No... not quite. Youre really are quite skilled at missing the point aren't you?
HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 02/09/2013 11:20:02 PM
View original post
I am not playing the "words mean exactly the opposite of what Merriam-Webster says they do" game again. Just yesterday Steve King (R-NY) accused Obama of "abdicated responsibility as commander-in-chief" for seeking the very congressional authorization Republicans spent months threatening to impeach him for NOT asking. It is not even obstructionism anymore, but simply "everything Obama does is always wrong; WHAT he does is irrelevant to that statement." It is a side effect of the Senate Minority Leader declaring his partys top legislative priority was ensuring Obama is a one term president. How did that work out...?
View original postNot that are not a fair number of Rand Paul supporters that voted Obama in 2008 and whose biggest issue is anti-government and pro-pot but that really has nothing to do with what I said. The idea that Obama can lay this at feet of the republicans by just crying "obstructionism" and throwing in hands in the air is an idea from the loony left. This is a way to test the theory, if anyone on MSNBC put the idea forward you can no it come the fact free land of the far left.
I am not playing the "words mean exactly the opposite of what Merriam-Webster says they do" game again. Just yesterday Steve King (R-NY) accused Obama of "abdicated responsibility as commander-in-chief" for seeking the very congressional authorization Republicans spent months threatening to impeach him for NOT asking. It is not even obstructionism anymore, but simply "everything Obama does is always wrong; WHAT he does is irrelevant to that statement." It is a side effect of the Senate Minority Leader declaring his partys top legislative priority was ensuring Obama is a one term president. How did that work out...?
The President is not required to get Congress's permission to use military force. However, Congress is the only body that can declare war. The President is supposed to inform and consult with Congress (in reality that is the Congressional leaders), cause they cut the checks. If it is going to be a sustained military activity, then the President needs Congress to pass some sort of funding mechanism. which is what Bush did. What the President is getting criticized for now is that he has completely abdicated the decision to Congress, and then declared that he does not feel bound by their decision.
It is a completely cowardly position.
So... a limited strike on Syria ?
- 29/08/2013 04:31:07 PM
1421 Views
Re: So... a limited strike on Syria ?
- 29/08/2013 10:43:15 PM
981 Views
I think you're wrong.
- 30/08/2013 04:44:53 AM
953 Views
I don't really care
- 30/08/2013 10:35:55 AM
948 Views
You can't effectively bomb Chemical and biological weapons stockpiles without using a nuke.
- 30/08/2013 02:01:38 PM
974 Views
Looks like the buck inexplicably stops at Congress
- 31/08/2013 11:23:20 PM
884 Views
Well it sets a good precedent anyway
- 01/09/2013 12:13:05 AM
854 Views
Unsure; I like the War Powers Resolution approach, though I am unsure of its constitutionality.
- 01/09/2013 01:49:15 AM
1087 Views
Nice theory, to bad it is crap
- 01/09/2013 06:23:31 PM
921 Views
Again, Rand Paul is loony left now?
- 01/09/2013 10:15:17 PM
1124 Views
Again you seem to have read most the words but completely missed the point
- 02/09/2013 06:48:26 PM
1025 Views
Rand Paul=/=MSNBC
- 02/09/2013 09:30:50 PM
917 Views
No... not quite. Youre really are quite skilled at missing the point aren't you?
- 02/09/2013 11:20:02 PM
938 Views
Oh, no, I got the point.
- 03/09/2013 01:48:01 AM
938 Views
The only "point" you have is the talking points, and you hit them all, facts be damned. *NM*
- 03/09/2013 02:56:06 AM
369 Views
Considering the WPRs constitutionality and agreeing Obama is being cowardly are not talking points.
- 03/09/2013 03:52:44 AM
1034 Views
Re: Considering the WPRs ... talking points. (had to snip it due to length)
- 03/09/2013 05:49:08 PM
978 Views
"The only 'point' you have is the talking points...;" clearly those were not the sole points,
- 03/09/2013 10:08:43 PM
995 Views
Nah, I'm good, I've said what I wanted. I'm sure we'll get the opportunity to disagree again 
- 04/09/2013 05:58:47 AM
1015 Views
- 04/09/2013 05:58:47 AM
1015 Views
Fox and Joe Lieberman=/=MSNBC either.
- 02/09/2013 10:21:16 PM
1058 Views
Again you seem to have read most the words but completely missed the point
- 03/09/2013 01:17:29 AM
848 Views
Paul is saying what he always has: The commander-in-chief needs Congress' permission to command
- 03/09/2013 02:08:34 AM
869 Views
I see what the problem is
- 04/09/2013 01:07:08 PM
896 Views
More like the left hive does not know what the right hive is doing; Republicans are NOT cat herders.
- 04/09/2013 09:57:07 PM
969 Views
Yeah, I don't like any of it.
- 01/09/2013 12:40:35 AM
869 Views
Glad to hear you think he should more like Bush and asked congrees first
- 01/09/2013 06:27:03 PM
851 Views
How about no strike per the American people? Period. Fucking idiots in Washington.
- 01/09/2013 05:01:13 AM
948 Views
Re: How about no strike per the American people? Period. Fucking idiots in Washington.
- 01/09/2013 04:06:13 PM
983 Views
To be fair, that was what the American people said in 1940
- 02/09/2013 05:19:46 AM
881 Views
That comparison is not valid.
- 05/09/2013 09:25:38 PM
921 Views
Again, "I am not saying this situation is remotely like that one."
- 05/09/2013 10:48:39 PM
883 Views