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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed?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.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

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