U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: President Obama Goes to War - Without Congress
Source:
American Thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog ... dent_obama_goes_to_war_wi.html
Published: Mar 20, 2011
Author: Wesley Clark, MD
Post Date: 2011-03-20 16:49:31 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 117598
Comments: 105
Regardless of one's inclination toward the "freedom fighters" and the "monster" in Libya, or the wisdom of United States military intervention, there are certain formalities that are required, and that President Obama and his administration, including Secretary of State Clinton, appear determined to ignore, in violation of both the Constitution and United States Law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that it is the Congress that has the power to declare war. United States Code (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548), the War Powers Act, specifically states that the president may undertake the use of military force only in the case of "... a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." It further states that the President must consult with Congress, "...in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities ..." Membership in the United Nations does not grant the Security Council the authority to order U.S. forces into action, and being the President does not permit Obama to violate the Constitution and the Law, to commit an act of war without the authorization of the People, through their Congress.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: We The People (#0)
. and not a FUCKING word from so the called CONSTITUTIONAL and TRADITIONAL "CONSERVATIVES" meme here. Ah yes. Affectation as opposed to natural honesty. Bullshit is the language. Self is the true cause. "Send lawyers guns and money, the sh!t has hit the fan!"
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this. The only outrage I've heard has come from Democrats, unless I've just missed it.
Most of the mainstream republican neocon liberal bushbots, are lost in the fog of warmongering, aka "spreading democracy". A few conservative RINO's like Ron Paul have spoken out against the unwarranted aggression against Libya by hObama.
I recall a re-run of MASH I saw where this uber right winger named Colonel Flagg... Ah yes. Yeah,there has been considerably more than ONE word said about it by the conservatives here. I know because I am one of them. Speaking of hypocrisy though,I don't remember seeing YOU complaining when it was Boy Jorge doing this Does that mean it is ok when RINO's do it,but un-Constitutional when their twin brothers in the Dim Party do it?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I'm not. There are no conservatives left in the RINO Party. Or at least none with enough party influence to be allowed to speak and be heard. How far has the alleged Republican Party fallen when the leftist Dims show more character than they do?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs Congressional approval.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
. As usual, you mentally defective fuckwad you have it wrong. The difference here between the ebil BOOSH and messiah king obammy is that "the ebil BOOSH" GOT "permission" from both the US CONgress AND the UN, for his little "WARS" you libTURD fraud. It means that it's "OK" to go to WAR, as the US President, when you have the PERMISSION of the US CONgress before hand, just like "required" in the US CONSTITUTION and the so called "WAR powers act", you gibbering ignotrant asshole. But the objective truth means nothing to mentally defective libTURD frauds like you does it little "man"? You pitiful fuckwad.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
you gibbering ignotrant asshole LOL! THAT kinda takes the sting of it out doesn't it? Lol!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Did your meds run out,or did the doc just kill your prescription?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
He's just showing his allegiance to Moyshe.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
Calm down people, it's not a war. It's a kinetic military action.
This Conservative has a huge problem with whats happening here.
Atascadero sure has a large number of idiots (laughing my ass off)
. What's the matter little "man"? Things not working out like you had planned moron? You accused me of being a HYPOCRITE and when I showed you in FACT that I was not. That "the ebil BOOSH" followed ALL US LAWS and even the UN's "laws" for his actions UNLIKE your messiah king obammy has done with Libiya. THEN you TRY to accuse me of drug use, or lack of medication. LMAO! You are a feeble little moron petey. I enjoy bitch slapping you down with the FACTS. It NEVER gets old! Although you really present zero of an intellectual challenge, you pitiful FRAUD fuck. Pointing at YOU MORON, laughing my ass off at you MORON! LOL!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
This Conservative has a huge problem with whats happening here. Maybe that "conservative" finished grade school and can speak basic english? NO "conservative" at this site, had made a peep on this thread, about this, until I had made my comment. That was THEN. NOW there are voices, including the main fraud CONservatives, whining about ME and MY comment. Which was TRUE upon inspection when I had made it. "All HAIL the messiah king obammy!" "Useful idiots UNITE!"
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
Even followed the UN Laws! You must be soooo PROUD of him/her/it/whatever,Princess! BTW,didn't "The Black Bush of the Bush Crime Family",Obama,follow those same laws?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
I that says more about the site than Conservatives, MD. I just opened the thread and noted your remark.
Atascadero sure has a large number of idiots (laughing my ass off)
LOL!~ You feeble little cunt. You TRIED to claim that the ebil BOOSH had acted in the exact same way as your messiah king obammy had you gibbering little MORON. I merely told you the FACTS, the FACTS which proved you WRONG, you simpering little cunt. I made no comment on the validity of those moves you gibbering little cock sucker. You can't even read and understand basic english you miserable FRAUD. YOUR play book IS the libTURD play book FRAUD. YOU ARE A FRAUD little "man". You suck the messiah king obammy's dick and asshole. While bleating about de ebil BOOSH. You aren't a CONSERVATIVE, you aren't a MAN. Eat shit and die, you little simpering MORON libTURD fraud. You pitiful little bitch.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
I sure see your point. I didn't mean to unload on you. I was just defending the truth of what I had said at the time. This site and others are infested by FRAUDS who pretend to be CONSERVATIVES such as little "man" petey. It's always somebody else's fault, (except any libTURD of course), to these FRAUDS. I was not including you with these FRAUD vermin. My apologies if it came out that way.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
I didn't take it personally. The bottom line is Democrats wanted to impeach Bush AFTER he gained Congressional authorization for Iraq. Biden said if he didn't, he'd author the impeachment himself. Owe-bama claimed any military action without Congressional approval was 'Unconstitutional'. Every media outlet parrotted the same theme when Bush was POTUS. Today? They pretend they (the media) never suggested just a thing, even though youtube is repleat with examples showing otherwise. If we dont' kill Gaddaffi NOW, we're going to pay a big price.
Atascadero sure has a large number of idiots (laughing my ass off)
Blah,blah,blah. Every time you open your mouth,insanity and insecurity just falls right out on the table.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Yup. What this site needs is more "conservatives" like you,Palin,various members of the Bush Crime Family,John McCain,Bob Dolt,Trent "Power Sharing" Lott,Newt,Romney,Guiliani,Bill Kristol,etc,etc,etc.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
LOL! You are a pitiful little bitch. I BITCH slap your specious nonsense down with the objective FACTS, and then you show the world what a little libTURD FRAUD cunt that you really are. You are no AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE little "man". YOU are the messiah king obammy's whore.
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
LOL! Spoken as the TRUE libTURD WHORE and TOOL that we ALL know YOU to be little "man". Run along and suck your master's asshole, it's time for your lunch little "man". Eat it ALL up!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
You're just angry because you no longer have a shipmate to hot bunk with,ain't ya?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
That is not true. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.[citation needed] The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
Not so fast. What does that little "[citation needed]" following the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. mean?
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
We both know what it means, but let's not play games. Let's forget the wiki site and go straight to the text of the resolution... www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001541----000-.html (a) Congressional declaration It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. (b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof. (c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001542----000-.html The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. There is no way around it, facts are facts. Obama has violated the US Constitution as well as the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
Further... www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._50_00001543----000-.html (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced— (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) Other information reported The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad. (c) Periodic reports; semiannual requirement Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
Obama is following the Reagan doctrine established when Reagan sent troops to Lebanon, Grenada, and bombed Libya. On April 14...Reagan again sent U.S. warplanes into Libyan air space, on this occasion bombing terrorist-related targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. By the time Congress learned of the operation, U.S. forces had done their job and had been removed from the situation of foreign hostilities. snip Congress took no action to oppose or undercut Reagan's military initiatives against the Marxist-Leninists in Grenada and against the Qaddafi regime in Libya. In the case of each of these initiatives, some of the more Leftist-leaning members of Congress and their political allies in the "news" media screamed like stuck pigs, but did very little more than that. www.proconservative.net/WarAmericaP5l.shtml It is a mistake to give one guy a pass and then insist the guy you don't like be held accountable fore the same behavior - it makes the insistence look partisan rather than principled.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
I haven't given anyone a pass for anything. I've spoken out about Reagans leftist leanings for years. Proof of that can still be read at LP. I am not a party boy, I am a conservative. But are you giving Obama a pass? Pointing out like behavior in another doesn't give Obama a pass, does it? I would have them both in prison if it were up to me.
Not knowing what that means, I looked it up. Here's what I found: Section 8(b) states that further specific statutory authorization is not required to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date. This section was added by the Senate to make clear that the resolution did not prevent U.S. forces from participating in certain joint military exercises with allied or friendly organizations or countries. The conference report stated that the "high-level" military commands meant the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, (NATO), the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and the United Nations command in Korea. www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html It kinda looks like Obama is covered by "specific statutory authorization". (not that that makes any difference)
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Obama's written report: You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Obama sure doesn't look to be the guy to dig us out, especially since the Libyan War thing started. But what I don't like is their looking to put back into power the GOP that caused all this crap in the first place. Without demanding that the GOP old guard be completely replaced.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
Sure, but this action toward Libya is not a 'joint military exercise'. This is not a training mission, this is an agressive military force against another country engaged in a civil war.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. A 'joint military exercise' is not actively engaging in hostilities against another country. A 'joint military exercise' is a training mission.
They desperately want to regain power and finish the job.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
A 'joint military exercise' is not actively engaging in hostilities against another country. A 'joint military exercise' is a training mission. He's covered because he commands the biggest military in the world that backs him up. Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
Obama's written report: Note that notification is not the same as authorization, which is what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution requires. The President was once a Senior Lecturer (not a professor) in Constitutional Law. In 2007 he knew what the President's duties were in this regard, but I guess it was different, since he wasn't the President: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” that was then candidate Obama answering a question from the press.
No. That's what 'neoconservatives' live and die for.
They like that power over everything stuff when in power and still think its their birth right when out of power.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Then the Tea Baggers must be neoconservatives.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
They like that power over everything stuff when in power and still think its their birth right when out of power. Conservatives haven't been 'in power' for decades, neoconservatives or the left have. Is that what this discussion is reduced to? Irrefutable facts have been presented, clearly outlining an unconstitutional and criminal act by a President of the United States, and all you two have is insults for conservatives who have had nothing to do with any of this middle eastern adventurism.
OK. Well, have a great day.
"the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement. (b) Other information reported" So whats your point?
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
...that notification is not the same as authorization...
Are you kidding? This is being done to obtain energy and security for that center piece of conservativism......"Free Markets"
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
Somehow I have a feeling you reject those Conservatives too. From 1936 to 1976 the more centrist of the Republican party frequently won the national nomination with candidates such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford. The mainstream of the Republican party was generally supportive of the New Deal, and the far right was the more marginalized faction. In the 1950s conservatives like Barry Goldwater, who rallied against "me-too Republicans",[7] were considered outside of the mainstream of the then-centrist GOP; serious consideration was given to leaving the GOP and forming a new conservative party in cooperation with conservative Democrats.[8] Wikipedia
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
www.whitehouse.gov/the-pr...encement-operations-libya TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE March 21, 2011 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution. Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force (irony?) not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk. The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action. BARACK OBAMA
Obama was obligated to follow the US Constitution and the War powers Resolution of 1973 and did not.
Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening.
Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US?
Okay. Again, what is your point? Obama explained his reason for acting as he did. That explanation fulfills his War Powers Act requirements.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Come now. You're an intelligent person. You can't possibly believe that statement. If that's the case, then ANY president can take this nation into hostilities or war and his only requirement is to explain his actions?
He's playing to HIS audience.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
I would say that Libya is the same level, if not greater threat to the US as Grenada was when Reagan invaded.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
He's playing to HIS audience. I'd much rather discuss the facts of this issue, rather than your feelings or hunches. Unless you're privy to some high level communications that the rest of us aren't privy to, your comments are mere speculation and poor attempts at justification.
For the moment, yes. It ain't done yet.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
You're trying to justify an illegal act. Neither Libya or Granada is or was a threat to the US.
It ain't done yet. My hunch about your intelligence was correct. And, that was meant as a compliment, not an insult.
I'm not sure the act is illegal. It will be debated. Don't confuse a call for consistency with an attempt at justification.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
To be perfectly honest, I'm not seeing that consistency. I see you hesitating to accept facts about one president that you readily accept about others, concerning the same issue.
Maybe selling it to the Tea Baggers would be a better move in your book. Or believing Bush's rationale for two wars years after the true facts came out. One fact that's set in stone is that all politicians lie to get their way.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
And, that was meant as a compliment, not an insult. Makes me think of the song; I'm Living Up To Her Low Expectations
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and the War Powers resolution. Both require the authorization of Congress. Not simply notification after the fact.
I'm saying what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Obama is wrong, than so was the sainted Ronald Reagan.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Selling what? Your comments make little sense. Or believing Bush's rationale for two wars years after the true facts came out. Who believes Bush's rationale? Me? If that's what you think, then you are so far from correct it's ridiculous. And why are you trying to change the subject of this thread?
I don't (think) I'm the one that has a problem with that statement.
Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion? Destabilizing the region is not the same as humanitarian reasons.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
And why are you trying to change the subject of this thread? Okay..... you can believe every rationale that politicians give, please be my quest. Especially since they were presented as set in stone facts, very similiar to this situation.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses. Bush should also be in prison. Along with his entire cabinet.
You're making less and less sense with each post.
You don't believe documented facts and you don't like opinion, so why are you here?
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
But did you believe it to be BS at the time?
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
Sorry, I don't know the song. I plugged the title into youtube but just got political stuff.
My rants against the Iraq war are public record. I believed at the time that, OF COURSE Iraq had WMD's, because WE gave them to Iraq to use against Iran. Still, they had no way to deliver any payload to the US, so they were not a threat. I was wrong, they had no ongoing WMD program. I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home. I was never for the Iraq war.
LOL! You're a funny guy. What 'documented facts' are you referring to?
So you were Bush's audience at the time, because there was a lot of opposition to the Afghan War. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war?
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
(f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5)
I don't understand your reply.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
I just explained to you how I was NOT Bush's audience. Plus we never got OBL which was said to be the primary objective, so how can you say we won that war? You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military? Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. The primary military objective of any military at war is to remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war.
I don't understand your reply. Sorry, I was waiting not so patiently for your reply. f5 refreshes the page and is easier than clicking 'Bottom/Latest'. I was waiting for your reply to my question, "What 'documented facts' are you referring to?"
Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. The primary military objective of any military at war is to remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. Really? Is that why they continue to kill and maim the troops? When was the last war where we won and just left the country to their own devices afterward without a military presence? Did we do that in Germany, Japan?
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
video.ca.msn.com/watch/vi...aryle-singletary/hahivqw9
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Really? Is that why they continue to kill and main the troops? We are now fighting 'insurgents', not any organized military force. We are now fighting insurgents because we are engaged in nation building, not war. Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy. When was the last war where we won and just left the country to their own devices afterward without a military presence? Did we do that in Germany, Japan? No, we didn't. That alone shows you how long leftists have controlled this country.
Afghanistan never had the ability to wage war in the traditional sense against the US. Neither did Vietnam.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Yeah, I remember when Bush was against nation building.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
I agree. But the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda who had just killed 3000 Americans. We asked the Taliban to turn Al Qaeda over and they refused.
Yeah, I remember when Bush was against nation building. I do too. In fact he made statements to that fact when he was campaigning. He's a liar as well as a criminal, but I guess the two do go hand in hand.
We have kept our military prsence in most countries we have 'defeated' up until the present. Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny since this was used during the entire history of the 'building' of our own nation. And certainly by the GOP after the Civil War.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
And you agree with that policy? Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny since this was used during the entire history of the 'building' of our own nation. You don't understand the term nation building. I'll try to explain. Nation building involves military defeat, regime change to a more palatable government to the victor, and the rebuilding the nation involved, with taxpayer dollars. It is 'making the world safe for democracy'. It is in direct opposition to the advice given to us by the founders of this nation.
Kind of like your constant ranting against the GOP and the TEA Baggers? You mean that left v right stuff? I am a conservative, I am not a Republican. I don't think you even realize that there is a HUGE difference.
So you will tell me that defeating Mexico, Spain and the Indians, not to mention the Brits and the French, to gain territories for settlement wasn't a type of regime change? And the last I heard it was paid for by government bonds, taxes and various levys.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
You said yourself that the GOP was not conservative. At least you show that they failed to live up to your conservative ideals, and the last I saw most of the Tea Party candidates ran as Republicans. What is one supposed to think?
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
The fact that you have to keep changing the subject tells me that you're not comfortable with your arguments. We started out talking about Obama violating the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution and we end up with you ranting against what? The founding of this nation? You seem to find it hard to stay on topic. Allow me to tell you something about the world in which we live. Every country on the face of this planet came into existence by conquest. That's just the way human nature works. Are you going to blame human nature on conservatives? All conquest is the fault of conservatives? You have a distorted view of the world and of conservatism. I can tell you this, war, by its very nature, is revolutionary. It is not conservative. Let me say that again so it might sink in. War is not conservative. It is revolutionary, and as such is more aligned with leftist/European philosophy. There IS such a thing as left v right when it comes to political philosophies and it's the NEOCONSERVATIVES that are more aligned with leftist/European philosophies. Conservatives are no where close. When I say I'm a conservative or 'on the right', I mean I'm on the side of the founding views and philosophies of this nation. I'm on the side that believes in the original views as set forth by our founders in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I'm not on the side advocating endless war. The traditional American position is anti-war. Anti-war is a traditionally conservative position.
That you cannot separate two distinctly different words - conservative and Republican - even though they have very different meanings? What is this fixation that you have on the TEA Party? What did they do to piss you off?
I thought this thread was about Obummer going into Libya without permission??? So who got off the subject, or do I really need to ask..... Libtard rule# 2). When you get too close to the truth change the subject...
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
It was/is, and we're working our way back there right now. Thanks.
They (Republican Party) absolutely failed to live up to my conservative ideals. They also violate the Constitution. They are also warmongers. They are far more leftist than they would have you think. Now, back to Obama and Libya?
Good luck with that one...... Libtard rule #8). What I think and what I say sure be proof enough for you, I don’t need facts!!!
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
We sure have done a lot of fighting for a people with an anti-war bent; in fact between the Revolution and the century was out (1783-1799), we picked up arms and fought 7 times. You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
Sometimes a historical reference is made and has to be corrected.
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you. Ludwig von Mises in a letter to Ayn Rand
LOL! I've never "met" a person before who was so insecure about their own sexuality little "man". BE who and WHAT you REALLY are little "man". NOBODY cares that you are a dick sucking take it up the ass QUEER little "man". I sure don't faggot. LOL!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
I think everyone has already taken note of your obsession with "BIG men". You and Yukon still joined at the uhhhhhh,hip?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
LOL! You really are one pitiful STOOPID little fuck little "man". You IMMEDIATELY demonstrate your own insecurity about YOUR OWN sexuality! Proving my point. YOU are a pitifully insecure and STOOPID little fuck little "man". FUNNY stuff! LOL!
Living in mouth breather's empty noggins 24/7/365 totally rent free!
#2. To: Mad Dog (#1)
#3. To: We The People, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#2)
I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Godwinson posted on 2011-02-23 11:47:32 ET
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18011&Disp=46#C46
#4. To: Mad Dog, *Hypocrisy and Hypocrites* (#1)
and not a FUCKING word from so the called CONSTITUTIONAL and TRADITIONAL "CONSERVATIVES" meme here.
#5. To: We The People, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#2)
I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this.
#6. To: We The People (#2)
I'm absolutely amazed that the Republicans, ANY Republicans, are not saying a word about this. The only outrage I've heard has come from Democrats, unless I've just missed it.
#7. To: sneakypete (#4)
#8. To: All (#7)
#9. To: Mad Dog (#8)
#10. To: sneakypete (#9)
Did your meds run out,or did the doc just kill your prescription?
#11. To: We The People (#0)
#12. To: Mad Dog (#1)
and not a FUCKING word from so the called CONSTITUTIONAL and TRADITIONAL "CONSERVATIVES" meme here.
#13. To: sneakypete (#9)
#14. To: Badeye (#12)
and not a FUCKING word from so the called CONSTITUTIONAL and TRADITIONAL "CONSERVATIVES" meme here.
#15. To: Mad Dog (#13)
That "the ebil BOOSH" followed ALL US LAWS and even the UN's "laws" for his actions
#16. To: Mad Dog (#14)
#17. To: sneakypete (#15)
#18. To: Badeye (#16)
I that says more about the site than Conservatives, MD. I just opened the thread and noted your remark.
#19. To: Mad Dog (#18)
#20. To: Mad Dog (#17)
#21. To: Mad Dog (#18)
This site and others are infested by FRAUDS who pretend to be CONSERVATIVES such as little "man" petey.
#22. To: sneakypete (#20)
#23. To: sneakypete (#21)
#24. To: Mad Dog (#23)
#25. To: lucysmom (#6)
(Edited)
The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days before he needs Congressional approval.
#26. To: We The People (#25)
That is not true.
#27. To: lucysmom (#26)
(Edited)
Not so fast.
#28. To: lucysmom (#26)
#29. To: We The People (#27)
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances...
#30. To: lucysmom (#29)
It is a mistake to give one guy a pass and then insist the guy you don't like be held accountable fore the same behavior - it makes the insistence look partisan rather than principled.
#31. To: We The People (#27)
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
#32. To: We The People (#28)
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
#33. To: lucysmom (#29)
It is a mistake to give one guy a pass and then insist the guy you don't like be held accountable fore the same behavior - it makes the insistence look partisan rather than principled.
#34. To: lucysmom (#31)
the resolution did not prevent U.S. forces from participating in certain joint military exercises with allied or friendly organizations or countries.
#35. To: lucysmom (#31)
It kinda looks like Obama is covered by "specific statutory authorization".
#36. To: Rek (#33)
But what I don't like is their looking to put back into power the GOP that caused all this crap in the first place. Without demanding that the GOP old guard be completely replaced.
#37. To: We The People (#35)
I'm sorry, but it doesn't.
#38. To: lucysmom (#32)
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
#39. To: Rek (#37)
Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?
#40. To: Rek (#37)
Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?
#41. To: We The People (#39)
No. That's what 'neoconservatives' live and die for.
#42. To: lucysmom, Rek (#40)
Isn't that 'might makes right' stuff what 'conservatives' live and die for?
#43. To: Rek (#41)
Then the Tea Baggers must be neoconservatives.
#44. To: We The People (#38)
Note that notification is not the same as authorization, which is what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution requires.
#45. To: lucysmom (#44)
So whats your point?
#46. To: We The People (#42)
Irrefutable facts have been presented, clearly outlining an unconstitutional and criminal act by a President of the United States, and all you two have is insults for conservatives who have had nothing to do with any of this middle eastern adventurism.
#47. To: We The People (#42)
Conservatives haven't been 'in power' for decades, neoconservatives or the left have.
#48. To: We The People (#45)
...that notification is not the same as authorization...
#49. To: lucysmom (#32)
Obama's written report:
#50. To: lucysmom (#48)
Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so.
#51. To: Rek (#46)
Are you kidding? This is being done to obtain energy and security for that center piece of conservativism......"Free Markets"
#52. To: lucysmom (#48)
Obama was obligated to provide notification within 48 hours after the fact and did so.
#53. To: We The People (#49)
#54. To: lucysmom (#53)
(Edited)
Obama explained his reason for acting as he did. That explanation fulfills his War Powers Act requirements.
#55. To: We The People (#51)
Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening.
#56. To: We The People (#52)
Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US?
#57. To: Rek (#55)
Really? Cause that's not what Obama states is happening.
#58. To: We The People (#54)
Come now. You're an intelligent person. You can't possibly believe that statement.
#59. To: lucysmom (#56)
I would say that Libya is the same level, if not greater threat to the US as Grenada was when Reagan invaded.
#60. To: lucysmom (#58)
For the moment, yes.
#61. To: We The People (#59)
You're trying to justify an illegal act. Neither Libya or Granada is or was a threat to the US.
#62. To: lucysmom (#61)
Don't confuse a call for consistency with an attempt at justification.
#63. To: We The People (#57)
I'd much rather discuss the facts of this issue, rather than your feelings or hunches. Unless you're privy to some high level communications that the rest of us aren't privy to, your comments are mere speculation and poor attempts at justification.
#64. To: We The People (#60)
(Edited)
My hunch about your intelligence was correct.
#65. To: All (#52)
Are you saying that you believe the 'notification within 48 hours' relieves him of his obligation to gain Congressional 'authorization', in a case which is CLEARLY not an imminent threat to the US?
#66. To: We The People (#62)
I see you hesitating to accept facts about one president that you readily accept about others, concerning the same issue.
#67. To: Rek (#63)
Maybe selling it to the Tea Baggers would be a better move in your book.
#68. To: lucysmom (#66)
(Edited)
If Obama is wrong, than so was the sainted Ronald Reagan.
#69. To: We The People (#65)
His own 48 hour explanation says not one word about Libya being a threat, imminent or otherwise, to the US. His justification for these actions are UN Resolutions and humanitarian reasons.
#70. To: We The People (#67)
Who believes Bush's rationale? Me? If that's what you think, then you are so far from correct it's ridiculous.
#71. To: lucysmom (#69)
(Edited)
Wasn't enforcing a UN resolution the justification Bush used for his Iraq invasion?
#72. To: Rek (#70)
Okay..... you can believe every rationale that politicians give, please be my quest.
#73. To: We The People (#72)
You're making less and less sense with each post.
#74. To: We The People (#71)
That and a BS threat of WMD's. And let's not forget that we were 'liberating' the Iraqi people and we would be greeted with roses.
#75. To: lucysmom (#64)
Makes me think of the song; I'm Living Up To Her Low Expectations
#76. To: Rek (#74)
But did you believe it to be BS at the time?
#77. To: Rek (#73)
You don't believe documented facts and you don't like opinion, so why are you here?
#78. To: We The People (#76)
I was FOR going into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, and even to depose the Taliban who was harboring Al Qaeda. I was NOT for the nation building afterward and to this day. We won the war quickly, when we should have come home.
#79. To: Rek (#73)
#80. To: We The People (#79)
(f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5)
#81. To: Rek (#78)
So you were Bush's audience at the time
#82. To: Rek (#80)
(Edited)
(f5) (f5) (f5) (f5) (f5)
#83. To: We The People (#81)
(Edited)
You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military?
#84. To: We The People (#75)
#85. To: Rek (#83)
You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military?
#86. To: We The People (#81)
You win a war when you remove your enemy's ability to wage or engage in war. We did that in VERY short order. I take it you've never served in the military?
#87. To: We The People (#85)
Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.
#88. To: lucysmom (#86)
Afghanistan never had the ability to wage war in the traditional sense against the US. Neither did Vietnam.
#89. To: lucysmom (#87)
Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.
#90. To: We The People (#85)
Nation building is a leftist philosophy, not a conservative philosophy.
#91. To: Rek (#90)
We have kept our military prsence in most countries we have 'defeated' up until the present.
#92. To: All (#91)
Your left versus right stuff is sort of funny
#93. To: We The People (#91)
(Edited)
Nation building involves military defeat, regime change to a more palatable government to the victor, and the rebuilding the nation involved, with taxpayer dollars.
#94. To: We The People (#92)
Kind of like your constant ranting against the GOP and the TEA Baggers?
#95. To: Rek (#93)
(Edited)
#96. To: Rek (#94)
(Edited)
You said yourself that the GOP was not conservative. At least you show that they failed to live up to your conservative ideals, and the last I saw most of the Tea Party candidates ran as Republicans. What is one supposed to think?
#97. To: We The People (#0)
#98. To: CZ82 (#97)
I thought this thread was about Obummer going into Libya without permission???
#99. To: Rek (#94)
You said yourself that the GOP was not conservative. At least you show that they failed to live up to your conservative ideals
#100. To: We The People (#98)
It was/is, and we're working our way back there right now.
#101. To: We The People (#95)
The traditional American position is anti-war. Anti-war is a traditionally conservative position.
#102. To: CZ82 (#97)
Libtard rule# 2). When you get too close to the truth change the subject...
#103. To: sneakypete (#24)
#104. To: Mad Dog (#103)
little "man".
#105. To: sneakypete (#104)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]