dipsydoodle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Mar-28-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
| -Obama is NOT explaining how the actions in Libya are constitutional, he's just telling us what we |
FLAprogressive |
Mar-28-11 06:39 PM |
#0 |
 -
Deleted sub-thread |
Name removed |
Mar-28-11 06:40 PM |
#1 |
| -
I gave up watching |
dipsydoodle |
Mar-28-11 06:43 PM |
#2 |
 -
Really you should. It's amazing watching someone talk about human rights |
Catherina |
Mar-28-11 06:51 PM |
#12 |
| -
Peace. |
dipsydoodle |
Mar-28-11 06:52 PM |
#13 |
 -
and codifying gross violations of human rights domestically. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-28-11 07:02 PM |
#17 |
| -
All politicians are actors. Get with the program. |
deaniac21 |
Mar-28-11 06:58 PM |
#16 |
| -
Is there a membership fee for "the program"? A Kool-Aid party maybe? |
StarburstClock |
Mar-29-11 07:00 PM |
#52 |
| -
It's been explained many times why it is Constitutional. |
NYC Liberal |
Mar-28-11 06:44 PM |
#3 |
| -
And how is it constitutional? |
FLAprogressive |
Mar-28-11 06:46 PM |
#4 |
| -
Here: |
NYC Liberal |
Mar-28-11 06:56 PM |
#15 |
| -
The UN Charter does not require all UN members to go to war if the UNSC does something... |
FLAprogressive |
Mar-28-11 07:02 PM |
#19 |
| -
And we pause for a few democratic words... |
pacalo |
Mar-28-11 07:22 PM |
#30 |
| -
Absolutely wrong; that poster has been conclusively disproven on this by me |
PurityOfEssence |
Mar-29-11 01:01 AM |
#46 |
| -
Same here, the poster has an agenda |
StarburstClock |
Mar-29-11 07:03 PM |
#53 |
| -
Bingo! The speech was for those that don't pay rapt attention. |
PufPuf23 |
Mar-28-11 07:05 PM |
#22 |
| -
Good thing that's not what this was. nt |
NYC Liberal |
Mar-28-11 07:10 PM |
#26 |
| -
Then what was the screed about and what is violence in Libya about? |
PufPuf23 |
Mar-28-11 08:07 PM |
#36 |
| -
So you deny the very real humanitarian crisis in Libya, |
NYC Liberal |
Mar-28-11 08:38 PM |
#37 |
| -
No I think the violent and dishonest overly violent intervention |
PufPuf23 |
Mar-29-11 12:14 AM |
#44 |
| -
It is definitely not constitutional. |
H2O Man |
Mar-28-11 07:10 PM |
#25 |
| -
And every time it's completely wrong; it is an unconstitutional act |
PurityOfEssence |
Mar-29-11 12:47 AM |
#45 |
| -
He's explaining how me met our obligations to the treaty we have |
Skidmore |
Mar-28-11 06:46 PM |
#5 |
| -
NATO treaties to do not supersede U.S. law. |
FLAprogressive |
Mar-28-11 06:46 PM |
#6 |
| -
Treaties are law,... |
Skidmore |
Mar-28-11 06:49 PM |
#10 |
| -
US Constitution trumps laws and treaties. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-28-11 07:04 PM |
#21 |
| -
in 1798 we fought an undeclared naval war with france |
qazplm |
Mar-28-11 07:39 PM |
#34 |
| -
Jefferson made it clear that his initial actions were limited |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-29-11 06:14 AM |
#49 |
| -
what are you talking about, ratified treaties are law |
qazplm |
Mar-28-11 07:35 PM |
#32 |
| -
"We had a unique ability to stop that violence" We also had the unique ability to stop |
Exilednight |
Mar-28-11 06:47 PM |
#7 |
| -
Obama's gettin' his war on, and those of us who don't like it should STFU |
ixion |
Mar-28-11 06:47 PM |
#8 |
| -
Why should he? This issue was decided 40 years ago. n/t |
pnwmom |
Mar-28-11 06:49 PM |
#9 |
| -
Mr. Constitution, he dead. |
Karmadillo |
Mar-28-11 06:50 PM |
#11 |
| -
How and why are so many people here ignorant of the War Powers act? |
killbotfactory |
Mar-28-11 06:55 PM |
#14 |
| -
The War Powers Act only covers war w/o congressional approval if the US is under attack/threat |
FLAprogressive |
Mar-28-11 07:04 PM |
#20 |
| -
Apparently you were nodding off. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-28-11 07:09 PM |
#23 |
| -
Every president since that became law has used military force without complying to that criteria |
killbotfactory |
Mar-28-11 07:25 PM |
#31 |
| -
Absolutely correct. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-28-11 09:36 PM |
#38 |
| -
Apparently, it's not perfectly clear |
killbotfactory |
Mar-28-11 10:18 PM |
#39 |
| -
So again, your point in bringing it up was? |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-29-11 06:06 AM |
#48 |
| -
specific statutory authorization + ratified treaty = UN/NATO military action |
joshcryer |
Mar-28-11 10:23 PM |
#40 |
| -
There is no specific 'go blow up Libya' statute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-29-11 06:01 AM |
#47 |
| -
Nice try |
Stinky The Clown |
Mar-28-11 07:10 PM |
#24 |
| -
Why explain something that is obvious? |
ReturnoftheDjedi |
Mar-28-11 07:02 PM |
#18 |
| -
Really? |
Marr |
Mar-28-11 07:35 PM |
#33 |
| -
At least the exit strategy was clearly defined.... |
Gravel Democrat |
Mar-28-11 07:11 PM |
#27 |
| -
& no explanation of which US security interests were threatened enough to necessitate intervention |
Catherina |
Mar-28-11 07:17 PM |
#29 |
| -
Where, where? I missed that part. |
sad sally |
Mar-28-11 07:39 PM |
#35 |
| -
Recommended. |
H2O Man |
Mar-28-11 07:12 PM |
#28 |
| -
knr nt |
slipslidingaway |
Mar-28-11 11:21 PM |
#41 |
| -
We are acting on behalf of the UN, per the UN charter a treaty we signed |
RB TexLa |
Mar-28-11 11:33 PM |
#42 |
| -
So all UN members are bombing Libya now? Per treaty charter? |
Bluebear |
Mar-29-11 12:11 AM |
#43 |
| -
no but if they keep repeating this talking point dullards will be convinced. |
Warren Stupidity |
Mar-29-11 07:18 AM |
#50 |
| -
Not all have the resources and some are not in the majority on the issue |
RB TexLa |
Mar-29-11 06:56 PM |
#51 |
| -
Silly arguments about international laws and rights of civilians, DOH! |
StarburstClock |
Mar-29-11 07:10 PM |
#55 |
| -
Hard to understand about what? Could you start over? |
StarburstClock |
Mar-29-11 07:08 PM |
#54 |
| -
Thank you. |
Bluebear |
Mar-29-11 08:26 PM |
#57 |
| -
I suppose he could explain that if something that is unconstitutional is done often enough |
F Bastiat |
Mar-29-11 07:52 PM |
#56 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
