that providing protection is choosing a side and therefore becoming a belligerent.,


That also does not justify attacking a country that didn't attack us. I mean, really, it's clear cut we took Internat ional Law to mean what we wanted it to mean.. Article 51 does not cover what we did.

Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed


Throughout history, for example, it was recognized that neutral ports could allow warships from countries at war, but could not let them stay indefinitely. They had to either expel the ship, impound it, or become a belligerent. Afghanistan, but not even trying to interfere with bin Laden but allowing him to operate from their territory is not magically immune from belligerency.

While there were intelligence reports that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, there was no due process other than the US announcing to the rest of the world that it was going to do what it wanted no matter what.

They chose a side. If the U.S. were to allow British skinheads to come here and conduct raids into Mexico, the U.S. would be committing an act of war. If we weren't, we could make tons of money on white supremacist tourism as they come here, get armed by the border-state Tea Partiers, and get let loose into Mexico to beat up on the brown-skinned people and the U.S. would be totally immune to reprisals? Nonsense.

They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses of action because of these accentuating circumstances.

Bush and Cheney both used the 9/11 attack as leverage to basically commit a war crime.

Again, this has been hashed out here over and over.
 
2013-05-24 06:53:35 PM  

gimmegimme: Cletus C.: It was surreal almost. Like Obama was saying "Stop me before I kill again."

I wonder what would happen if  Republican did an honest self-examination.


Unpossible. Violates at least *half* the laws of physics, and would cause the time-space continuum to collapse in upon itself from the massive contradictons involved in such an endeavour.
 
2013-05-24 06:59:57 PM  

whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: vygramul: whether something is WISE and whether something is justified under International Law are two distinct things.I might be convincable on the wisdom aspect, but as far as the legalities are concerned, this was pretty clear-cut.


Please. Afghanistan didn't attack us. And it was just as sovereign a country as Iraq. There was no justification to use force there.

That's not how it works. International law has long recognized that providing protection is choosing a side and therefore becoming a belligerent.,

That also does not justify attacking a country that didn't attack us. I mean, really, it's clear cut we took Internat ional Law to mean what we wanted it to mean.. Article 51 does not cover what we did.

Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed


Throughout history, for example, it was recognized that neutral ports could allow warships from countries at war, but could not let them stay indefinitely. They had to either expel the ship, impound it, or become a belligerent. Afghanistan, but not even trying to interfere with bin Laden but allowing him to operate from their territory is not magically immune from belligerency.

While there were intelligence reports that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, there was no due process other than the US announcing to the rest of the world that it was going to do what it wanted no matter what.

They chose a side. If the U.S. were to allow British skinheads to come here and conduct raids into Mexico, the U.S. would be committing an act of war. If we weren't, we could make tons of money on white supremacist tourism as they come here, get armed by the border-state Tea Partiers, and get let loose into Mexico to beat up on the brown-skinned people and the U.S. would be totally immune to reprisals? Nonsense.

They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses o ...


They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

It doesn't matter if it's been hashed over and over, the international law justifications are completely on the U.S.' side on that. Not even a question. For the same reason police can't ask you interrogate someone without mirandizing them and then use the evidence in court - you become an agent for the police. Al Qaeda became an agent of Afghanistan when they lent them protection. You can't offer to let Jeffrey Dahmer a place to crash and then tell police they can't come onto your property to get him because YOU didn't commit a crime. Not only will they come get him, they will then arrest YOU.
 
2013-05-24 07:05:18 PM  

DigitalCoffee: History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.


1) Do you get that the War on Drugs is a rhetorical flourish for aggressive law enforcement activity, while the the war on Al-Qaeda is an actual, lawfully declared war?

2) Do you understand the constitutional difference between a rhetorical flourish, and an actual, lawfully declared war?

3) Do you understand that by proposing to repeal the AUMF, Obama is talking about a massive reduction in the federal government's power?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," please explain. I'm eager to read.
 
2013-05-24 07:52:13 PM  

bugontherug: DigitalCoffee: History also advises, and democracy demands, the end of the War On DrugsTM, too. Which you talked about starting to do prior to your first term and then back-peddled very hard on once you got you ass in that seat.

1) Do you get that the War on Drugs is a rhetorical flourish for aggressive law enforcement activity, while the the war on Al-Qaeda is an actual, lawfully declared war?

2) Do you understand the constitutional difference between a rhetorical flourish, and an actual, lawfully declared war?

3) Do you understand that by proposing to repeal the AUMF, Obama is talking about a massive reduction in the federal government's power?

If the answer to any of these questions is "yes," please explain. I'm eager to read.


1. It's been called 'The War On Drugs' for quite a few decades now. And even been referred to as such by the President (and predecessors). A president that did state, prior to election, his intentions on lightening up on such 'war' once in office but then reneged on once elected. And your 'rhetorical flourish' applies just the same to ' War on Terror' as it does 'War on Drugs'.

2. As for your 'Lawfully Declared Wars'; No, they are (and were) not. Only Congress has the power to declare actual war and they did not. Neither in the case of Iraq nor in the case of Afghanistan. They were illegal police actions begun by the former president, his staff, and backed by members of his own party in congress.

3. I never stated that I was against the repeal of the AUMF. In fact, I never mentioned it at all in my post. But since you bring it up, YES I agree with the repeal. But that was not the point that I was trying to make. A point that you obviously missed as well.
 
2013-05-24 08:41:26 PM  
The most recent declaration of war, by the United States Congress,was on... June 5, 1942.
 
2013-05-24 10:32:00 PM  
Anyone who has been decrying the use of drones--for any reason, on either side of the aisle--should meet this call for the repeal of AUMF with cries of joy and dancing in the street. And anyone who has leveled criticism against Obama for the strikes and does NOT support  repeal of the AUMF should be instantly denounced as a hypocrite and rank political poseur of the lowest sort.

The only reason for drone strikes outside combat areas is the need implicit in the AUMF, which necessitates a "war on terror" and by implication, terrorists wherever they may be, including non-hostile countries who cannot or will not extradite suspect individuals or refuse to allow US forces to do the same. The only other way to eliminate such individuals is via drones. Repealing or revising the AUMF would obviate the need to go after such individuals, since they would no longer need to be classed as clear and present dangers to US interests needing military response.

It should be obvious to anyone with more than three brain cells that there is no ongoing organized terrorist threat; and any disorganized threat (like Boston and London) are more due to continued Western interference in the Middle East and NOT due to coordinated efforts by a monolithic "militant Islam" if there ever was one. Anyone opposed to dropping the war on terror may as well just admit that they like war, want to keep being at war, and love sending soldiers out to die because it's fun as long as it's not them. Stop pretending there is any other reason.
 
2013-05-24 10:49:31 PM  
Car_Ramrod:
New Gingrich two weeks ago: Obama should do something about Libya, I would. Newt today: Obama shouldn't have done anything about Libya, I know I wouldn't have

New Gingrich? :shudder:

Didn't we already learn our lesson with New Coke?
 
2013-05-24 11:00:30 PM  
Obama needs to come out as a rabid NASCAR fan, and proclaim his love for football and apple pie, just to watch the ensuing butthurt and the proclamations of these obviously socialist institutions that have wormed their way into America...
 
2013-05-24 11:06:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: there is no ongoing organized terrorist threat; and any disorganized threat (like Boston and London)


I think to be considered an "Act of Terror", the terrorist should at least have some stated demands. A mission statement if you will. Bin Laden plainly stated that 9/11 was about our meddling in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. Every single act of violence isn't automatically a terrorist attack, despite what the media says.
 
2013-05-24 11:19:57 PM  

Mugato: Gyrfalcon: there is no ongoing organized terrorist threat; and any disorganized threat (like Boston and London)

I think to be considered an "Act of Terror", the terrorist should at least have some stated demands. A mission statement if you will. Bin Laden plainly stated that 9/11 was about our meddling in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel. Every single act of violence isn't automatically a terrorist attack, despite what the media says.


I said that a couple days ago and was either loudly ignored or loudly shouted down by people who equate Muslim with terrorism. But yes, what happened in Boston and London should be considered crimes, not terrorism, no matter what the motives of their perpetrators were. It may be a wiggly line sometimes, but the line CAN, and should, be drawn.
 
2013-05-25 12:14:06 AM  
FTA: "And since it's widely believed that these would-be Medicaid recipients probably don't vote or, if they do vote, they vote for Democrats, there's no political price to pay for snubbing them."

This has got to be the saddest observation ever. "You don't vote for me, so I don't have to care if you die."
 
2013-05-25 12:31:07 AM  

relcec: that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.


Obama's signing statement "Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people."

Truly, history's greatest monster.
 
2013-05-25 01:42:43 AM  

lockers: Corvus: Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."

What are you on about? I am a democrat. Recognition of the fact that we are in one military action after another, without debate or vote, does not make me a fark independent. If Obama wasn't complicit, he certainly could do something about it, namely, stop starting new military adventurism.


So you are saying unless a president promises never to ever have a war under any circumstances then you are on a "permanent war footing"? That's bullshiat.
 
2013-05-25 01:44:56 AM  

lockers: Corvus: Right it's the libertarian "I only wish politicians would be for X" You point out democrats that are doing X and they do the "Well that doesn't count because they are Democrats so I am just going to fabricate some excuse to say it doesn't count."

What are you on about? I am a democrat. Recognition of the fact that we are in one military action after another, without debate or vote, does not make me a fark independent. If Obama wasn't complicit, he certainly could do something about it, namely, stop starting new military adventurism.


You should read this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/23/prepared-text-obamas-speech -o n-terrorism/

He was saying everything you seem to be complaining about but have not actually looked into what Obama has actually said.
 
2013-05-25 01:51:44 AM  

relcec: that explains why he had the NDAA expanded just a couple years ago so he could detain american citizens indefinetly.
just another in a long line of examples when he hopes you listen to his lies and ignore his actions like most of the idits on fark do.


Nope the AUMF allowed that under Bush. In fact the NDAA that was past the year you are talking specifically states it gives NO ADDITIONAL POWERS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. (I can tell you have never actually read it)

You have been duped.

Being able to hold American indefinitely happened under Obama? Maybe you should tell this guy that:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-25 02:09:54 AM  

Corvus: So you are saying unless a president promises never to ever have a war under any circumstances then you are on a "permanent war footing"? That's bullshiat.


Actually, we are and have been in a state of war/semi-war for a very long time. Turn of the last century we were involved in the Philippines, then WWI, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq 1, and now currently Iraq 2 and  Afghanistan. That doesn't count the Cold War, booting Noriega out of Panama, The Contra affair, The botched coup in Chile by the CIA, keeping select warlords armed in Africa, the bit with the Shah of Iran and the rise of Khomeini, and all the other dick waving we've done just in the past 113 years. The real bullshiat is our inability to come to terms with the fact that we are NOT a peaceful nation. Perhaps it's time that we did some serious naval gazing like Japan was forced to do after WW2 before someone manages to do their own version of Hiroshima on us.
 
2013-05-25 02:24:17 AM  

Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

That will never stop being hilarious.


Death penalty for petty robbery.. I really can't get behind that.
 
2013-05-25 02:36:13 AM  

vygramul: They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses o ...

They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."


Which again, does not justify any sort of attack. You're basically giving the US more power than any other nation on the planet. Why?

It doesn't matter if it's been hashed over and over, the international law justifications are completely on the U.S.' side on that. Not even a question.

Dude, bullshiat . There is more than just a "question" as to the nature of the very real war crimes that were committed against the Afghani people. I love it. The similarities which made Iraq a war crime are conveniently forgotten for what reason, now? Don't make me ask you to quote chapter and verse. You're making shiat up much in the same fashion the neocons did. Again, puzzling.


For the same reason police can't ask you interrogate someone without mirandizing them and then use the evidence in court - you become an agent for the police. Al Qaeda became an agent of Afghanistan when they lent them protection. You can't offer to let Jeffrey Dahmer a place to crash and then tell police they can't come onto your property to get him because YOU didn't commit a crime. Not only will they come get him, they will then arrest YOU.

Also, if you're going to pursue this line of reasoning? Find better examples. The skinhead one and this one sucks. :)

The two known uses of the AUMF are both un-Constitutional for the very specific reasons I mentioned. They are blatant violations right out of the book, practically verbatim.

And Obama bats a .1000 if he actually manages to get this alarming Constitutional by-pass repealed.
 
2013-05-25 02:49:04 AM  

whidbey:
Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed.


WTF is this historical revisionism!?
The UN Security Council unanimously voted for resolution 1386 in December 2001, authorizing force by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
 
2013-05-25 02:51:52 AM  

vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."


I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.
 
2013-05-25 03:05:40 AM  

Dansker: whidbey:
Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed.

WTF is this historical revisionism!?
The UN Security Council unanimously voted for resolution 1386 in December 2001, authorizing force by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter.


The resolution didn't authorize the invasion. It was enacted later as damage control for the US's "cowboy diplomacy."

As for the so-called international support, the truth is that the Bush administration used the 9/11 tragedy to allow for an attack on a sovereign nation that didn't attack us. The initial attacks were led by the US and England, much the same as Iraq.

The parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq are totally obvious. It's not a question of whether the act was wise, it's a statement that the act was criminal, and only served to further devastate an already socially-collapsed nation.

The proper thing to do would have been to keep a cool head and not call for meaningless action based on flimsy justification that wouldn't even hold up in court.
 
2013-05-25 03:47:30 AM  

whidbey: vygramul: They didn't "choose" anything. They were already a blown-out war-torn country. We only made it worse.

The right thing to do was pursue other courses o ...

They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

Which again, does not justify any sort of attack. You're basically giving the US more power than any other nation on the planet. Why?

It doesn't matter if it's been hashed over and over, the international law justifications are completely on the U.S.' side on that. Not even a question.

Dude, bullshiat . There is more than just a "question" as to the nature of the very real war crimes that were committed against the Afghani people. I love it. The similarities which made Iraq a war crime are conveniently forgotten for what reason, now? Don't make me ask you to quote chapter and verse. You're making shiat up much in the same fashion the neocons did. Again, puzzling.


For the same reason police can't ask you interrogate someone without mirandizing them and then use the evidence in court - you become an agent for the police. Al Qaeda became an agent of Afghanistan when they lent them protection. You can't offer to let Jeffrey Dahmer a place to crash and then tell police they can't come onto your property to get him because YOU didn't commit a crime. Not only will they come get him, they will then arrest YOU.

Also, if you're going to pursue this line of reasoning? Find better examples. The skinhead one and this one sucks. :)

The two known uses of the AUMF are both un-Constitutional for the very specific reasons I mentioned. They are blatant violations right out of the book, practically verbatim.

And Obama bats a .1000 if he actually manages to get this alarming Constitutional by-pass repealed.


I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong when it comes to International Law. To maintain neutrality, according to the Hague Convention, you must inter the non-wounded enemy forces until the end of hostilities. Failure to do so makes you a belligerent. Since Al Qaeda declared war, and since we delivered the ultimatum in accordance with the Hague Convention, Afghanistan had only one option to remain inviolate and they did not take it.

Feel free to peruse articles V and XIII to get the gist of what a neutral may or may not do, and article III for what International Law says about ultimata. (BTW: International Law gives fark all about what our internal mechanisms for DoW are.)

If the neocons were making that argument, then they were right.
 
2013-05-25 03:50:02 AM  

Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.


Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.
 
2013-05-25 03:50:12 AM  

whidbey: Dansker: whidbey:
Also, much like Iraq, no security council resolution to authorize force was passed.

WTF is this historical revisionism!?
The UN Security Council unanimously voted for resolution 1386 in December 2001, authorizing force by invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The resolution didn't authorize the invasion. It was enacted later as damage control for the US's "cowboy diplomacy."

As for the so-called international support, the truth is that the Bush administration used the 9/11 tragedy to allow for an attack on a sovereign nation that didn't attack us. The initial attacks were led by the US and England, much the same as Iraq.

The parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq are totally obvious. It's not a question of whether the act was wise, it's a statement that the act was criminal, and only served to further devastate an already socially-collapsed nation.

The proper thing to do would have been to keep a cool head and not call for meaningless action based on flimsy justification that wouldn't even hold up in court.


Yes, but see we had neo-cons running shiat back then and a population that wanted blood.  The VP being a former exec at the "only" contractor big enough to support our adventure certainly didn't hurt either.
 
2013-05-25 03:57:31 AM  

vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.

Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.


What does that have to do with anything I said?
 
2013-05-25 04:03:12 AM  

Alphax: vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.

Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.

What does that have to do with anything I said?


You added information, and I made the clarification that the additional details you provided do not impact the greater point under discussion.

That's what it has to do with what you said.
 
2013-05-25 04:09:55 AM  

vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: Alphax: vygramul: They did choose - when they said, "No, we won't hand him over, and no, you can't come after him."

I remember the Afghan government saying that the 9/11 attacks were a terrible crime, and if we provided proof that OBL was involved, they'd hand him over.  At that point, I fully expected the proof to be provided.. and was surprised when Bush got all ultimatumy instead.

Now, perhaps the Afghan government didn't have the ability to hand him over.. but they didn't seem that unwilling.

Since Al Qaeda had publicly declared war on the U.S., the issue of proof is irrelevant. They declared themselves belligerents. We declared ourselves belligerents. Afghanistan had no authority to act as arbiter. Their obligations were not to provide protection for one belligerent and deny access to the other.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

You added information, and I made the clarification that the additional details you provided do not impact the greater point under discussion.

That's what it has to do with what you said.


There's an obligation to defend someone who is considered your guest, an ancient tradition going back thousands of years.  Not always practiced anymore, and no doubt not considered part of international law, but there it is.
 
2013-05-25 04:12:13 AM  
But anyway, the larger point was that just a touch of patience/diplomacy, and either the Afghans would have either handed Bin Laden over.. or admitted that they couldn't find him to do so themselves.  Virtually every nation condemned the 9/11 attack.
 
2013-05-25 08:03:07 AM  
if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)
 
2013-05-25 10:26:34 AM  

Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)


Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?
 
2013-05-25 10:45:45 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?


It wasn't some dude. It was GOD. And God would, of course, come down as a cool kid. The Jews there only killed him because he was white, dontcha know?

/Moses was white. Didn't you see the Ten Commandments?
 
2013-05-25 12:08:26 PM  

Alphax: Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

That will never stop being hilarious.

Death penalty for petty robbery.. I really can't get behind that.


It's not even that. The funniest part is that he apparently "doesn't care" whether this suspected robber is killed by a policeman with (presumably) small arms fire, or with a drone shooting (presumably) a missile with a significantly larger damage radius.
 
2013-05-25 01:37:44 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?


no.  but i intend to start asking.  it'll be fun watching the look of confusion on their faces.   ((::
 
2013-05-25 01:38:34 PM  

vygramul: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?

It wasn't some dude. It was GOD. And God would, of course, come down as a cool kid. The Jews there only killed him because he was white, dontcha know?

/Moses was white. Didn't you see the Ten Commandments?



lol    Hollywood gets it 'right' every time.
 
2013-05-25 02:39:10 PM  

Biological Ali: Alphax: Biological Ali: Car_Ramrod: To be specific, here's Randy saying someone carrying cash, who is exercising their Second Amendment rights, can be drone-killed and he's totally fine with that:

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

That will never stop being hilarious.

Death penalty for petty robbery.. I really can't get behind that.

It's not even that. The funniest part is that he apparently "doesn't care" whether this suspected robber is killed by a policeman with (presumably) small arms fire, or with a drone shooting (presumably) a missile with a significantly larger damage radius.


Exactly!  I'm sure the liquor store owner (a small businessman/job creator!!!) would be very pleased with a drone strike that would incinerate the robber, the cash, and most of his liquor store.
 
2013-05-25 03:12:23 PM  

Linux_Yes: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Linux_Yes: if God was black, they'd be biatching about what God does.    (assuming God exists)

Ever ask a Christian why they believe a dude born in the Middle East 2100 years ago was white?

no.  but i intend to start asking.  it'll be fun watching the look of confusion on their faces.   ((::


Might also want to point out the popularity of names like Peter, Paul, Mary, Thomas, Simon, James, Andrew, etc among the Israelites/Arabs/Egyptians of 2100 years ago. And how they managed the miracle of spelling Joseph and Jesus despite Hebrew having no 'J'.

/if you're banking on a guy to save you from eternal torment you would think that getting his name right would be some kind of minimum requirement
 
2013-05-25 03:39:28 PM  
see, people? This is what happens when you go full retard.

At this point, we have the Greens (liberal), Democrats (conservative), and GOP (Retarded).
 
2013-05-25 04:52:43 PM  

vygramul: I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong when it comes to International Law. To maintain neutrality, according to the Hague Convention, you must inter the non-wounded enemy forces until the end of hostilities. Failure to do so makes you a belligerent. Since Al Qaeda declared war, and since we delivered the ultimatum in accordance with the Hague Convention, Afghanistan had only one option to remain inviolate and they did not take it.

Feel free to peruse articles V and XIII to get the gist of what a neutral may or may not do, and article III for what International Law says about ultimata. (BTW: International Law gives fark all about what our internal mechanisms for DoW are.)


Afghanistan did not declare war on us. And Al Qaeda was based out of Saudi Arabia.

The bottom line is there were too many accentuating circumstances to make attacking Afghanistan justified.

There were many other options the US had an obligation to pursue, and it took the militant route immediately, presuming guilt before any sort of investigation took place.

And again, there was no Security Council authorization to use force
Yes, under Article 51 there was right of reprisal, but the means to bring about that reprisal were based on unilateralism, not the representative spirit of the UN.

At this point, it's more amusing to me to note the dogpiling on Iraq for its violations and un-Constitutionalities, but still Afghanistan isn't called for being pretty much the same thing.

If the neocons were making that argument, then they were right.

ecx.images-amazon.com

Well that goes without saying. .
 
2013-05-25 09:30:34 PM  

wxboy: Obama should come out in favor of breathing.


It would spur shovel ready jobs. Literally.
 
2013-05-25 10:41:11 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 150 of 150 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report