President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[steveo777]

After watching the debate the other night, there is not one person there that I would personally vote for. That might be the only reason BO gets reelected. The only person I remotely like is Bachmann, but I'd have other uses for her.

[slucero]

Global warming (and everything else for that matter) is gonna be a big fat non-topic once the public finally gets is head around just how nasty the ramifications of the sovereign debt monster currently rearing is head in Europe really are...

When investors in Euro debt lose confidence (as in now) in the rapidly collapsing euro bond market they are going to quickly sell their holdings and move it to a less risky place... that place will be commodities (because yields on US paper are far too low).

The Fed's only hope is that the gold markets absorb this money instead of commodities, so food prices don't explode.

Get ready for inflation.

[S2M]

Ever notice(for those that actually do) that EVERY commercial on Fox News is for buying gold? Coincidence? Nope....

[slucero]

Ever notice(for those that actually do) that EVERY commercial on Fox News is for buying gold? Coincidence? Nope....

Those commercials crack me up.... but it makes sense...


Only a fool would buy ETF's. At this point physical is the only way to go.

[Monker]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Great quote but it's even better set in more context...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

You know, it's too bad the Republican party, and conservatives in general, did not live by those ideals after 9/11 when every time somebody critiqued the President over his decisions they were told how unpatriotic they were and they were so unAmerican that they should leave the country.

[slucero]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Great quote but it's even better set in more context...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

You know, it's too bad the Republican party, and conservatives in general, did not live by those ideals after 9/11 when every time somebody critiqued the President over his decisions they were told how unpatriotic they were and they were so unAmerican that they should leave the country.

Get a clue Monker..

Those ideals only apply to the "party in power".... that's how the Reps justified Iraq... and how the Dems justified Libya...

[conversationpc]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Great quote but it's even better set in more context...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

You know, it's too bad the Republican party, and conservatives in general, did not live by those ideals after 9/11 when every time somebody critiqued the President over his decisions they were told how unpatriotic they were and they were so unAmerican that they should leave the country.

Get a clue Monker..

Those ideals only apply to the "party in power".... that's how the Reps justified Iraq... and how the Dems justified Libya...

The difference is Monker doesn't care if the Dems are hypocrites.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Get a clue Monker..

Those ideals only apply to the "party in power".... that's how the Reps justified Iraq... and how the Dems justified Libya...

The difference is Monker doesn't care if the Dems are hypocrites.

I think most libs, like Monker and myself, are as strongly against Libya as they were Iraq. If anything, Obama's foreign policy has been to the right of Bush. Funny how some hawkish Conservatives, like Bachmann, are now trying to denounce it.

[AR]

Obama is at a basketball game 9 miles from my house right now at Towson University (I'm an alumni)

[slucero]

Get a clue Monker..

Those ideals only apply to the "party in power".... that's how the Reps justified Iraq... and how the Dems justified Libya...

The difference is Monker doesn't care if the Dems are hypocrites.

I think most libs, like Monker and myself, are as strongly against Libya as they were Iraq. If anything, Obama's foreign policy has been to the right of Bush. Funny how some hawkish Conservatives, like Bachmann, are now trying to denounce it.

Then we agree in that regard... although I'm more Lib-ertatian... in that I disliked both (Iraq and Libya) equally...

Monkers post was about his belief there is a double standard regarding patriotism. I agree, with the exception that both parties use it to their benefit...

[Monker]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Great quote but it's even better set in more context...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

You know, it's too bad the Republican party, and conservatives in general, did not live by those ideals after 9/11 when every time somebody critiqued the President over his decisions they were told how unpatriotic they were and they were so unAmerican that they should leave the country.

Get a clue Monker..

Those ideals only apply to the "party in power".... that's how the Reps justified Iraq... and how the Dems justified Libya...

The difference is Monker doesn't care if the Dems are hypocrites.

The difference is that after 9/11 most Republicans made the constant argument to not criticize Bush's decisions because it made him look 'weak' to our enemies and it emboldened them to possibly make another attack. It went beyond just Iraq, but that was certainly a part of it. What Bush and the Republicans did was just wrong. I have always believed that and I always will.

As for Libya...I do not recall a concentrated effort to make Obama impervious to critique by the party, and other liberals, constantly stating for 6yrs that in a time of 'war' that we can not afford to give the appearance of a weak President. I'm sure Fart Finder can't find some stinky quote or whatever...but what the Republicans did should be an embarrassment for the party.

Of course, that may be because Libya was over in a very short time, was a true international effort, had few American casualties, and ended with the death of a dictator in that very short period of time. Kind of hard to lay any critique on that outcome...very, very, very different then Iraq, or Afghanistan...where Bush wrapped himself in the flag, in a very cowardly way IMO, to protect himself from the criticism. Personally, I think Republicans are a bit jealous that Obama did in Libya what they and Bush failed to do in Iraq or Afghanistan. Chickenhawks are now proven to not be as good of military leaders as an Islamic Kenyan without a true birth certificate...and you guiys hate it.

So, IMO, and conservative or Republican to make such quotes is the height of hypocrisy.

[slucero]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

[Monker]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

[AR]

I despise all ass kissing politicians. Obama is no better or worse than any of them.

Don't blindly follow either of these fraudulent political parties.

[slucero]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

[Monker]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

[slucero]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

I'm not misdirecting anything...

You are calling out Republicans hypocrisy

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of BOTH parties...


The war powers Act was created to remind the President that only Congress can commit troops to armed conflict... specifically:

"...that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president DOES NOT have the right to deploy troops without Congress consent.

Both parties have argued FOR their President to have the right to commit armed forces, arguing pre-emption as their reason. It is still armed conflict, whether you like it or not.

Dems and Reps have always protected their President in power... for you to think otherwise is just plain fucking stupid.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Dems and Reps have always protected their President in power... for you to think otherwise is just plain fucking stupid.

Monker is right. In the wake of 9-11, everybody rallied around the flag and the shadow of McCarthy loomed large. There was an "us versus them" mentality that simply isn't as present under this administration. Monker isn't talking about your garden variety case of a party being loyal to its standard bearer.

[slucero]

Dems and Reps have always protected their President in power... for you to think otherwise is just plain fucking stupid.

Monker is right. In the wake of 9-11, everybody rallied around the flag and the shadow of McCarthy loomed large. There was an "us versus them" mentality that simply isn't as present under this administration. Monker isn't talking about your garden variety case of a party being loyal to its standard bearer.

...wait til this administration has it's own "rally round the flag" event... then we can compare...

[RedWingFan]

Dems and Reps have always protected their President in power... for you to think otherwise is just plain fucking stupid.

Monker is right. In the wake of 9-11, everybody rallied around the flag and the shadow of McCarthy loomed large. There was an "us versus them" mentality that simply isn't as present under this administration. Monker isn't talking about your garden variety case of a party being loyal to its standard bearer.

...wait til this administration has it's own "rally round the flag" event... then we can compare...

Does Venezuela's flag count?

[Monker]

Dems and Reps have always protected their President in power... for you to think otherwise is just plain fucking stupid.

Monker is right. In the wake of 9-11, everybody rallied around the flag and the shadow of McCarthy loomed large. There was an "us versus them" mentality that simply isn't as present under this administration. Monker isn't talking about your garden variety case of a party being loyal to its standard bearer.

...wait til this administration has it's own "rally round the flag" event... then we can compare...

Oh, please, from 9/11 on, that is all Bush did...and he would still be doing it today. That fact is that we were still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan when Obama took office and the Democrats have not used it as a political shield as Republicans did.

I pointed out the McCarthyism from the moment it started...not years later. If Obama and the Democrats were to do it, I'd say the same thing- because it is unAmerican and wrong.

[Monker]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

I'm not misdirecting anything...

You are calling out Republicans hypocrisy

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of BOTH parties...


The war powers Act was created to remind the President that only Congress can commit troops to armed conflict... specifically:

"...that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president DOES NOT have the right to deploy troops without Congress consent.

Then it is unConstitutional and should be ignored by all Presidents and force congress to take it to court. The President is commander of our armed forces, not the congress, he should not...and does not, have to ask permission first.

[slucero]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

I'm not misdirecting anything...

You are calling out Republicans hypocrisy

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of BOTH parties...


The war powers Act was created to remind the President that only Congress can commit troops to armed conflict... specifically:

"...that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president DOES NOT have the right to deploy troops without Congress consent.

Then it is unConstitutional and should be ignored by all Presidents and force congress to take it to court. The President is commander of our armed forces, not the congress, he should not...and does not, have to ask permission first.

Congress makes the laws, not the President... and the The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law, passed by two-thirds of Congress:

• Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)
• Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 ()
• Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20 ) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)
• Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973
• Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
• Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18 )

Yer entitled to your opinion... but you're wrong. It hasn't been repealed or ruled unconstitutional... therefore it's LAW.

[Ehwmatt]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

I'm not misdirecting anything...

You are calling out Republicans hypocrisy

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of BOTH parties...


The war powers Act was created to remind the President that only Congress can commit troops to armed conflict... specifically:

"...that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president DOES NOT have the right to deploy troops without Congress consent.

Then it is unConstitutional and should be ignored by all Presidents and force congress to take it to court. The President is commander of our armed forces, not the congress, he should not...and does not, have to ask permission first.

Congress makes the laws, not the President... and the The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law, passed by two-thirds of Congress:

• Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)
• Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 ()
• Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20 ) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)
• Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973
• Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
• Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18 )

Yer entitled to your opinion... but you're wrong. It hasn't been repealed or ruled unconstitutional... therefore it's LAW.

The War Powers Resolution is of dubious constitutionality, but the Supreme Court has never had the chance to rule squarely on the issue.

Of course, any student of high school-level US government knows that Congress has the exclusive power to declare war, enumerated in Art. I § 8 of the Constitution.

That same student also knows that the President is explicitly authorized to be the "Commander in Chief" under Art. II, § 2 of the Constitution.

The rub is this: under current constitutional law (from the US Supreme Court), the president has "broad inherent powers" in the foreign policy arena. As recent history shows (Clinton, Bush, and Obama administration actions), there is a LOT of gray area between deploying troops for various reasons (many of which could legitimately be seen as the president exercising his broad inherent power in the foreign affairs arena) and formally declaring war, a power specifically vested with Congress. The fact that the Constitution only gave Congress the power to declare war and ratify treaties, but vested broad commander in chief powers to the president is pretty strong evidence (and the Supreme Court and liberal and conservative constitutional law scholars will back me here) that the president's powers as commander in chief can't be curtailed too broadly via legislative action.

So, this law could very well be held unconstitutional AS APPLIED (meaning it might not be invalidated altogether) to certain presidential actions involving troop deployment and other war-related foreign affairs because it impedes on the president's long-recognized broad inherent foreign powers as commander in chief and thus violates the bedrock separation of powers principle.

To illustrate these broad foreign powers by way of analogy, the president can enter "executive agreements" with other heads of state. These agreements can achieve all that a treaty can, and the senate need not ratify it (even though the Treaty Clause in Art. II requires 2/3rds of the senate to ratify treaties). Yet, the Court has upheld every executive agreement ever subjected to a challenge under the Treaty Clause (i.e., that the president unilaterally executed it, rather than having the senate ratify it as a treaty) based on the president's broad foreign powers as commander in chief. Thus, it stands to reason that many military acts ordered by the president would be upheld on the same theory.

Before declaring it to be a mighty, inviolable "law" merely because it hasn't yet been repealed or held unconstitutional, you might want to ask yourself why interested government members haven't challenged certain presidential actions under the law? My sense is that seasoned constitutional lawyers advising the government have concluded that a challenge to certain presidential actions might be politically unsavvy, and very much just as legally unsavvy (i.e., leading to an ultimate judgment that it's unconstitutional).

[Monker]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

I'm not misdirecting anything...

You are calling out Republicans hypocrisy

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of BOTH parties...


The war powers Act was created to remind the President that only Congress can commit troops to armed conflict... specifically:

"...that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president DOES NOT have the right to deploy troops without Congress consent.

Then it is unConstitutional and should be ignored by all Presidents and force congress to take it to court. The President is commander of our armed forces, not the congress, he should not...and does not, have to ask permission first.

Congress makes the laws, not the President... and the The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law, passed by two-thirds of Congress:

• Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)
• Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 ()
• Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20 ) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)
• Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973
• Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
• Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18 )

Yer entitled to your opinion... but you're wrong. It hasn't been repealed or ruled unconstitutional... therefore it's LAW.

And, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law as Constitutional or not. Therefore, the President can force the issue by ignoring it. Get over it, that's the way the country works...not just with this, but many other 'laws' that congress passes.

[S2M]

[slucero]

Wow.... the Fed has gone full retard... now bailing out Europe...

[slucero]

Clinton, Bush and Obama... have all violated the War Powers Act... there's your "hypocrisy", hell call it "patriotic hypocrisy".

I don't care what you call that. It has nothing to do with what I posted.

uhuh... you keep focusing on the micro, irrelevant shit then...

No, you are using misdirection to move away from what I was talking about. My posts were focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans and conservatives quoting things that the President is not above critique...but when their guy was in power, we all CONSTANTLY heard why he should not be critiqued. Whether you like it or not, that is not happening on the Democratic side.

I do not know the specific wording of the War Powers Act...and please don't link me to it make huge quotes because I really don't care to read it. But, the President is also the highest in command in the armed forces and it is his right to deploy and use those forces how he chooses. He can not declare war, congress does that. The War Powers Act was created to avoid 'undeclared' wars, such as Vietnam. I would argue that neither Libya nor anything that Clinton did was an 'undeclared war', but the President acting as a commander of our forces. Iraq was a war, but congress voted to support it...effectively putting aside the War Powers Act. The only incident that I can think of that may be a violation would be Bush and the first Iraq war...or maybe Afghanistan...I don't know if congress voted on those wars.

The War Powers Act, IMO, has become nothing but a political tool for one side or the other to vent their dissent of any military action the President takes. It has become pretty meaningless because of that.

I'm not misdirecting anything...

You are calling out Republicans hypocrisy

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of BOTH parties...


The war powers Act was created to remind the President that only Congress can commit troops to armed conflict... specifically:

"...that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The president DOES NOT have the right to deploy troops without Congress consent.

Then it is unConstitutional and should be ignored by all Presidents and force congress to take it to court. The President is commander of our armed forces, not the congress, he should not...and does not, have to ask permission first.

Congress makes the laws, not the President... and the The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law, passed by two-thirds of Congress:

• Passed the House on July 18, 1973 (244–170)
• Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 ()
• Reported by the joint conference committee on October 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20 ) and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–123)
• Vetoed by President Richard Nixon on October 24, 1973
• Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
• Overridden by the Senate and became law on November 7, 1973 (75–18 )

Yer entitled to your opinion... but you're wrong. It hasn't been repealed or ruled unconstitutional... therefore it's LAW.

And, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law as Constitutional or not. Therefore, the President can force the issue by ignoring it. Get over it, that's the way the country works...not just with this, but many other 'laws' that congress passes.

Absolutely... the President can force the issue of any law he disagrees with, by ignoring it... the same way any criminal does when they ignore the law...

but the president is not a king... and does not have the simple right to commit armed forces at his whim... which is the root of the Founders reason for the language in the Constitution regarding who could commit armed forces to action. The War Powers Act clarified that somewhat, but it is still "law"... so ignoring it and breaking it are still illegal...

[S2M]

[Monker]

Absolutely... the President can force the issue of any law he disagrees with, by ignoring it... the same way any criminal does when they ignore the law...

but the president is not a king... and does not have the simple right to commit armed forces at his whim... which is the root of the Founders reason for the language in the Constitution regarding who could commit armed forces to action. The War Powers Act clarified that somewhat, but it is still "law"... so ignoring it and breaking it are still illegal...

If you want to test if a law is Constitutional, you absolutely can ignore it, be arrested - and take it to court and argue against the Constitutionality of it...and then Judiciary can either agree and back the Constitution, or disagree and the law stands you accept your punishment, or whine some more about it.

But, yours is a bullshit comparison anyway.

The President is not a King who can declare war. And, the congress is not in command of our armed forces...and he DOES have the ability to order our forces to go anywhere he chooses. To argue against that is to argue against 200yrs of American history of unquestionable FACT.

What you quoted from the War Powers act is Uncostitutional...and that is most likely why congress has never seriously challenged any of the actions of a President since it was put into law...they would be foolish to do it. It's nothing more then a political tool for whiners against the sitting President.