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 49
    More: Stupid, President Obama, GOP, Republican, John McCain, warrantless wiretapping  
•       •       •

2310 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-24 02:21:23 PM
4 votes:

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Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed?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 01:21:16 PM
3 votes:
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Is there any reason we cannot continue to combat terrorists if the AUMF is repealed?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 10:32:00 PM
2 votes:
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 04:40:00 PM
2 votes:

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 04:30:00 PM
2 votes:

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 04:28:29 PM
2 votes:
The current GOP is what nearly 1/2 of U.S. citizens want for their representation.........we are farked.
2013-05-24 03:28:31 PM
2 votes:
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 03:23:42 PM
2 votes:

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 02:52:06 PM
2 votes:

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 02:28:50 PM
2 votes:

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 02:20:40 PM
2 votes:
Why do we keep negotiating with these domestic terrorists?
2013-05-24 02:18:46 PM
2 votes:
Obama said that he would never use armed drones on American soil.

Republicans WOULD use armed drones on American soil.
2013-05-24 02:11:42 PM
2 votes:
Just like invading Libya, the GOP makes their position the exact opposite of Obama's position.
2013-05-24 01:53:53 PM
2 votes:
Obama should come out in favor of breathing.
2013-05-25 12:14:06 AM
1 votes:
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."
2013-05-24 11:19:57 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-24 11:06:52 PM
1 votes:

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 06:25:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:54:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:38:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:04:46 PM
1 votes:
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 04:55:42 PM
1 votes:
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 04:43:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:35:54 PM
1 votes:
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 04:26:47 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:09 PM
1 votes:
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 04:09:33 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:36:51 PM
1 votes:

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 03:23:12 PM
1 votes:
Obama has a cure for cancer.

GOP reply; why does Obama hate oncologists?
2013-05-24 03:13:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:09:52 PM
1 votes:

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 03:07:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:39 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:32 PM
1 votes:
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 02:32:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:49 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:45 PM
1 votes:
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 02:23:12 PM
1 votes:
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 02:15:16 PM
1 votes:
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 02:14:57 PM
1 votes:
img267.imageshack.us
2013-05-24 02:14:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:42 PM
1 votes:

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 01:56:19 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:46 PM
1 votes:
Barack Obama - The most tyrannical and uncompromising empty suit that is soft on defense.
2013-05-24 01:43:25 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report