Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-24-2011, 01:10 PM   #91
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"
I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?

Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 01:29 PM   #92
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
This isn't about Newt Gingrich or Mother's Day.........

Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.

(Boston Globe) Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

(Obama) A: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2...ar_+_Peace.htm

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 01:34 PM   #93
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
ready the planes....

CNN) -- Germany and the United Kingdom are pulling nonessential embassy staff out of Yemen, they said Thursday, with the British citing "the rapid deterioration in the security situation."

Both nations are keeping small core staffs in place in Sanaa, they said.

Yemen, a key U.S. ally and a central battleground against al Qaeda, has been wracked by protests since the beginning of the year. Support for President Ali Abdullah Saleh appears to be slipping away.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 01:50 PM   #94
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
To date, the air attacks on Libyan targets have been predominantly American. In a 24-hour period as of late Wednesday, 175 sorties were flown, 113 by the United States, U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Gerald P. Hueber told reporters from the U.S. command ship in the Mediterranean Sea.

His portrayal suggested a long slog might lie ahead.

"We have no indication that Gadhafi's forces are adhering to United Nations Resolution 1973," which authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone and demanded that government forces pull back from population centers, said Hueber, chief of staff for U.S. operations. "Our intelligence today is there's no indication that Gadhafi's forces are pulling back."

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates no doubt reflected the views of many military commanders when he warned weeks ago that establishing a no-fly zone was a big, complicated operation tantamount to an act of war — and one with questionable viability.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 02:04 PM   #95
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
I think there are some very good points being raised that are being deflected as mere Obama criticisms. Bry - you've been very critical, and rightfully so, on past military actions. Lets look at some facts here
- we just attacked a soverign country that did not provoke us at all
- we have no plan
- no stated goal (save lives and oh by the way, we want Ghaddafi out)
- whats Libya going to look like after this? Will we need to spend $$$$$ to aid them in developing, will we be monitoring elections?

and remember this FACT
GWB went on tv and gave Saddam 48 hrs to leave office and safe passage or we would attack. Obama did no such thing, we went in firing. Who should get the peace prize?


Dont deflect, this is serious stuff and the criticisms are valid.


I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

I'm of the mindset that don't need to be there. Period. Q/G/Khadaffi is a pretty evil dictator, but there are alot of those. where do we draw the line? is this oil driven? human rights? flexing abit for some of the other countries? I don't know.

As long as it stays at this level, I can live with it (i.e. we are truly just helping to level the playing field) but I don't want to see troops on the ground there, any more than I want to see them in Afgan or Iraq. Provided, we actually do hand control to the UK or France, both of them have a longer history in that part of the world, let them deal with it.

Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 02:09 PM   #96
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
I
Oh, and Spence isn't 'wrong' this was not a declared war, so technically it isn't a war. but we're dropping missles, so lets call it 'war-like?'
I think the last declared war was WWII, no?
Gates said it was "tantamount to war"
I have no clue what "tantamount" means but I bet its more like war than not....

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 02:34 PM   #97
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,567
[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;846825]I didn't say I agreed with the bombings. I was just pointing out some talking out of bothsides of mouths.

yes, Obama and Biden, perhaps they can impeach each other
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 03:27 PM   #98
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Obama is a hypocrite (although the question specifically says Iran, Obama’s answer covers all military action except self defense.) Glad all the media networks bring this stuff up.
Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 03:34 PM   #99
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Nice to see you shooting down your own posts.

-spence
Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 04:26 PM   #100
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Did you read the whole thing? Question was on Iran, Obama answered for ALL military actions.

Read the whole thing Spence and try to answer with an intellectual post, not a one sentence comment that doesn't have any worth.
Yes, twice actually

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 04:29 PM   #101
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
No, no, no.

"We are not the worlds police force"

"Wait, why are we in Lybia, but not Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Baharan et al.?'

I heard a quote, that I thought was funny involving Newt's flipping on this issue, that applies to many here..
To Paraphrase "Obama could start an initiative to recognize mothers on Mother's day, and they'd find something wrong with it"
The only one flipping around here is Obama.....and your expectations for Obama
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 04:35 PM   #102
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Problem solved

buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 05:06 PM   #103
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, twice actually

You're making a point out of context and in the same post admitting it's out of context. Preemptive (or worse preventative) war isn't the same thing as an internationally legal humanitarian mission and you know it...

-spence
Read it again then. Obama says “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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

I’m not Taking it out of context at all.

Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 09:24 PM   #104
mosholu
Mosholu
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 439
I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.
mosholu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 10:33 PM   #105
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosholu View Post
I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.
Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2011, 11:12 PM   #106
BranfordJeff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 24
Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.
BranfordJeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:18 AM   #107
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranfordJeff View Post
Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.
This might be the most ignorant post ever made on these forums.

Recently watched Happy Gilmore and this seems rather applicable:
Mr. [Branford], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever [read]. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone [on this forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:37 AM   #108
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
This might be the most ignorant post ever made on these forums.

Recently watched Happy Gilmore and this seems rather applicable:
Mr. [Branford], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever [read]. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone [on this forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The scary thing, is that over 'there' BJ is one of the 'moderate' ones....
Of course he is trying to wreck America, just like Bush tried to do w/ Iraq so he and his buddies could make more oil money.... (obvious sarcasm)


And Buckman, I'm not flipping on or regretting my vote (yet). One way I like to think about it (and remember in '04 when my choice was Bush or Kerry I would have prefered McCain to both) How would, say McCain(/Pin), have handled this differently?
McCain: Obama waited too long in Libya – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Sounds like he would have done the same thing (No-fly zone) but two weeks earlier w/o UN support. Because two weeks earlier would have magically reach a good outcome, that now can't happen because we waited a fortnight? Give me a break. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by the right for the rest of his time as preseident, be it 2 or 6 years. He could probably give the OK to the shot that kills Bin Laden (assuming he is alive and they find him) and Newt et al., would critisize him for the placement of the bullet..

Last edited by RIROCKHOUND; 03-25-2011 at 07:44 AM..

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:47 AM   #109
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
The scary thing, is that over 'there' BJ is one of the 'moderate' ones....
Of course he is trying to wreck America, just like Bush tried to do w/ Iraq so he and his buddies could make more oil money.... (obvious sarcasm)
If it wasn't for an ignorant public (supporting both parties), we might actually get competent people into office. And people yell at me for thinking *fewer* people should be allowed to vote.
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:48 AM   #110
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Yea, the dumbing of America continues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranfordJeff View Post
Our illegal immigrant kenyan muslim president is trying to wreck the country. He's not stupid, he's on a mission. For Allah, to destroy the west.
'Nuff Said

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 10:42 AM   #111
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
If it wasn't for an ignorant public (supporting both parties), we might actually get competent people into office. And people yell at me for thinking *fewer* people should be allowed to vote.
I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to
run for office.
Give credit and don't under estimate the average American citizen for having common sense and knowing right from wrong.

God help us if we ever got to the point that only the avante gard ivy league
grads were allowed to vote. They've done enough damage to our American
way of life.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 11:03 AM   #112
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to run for office.

and the ones that are around really don't want to have to put up with the BS and smearing of ones reputation that always accompanies a campaign....for any office

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 12:46 PM   #113
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
I would say it's more like there are few honest,competent people to
run for office.
Give credit and don't under estimate the average American citizen for having common sense and knowing right from wrong.

God help us if we ever got to the point that only the avante gard ivy league
grads were allowed to vote. They've done enough damage to our American
way of life.
I think the average American citizen has enough common sense to know right from wrong, but I also think the average American citizen doesn’t take the time to read up and educate themselves on elections and what the people running really stand for. I think a lot of average American citizens do not vote based truly off of the issues. I don’t think they take the time to form an opinion on their own. I personally know too many intelligent (above average) people that have voted for someone based off of looks, background, religion, college or business they attended, gender, race, etc, etc). I have good friends who are in a Union who have said, “Personally I’d rather vote for this person but I’m voting for that person because of my Union. People don’t think about things themselves these days, it seems they vote more off of influences (friends, family, media, Hollywood, self interest groups, corporations, etc.) This goes for everyone across all parties.

Just my take on it……..

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 01:44 PM   #114
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
I think the average American citizen has enough common sense to know right from wrong, but I also think the average American citizen doesn’t take the time to read up and educate themselves on elections and what the people running really stand for. I think a lot of average American citizens do not vote based truly off of the issues. I don’t think they take the time to form an opinion on their own. I personally know too many intelligent (above average) people that have voted for someone based off of looks, background, religion, college or business they attended, gender, race, etc, etc). I have good friends who are in a Union who have said, “Personally I’d rather vote for this person but I’m voting for that person because of my Union. People don’t think about things themselves these days, it seems they vote more off of influences (friends, family, media, Hollywood, self interest groups, corporations, etc.) This goes for everyone across all parties.

Just my take on it……..
Started typing then looked up and saw your post... pretty much my point exactly. Ignorance isn't directly correlated to intelligence. There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."
JohnnyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 01:58 PM   #115
O.D. Mike
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
O.D. Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S. Easton
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Started typing then looked up and saw your post... pretty much my point exactly. Ignorance isn't directly correlated to intelligence. There's a joke in my office - "The more letters after their last name and more advanced degrees they have, the dumber they actually are."
PRBuzz isn't going to like to hear this.......
O.D. Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 03:42 PM   #116
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
And Buckman, I'm not flipping on or regretting my vote (yet). One way I like to think about it (and remember in '04 when my choice was Bush or Kerry I would have prefered McCain to both) How would, say McCain(/Pin), have handled this differently?
McCain: Obama waited too long in Libya – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Sounds like he would have done the same thing (No-fly zone) but two weeks earlier w/o UN support. B..
Think of it in basketball terms. It's like a fast break. Two weeks is huge. It's not magic although some believed in magic last election.
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 04:24 PM   #117
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?
I think there have been studies that indicate the protection technology, body armour etc... has had a lot to do with the decrease in battlefield deaths.

A good read on the topic on the over reliance on military strength as a universal problem solver is Andrew Bacevich's "The New American Militarism."

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 04:48 PM   #118
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Read it again then. Obama says “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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…………………………………… He then says: As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
The context for the quote is specifically about preventative war with Iran to bomb their nuclear facilities. To take this remark as a generalization and apply it to Libya seems like a stretch.

Quote:
Maybe I see it how it is, as WAR.
Bombs, rockets, killing, etc. Ask anyone fighting in it and I'm pretty sure they will say it is WAR, War zone, whatever intellectual words you want to sugar coat it with, t’s a War, pretty much common sense, and you know it....
War is both a noun and a verb. War can be a legal word...to do with legal matters, treaties, property and all that nasty stuff. To assert that killing, bombs etc... is war because it's ugly...well duh. I thought this forum was a bit beyond that...

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 04:51 PM   #119
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Think of it in basketball terms. It's like a fast break. Two weeks is huge. It's not magic although some believed in magic last election.
If you miss the opportunity for a fast break you run a different play.

It's still the same points for the possession.

-spence
spence is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2011, 07:39 PM   #120
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If you miss the opportunity for a fast break you run a different play.

It's still the same points for the possession.

-spence
Good players don't miss the opportunity for the fast break!
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com