Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This part of your comment is ridiculously inane. Why would this Republican-led Senate do anything whatsoever in that regard? They've publicly stated that their #1 priority is to obstruct this President. The implication that there should be any expectation that they would act in America's interest instead of their own selfish interests is preposterous.
You've firmly demonstrated that your main priority is to have something negative to say about the President, so that's not surprising. Or interesting.
In this context, I believe "the Congress" means the entire legislative branch, not just the House of Representatives. The president is required to get authorization from the Congress before going to war. There is no foreign nation threatening our national security, we are not forced to protect the lives of American citizens abroad, there is nothing that needs to be acted upon right now. There is no authority for 0bama to simply commit an act of war all on his own.
"Something negative to say?" What he said was that 0bama did nothing for a year. He had a year to make his case for before the Congress, to authorize appropriate actions to be taken against Syria, in the event they moved a bunch of weapons around, and stuff like that there. 0bama had a year to form an allied coalition to respond to Assad.
0bama had a year to prepare, and did nothing, that is not a lie, it's a fact. Pointing out the facts is just not some people making **** up, just to say something negative about 0bama. There is nothing positive to say about him on this. He may as well have made his 'red line' comment two weeks ago, because that is about as prepared as he is.
If you only read half the response to something, then you're destined to not understand the response. Go back and read the part that starts, "Regardless, the point I made there, which you clearly missed, is that ..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
You made no point, except for the one you imagined.
Except, of course, for the point I reiterated after the sentence which you clearly overlooked, thereby missing the point now for a third time. You can actually just admit that we disagree about it, instead of ridiculously denying that I made a point. Try that on for size, the idea that a reasonable person could disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
The only one with no idea of what is actually going on is you.
So now you think it helps your credibility to claim "I know you are but what I am?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
Isn't that why we have you?
Actually, no, I haven't. I've held your comments accountable without resorting to calling another poster an "obamabot", or trying to make a point with five smilies in a row or other such nonsensical approaches to discussing the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
No, you are ignoring the fact that answers are being provided because you don't like them and then demanding that people only answer in the manner you desire. Typical of your methods.
Thanks for butting into an interchange with another poster. Given that that is what you did, it is understandable that you didn't realize that I asked a question for which I actually didn't get an answer to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
Learn them at Obamabot U?
And you're back to the puerile nonsensical rhetoric again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
My, my, hit a nerve??? When I said you're funny I didn't mean it literally.
Rather, I'm holding your comments accountable for their evasive marginalization of the issue. I'm sorry if that upsets you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
You seem to think you are the only one making any sense.
I haven't said anything of the sort. Some people are posting some bits of nonsense. I'm calling those out. You're not going to see me respond substantively to nonsense, yet you do see me responding substantively to some comments you and your cohorts post. Why then would you make the ridiculous assumption that I seem to think I am the only one making any sense? What possible rational explanation could you have for that wild assumption?
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
You resist anyone else who has something to say that makes sense
No, I don't. But I'm also not to give credit that isn't due to a perspective that is, specifically, counter to the perspective I'm putting forward - and neither will you. The expectation that someone who disagrees with you would suddenly kowtow to a perspective that they believe is wrong, especially given the fact that I actually understand and support my perspective and specifically do not support yours, is irrational. You and I disagree. Live with it. I'm going to focus my comments about your perspective on the qualities of your perspective, not expecting you to recant your perspective publicly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz
Your adoration for your president, who you seem to think has bent over backwards to work with the republicans, is enough to make me almost want to throw up in my mouth.
But as long as you engage in scurrilous nonsense like disparaging accusations of "adoration", or some of the nonsense that I highlighted in Arjay51's postings, such rhetoric deserves all the repudiation it gets, on that basis alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
In this context, I believe "the Congress" means the entire legislative branch, not just the House of Representatives. The president is required to get authorization from the Congress before going to war.
Previous POTUSs, of both parties, have taken comparable actions without it being considered "war". So "war" is a red herring in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
There is no foreign nation threatening our national security
That's a matter of opinion, one that apparently the President and his advisers disagree with. This goes back to respecting the fact that reasonable people disagree, and that doesn't mean that you're right and their wrong.
But I'll make you a deal: We now know that there weren't WMDs in Iraq, and that's why Bush was truly "wrong" about his decision. If it turns out that comparable proof arises showing Assad's side didn't use chemical weapons then you can criticize the President about the decision to attack Assad, then. If, of course, the President actually orders an attack. So there are two levels of faulty assumption that you're making.
By the way, Arjay51 and softblueyz, nothing Wapasha said was nonsense.
Getting Harry Reid to say O.K. isn't really reaching the bar Obama had previously set.
It's not how our representative form of government works either.
The president getting a few politicians to 'harrumph' an affirmative nod, is not how it works. It's absurd to think otherwise. However, I'm sure we have 0bama sycophants already trying to make the case that verbal authorization to go to war can be obtained via a few backroom head nods.
No, I'm not. Rather, it seems like you're uncomfortable with me making sense that you don't like, repudiating congressional Republicans for their self-centered lack of integrity, and so perhaps you respond with vacuous comments like this to try to make yourself feel better about the situation. How about you skip such comments in the future, and go directly into your substantive response? Try it.
Sorry, but you are not making much sense.
You claim the Republican led House, would likely vote 'NO' on authorizing military actions, just to spite 0bama politically, when they have been authorizing his military actions abroad for years now. You have no precedence of republicans voting against authorizing 0bama to engage in military actions.
The Congress, as in the entire legislative branch, would probably vote against authorization, because there is no US national security issue here, much less an urgent one, and the evidence proving Assad had carried out this attack, or had a compelling motive to do so, is too weak to go to war over.
Congressional leaders are being called to the WH tomorrow for classified briefing.
And hopefully they will see that Syria is none of our business. Unfortunately though it would seem that our political elite can never pass up an opportunity to mind someone else's business.
No, rest assured, I'm making sense. You simply disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You claim the Republican led House, would likely vote 'NO' on authorizing military actions, just to spite Obama politically, when they have been authorizing his military actions abroad for years now.
Such a claim is no different from the claim that the Senate Democrats wouldn't employ the nuclear option regarding the filibuster. It was avoided this time only by the slimmest margins. As such, I believe that your comment ignores the progressively large gulf there is between the two parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You have no precedence of republicans voting against authorizing Obama to engage in military actions.
A comment that advocates for waiting for the harm to occur before even expecting that the harm could occur. It's simply not a smart way of dealing with political situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
The Congress, as in the entire legislative branch, would probably vote against authorization, because there is no US national security issue here, much less an urgent one, and the evidence proving Assad had carried out this attack, or had a compelling motive to do so, is too weak to go to war over.
I see this as nothing more than a cover-your-butt comment rationalizing why you would not want to be held to account for your earlier statements, since you know that the Congressional Republicans wouldn't act, this time, the way you said they would act earlier. How convenient.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
