You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #181: When all else fails, attack the poster. n/t [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #153
181. When all else fails, attack the poster. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -I guess it's not illegal if Obama does it no limit  Mar-31-11 12:39 PM   #0 
  - Short memory, have you?  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 12:48 PM   #1 
  - What resolution? The one I posted in the OP  no limit   Mar-31-11 12:50 PM   #5 
     - No, it wasn't violated.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 12:51 PM   #7 
        - So there is no requirement that the president ask congress to go to war?  no limit   Mar-31-11 12:54 PM   #8 
        - From the very thing you quoted:  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 12:56 PM   #9 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 12:58 PM   #12 
           - +1,000,000,000  L. Coyote   Mar-31-11 01:07 PM   #16 
           - John Dean wrote a whole chapter about this, the first chapter  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 01:13 PM   #22 
           - Exactly Right!  zorahopkins   Mar-31-11 01:11 PM   #20 
           - nothing in the War Powers Act  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:23 PM   #27 
              - War Powers Resolution: 1) By authorization of Congress or 2)  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 03:38 PM   #163 
                 - But things are soooo different now.  bvar22   Mar-31-11 04:27 PM   #190 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 05:02 PM   #211 
                 - But our "interests and values" were under attack!  pokerfan   Mar-31-11 05:08 PM   #215 
           - Do you selectively quote everything all the time or just when defending Obama?  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:00 PM   #14 
           - you do realize that  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:16 PM   #25 
           - No, it requires Authorization or a Declaration of War unless we're attacked  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 01:10 PM   #19 
              - If that's the case, then it's been ignored a few times.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 01:38 PM   #31 
              - The act of ignoring that point used to be pretty universally considered criminal around here.  Marr   Mar-31-11 05:05 PM   #213 
              - acme goalpost mover overer  frylock   Mar-31-11 05:11 PM   #218 
              - There's been fairly serious outry on a number of occasions  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 11:46 PM   #246 
              - "If that's the case, then it's been ignored a few times. "  sudopod   Apr-01-11 01:14 AM   #252 
              - "If that's the case, then it's been ignored a few times."  sudopod   Apr-01-11 01:16 AM   #253 
              - Wikipedia is not a legal document  jeff47   Mar-31-11 02:46 PM   #111 
                 - There ya go.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:53 PM   # 
                 - What a lame argument. Wikipedia might not be a legal document, but the war powers resolution is  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:59 PM   #131 
                    - yeah, it's just us  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:10 PM   #145 
                    - You have a funny definition of the law  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:11 PM   #147 
                    - most people?  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:19 PM   #154 
                    - I broke the law yesterday.  bvar22   Mar-31-11 08:25 PM   #238 
                    - So...only read the first sentence of my post then?  jeff47   Mar-31-11 04:57 PM   #209 
                       - UN Treaty does NOT "require" member countries to supply forces; they're subject to members' laws  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 11:39 PM   #245 
        - And he's been shown to be clearly in violation, PERIOD.  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 01:08 PM   #18 
           - Only in your mind  jeff47   Mar-31-11 05:06 PM   #214 
              - Here, with the real documents, is how you are completely incorrect  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 11:34 PM   #244 
  - This has been explained-debunked so many times already. At this point you must be doing this  KittyWampus   Mar-31-11 12:49 PM   #2 
  - geez, ya think?  dionysus   Mar-31-11 12:50 PM   #3 
  - So the war powers act doesn't really apply any longer?  no limit   Mar-31-11 12:51 PM   #6 
  - It's not an Act. It's a Resolution.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 12:57 PM   #11 
  - Do you know why this is a resolution and not an act?  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:03 PM   #15 
  - It is an act of Congress. It's the law of the land, the Constitution itself  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 01:14 PM   #24 
  - well it was a joint resolution  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:20 PM   #155 
  - The War Powers Act has not been violated  jeff47   Mar-31-11 02:52 PM   #119 
     - That's only one thing the WPA requires, and I think you know that  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:12 PM   #148 
        - As mentioned elsewhere, the act is more than section 2c. (nt)  jeff47   Mar-31-11 05:10 PM   #217 
           - Really? Then show us the pertinent part.  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 11:48 PM   #247 
  - They're subbing in new players to sway casual readers who missed previous debunkings  guruoo   Mar-31-11 06:46 PM   #229 
     - Not true at all  JonLP24   Mar-31-11 07:22 PM   #234 
        - Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and continue  guruoo   Mar-31-11 07:44 PM   #236 
           - Just pointing out  JonLP24   Mar-31-11 08:05 PM   #237 
              - If you're right, then every President since Truman has misintrepreted it  guruoo   Mar-31-11 09:08 PM   #240 
                 - Oh I have no issues  JonLP24   Mar-31-11 10:50 PM   #243 
                 - The law is 37 years old, and all of the Presidents knew PRECISELY what was meant.  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 01:35 AM   #259 
                    - Didn't Congress vote to call for the NATO no-fly zone?  guruoo   Apr-02-11 04:07 AM   #262 
                       - NATO is a defensive organization only. You are WRONG about the 60 days; it's not a given  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 03:46 PM   #264 
  - Yep. n/t  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 12:50 PM   #4 
  - If President Obama violated the law...  brooklynite   Mar-31-11 12:56 PM   #10 
  - That would depend on how much their owners stand to make in Libya  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 12:59 PM   #13 
  - Obama works for the same interests as Bush did.  L. Coyote   Mar-31-11 01:08 PM   #17 
     - Could you please stop posting that image?  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 03:26 PM   #158 
        - Why?  L. Coyote   Mar-31-11 06:31 PM   #228 
           - Cuz He's the forum nanny, and sez so.  SixString   Mar-31-11 09:07 PM   #239 
              - And He'll alert on that lickity split  SixString   Mar-31-11 09:10 PM   #241 
                 - Nah. It isn't worth an alert. Seeya.  MineralMan   Apr-01-11 03:45 PM   #256 
  - No; they WANT an unrestricted, imperial presidency as much or more than he does  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 01:24 PM   #28 
     - unrestricted?  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:39 PM   #32 
  - Doesn't requrie approval yet  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:11 PM   #21 
  - So you are saying my eyes are lying to me?  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:14 PM   #23 
  - yes  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:38 PM   #30 
     - So if Obama wanted to bomb Poland tomorrow you are saying there is nothing legally stopping him  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:44 PM   #33 
        - Why would he want to do that?  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 01:49 PM   #36 
        - Is there anything in US law stopping a president from invading a country  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:51 PM   #37 
           - I'm not sure, exactly, but we've sure done it before.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 01:56 PM   #42 
           - technically, no, practically yes  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:07 PM   #55 
        - from the sense of his power to use troops  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:52 PM   #38 
        - Your argument doesn't make any sense  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:55 PM   #41 
        - sigh  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:00 PM   #48 
        - Impeachment is not just for illegal acts  jeff47   Mar-31-11 02:43 PM   #106 
        - I think the White House would argue that the "(2) specific statutory authorization" comes from...  MilesColtrane   Mar-31-11 03:40 PM   #167 
        - Please see my posts on this thread  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 02:05 PM   #53 
           - and yet  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:46 PM   #110 
           - I'm looking at Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations  MilesColtrane   Mar-31-11 04:02 PM   #179 
              - My Pleasure; it's right here, and here's the American Journal of International law to confirm it:  PurityOfEssence   Apr-01-11 12:45 AM   #251 
                 - I concede your point.  MilesColtrane   Apr-01-11 12:05 PM   #255 
                    - Thank you. You know what? YOU'RE THE VERY FIRST AND ONLY PERSON TO DO THIS  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 01:20 AM   #257 
                       - "It's like I'm living in a land of crazy people, willingly blind and the woefully unable to read."  Gravel Democrat   Apr-02-11 02:23 AM   #261 
                       - I know that power, once it is acquired, is almost never willingly given up.  MilesColtrane   Apr-02-11 10:14 AM   #263 
                          - Absolutely. In fact, it whets the appetite for further encroachment; that's why it's a big deal  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 04:09 PM   #265 
        - Yes. There is nothing stopping him.  jeff47   Mar-31-11 02:42 PM   # 
           - because dems wage a kinder and gentler kinetic military action?  frylock   Mar-31-11 05:30 PM   #219 
              - They wage less of them. (nt)  jeff47   Apr-01-11 07:52 AM   #254 
  - No. 60 days is a limitation on operations AFTER authorization or an attack.  PurityOfEssence   Mar-31-11 01:22 PM   #26 
     - I just read the entire War Powers Act  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:33 PM   #29 
        - There ya go!  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 01:44 PM   #34 
        - Curious about purpose.  Rex   Mar-31-11 01:47 PM   #35 
        - Attack upon the United States can also mean an attack on  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 01:52 PM   #39 
        - Thank you.  Rex   Mar-31-11 01:56 PM   #43 
        - could be  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:57 PM   #45 
        - Exactly. We're in Iraq, even though we were never under attack  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:02 PM   #51 
        - lol. now you're spewing just absolute non-sense  no limit   Mar-31-11 01:59 PM   #47 
           - seems to me  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:01 PM   #49 
           - You are really trying to make this argument right now, do you not remember Bush?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:04 PM   # 
           - legal how?  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:10 PM   #59 
              - I'm not talking about the Iraq war specifically  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:12 PM   #63 
                 - I think Bush is guilty of all kinds of things.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:20 PM   #72 
                 - You didn't really answer the question, did you?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:21 PM   #73 
                    - And what I said was that I'm in no position to decide that.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:29 PM   #88 
                       - Lol, you aren't in the position to decide if Bush ever violated the law?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:31 PM   #91 
                          - You'd have a difficult time. I didn't join DU until 2008, and I  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:34 PM   #95 
                             - Ok, fair enough. So you had no opinion on legality of Bush's FISA or torture violations?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:47 PM   #112 
                                - Of course I had an opinion. When I say something that is my opinion  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:53 PM   #121 
                                   - again, I have never said my opinion holds any weight  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:58 PM   #128 
                 - it's really hard  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:40 PM   #103 
                    - I didn't ask you if Obama = Bush. I asked you if you ever thought Bush's actions were illegal  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:48 PM   #113 
                       - can you read?  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:53 PM   #123 
                          - Yes, lets focus on one area. FISA  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:01 PM   #133 
                             - Off topic, seriously.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 03:03 PM   #137 
                             - This is in no way off topic. If the argument you two are spewing is correct  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:04 PM   #139 
                                - you clearly  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:05 PM   #141 
                                - You just admitted below, you think FISA violations weren't illegal  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:10 PM   #146 
                                - You know...I'm done with this discussion.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 03:13 PM   #149 
                                   - tell me about it  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:16 PM   #152 
                             - clearly he didn't  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:04 PM   #140 
                                - I didn't think you would honestly sink that low  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:08 PM   #143 
                                   - no  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:15 PM   #151 
                                      - They did not change the law retroactively. They simply made it legal once they found out  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:30 PM   #160 
           - They are, yet we are free to fight about it forever here on DU.  Rex   Mar-31-11 02:07 PM   #56 
              - What you say is true. But that doesn't mean what Obama and congress is doing  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:09 PM   #57 
                 - so now your argument is that  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:18 PM   #70 
                    - You keep ignoring this question, maybe you can finally answer it for me  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:23 PM   #77 
                       - are you freaking kidding me?  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:27 PM   #86 
                          - Jesus christ. Your argument is that if congress doesn't go after a president that presidents actions  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:30 PM   #90 
                             - I said that  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:34 PM   #96 
                                - It was hidden from congress for years. But then congress went back and gave Bush authority  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:49 PM   #114 
           - Why did GHW Bush go to Iraq, starting with a UN-approved  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:04 PM   #52 
              - Bush went to congress and got authorization for the Iraq war. Are you not aware of this?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:10 PM   #60 
                 - sometimes, yes  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:15 PM   #65 
                    - What an absolutely absurd argument  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:19 PM   #71 
                       - it would take  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:23 PM   #78 
                          - and it would take  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:50 PM   #117 
                             - lol  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:55 PM   #125 
        - couple of possibilities  qazplm   Mar-31-11 01:55 PM   #40 
           - Yes Congress and the President are in agreement  Rex   Mar-31-11 01:59 PM   #46 
           - If he isn't meating the requirements of the resolution he isn't abiding by it  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:06 PM   #54 
              - Actually I see what they are saying and he is meeting the requirements  Rex   Mar-31-11 02:10 PM   # 
              - Please see post 18. Even if the excuse is that he has statutory authority granted by the UN  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:17 PM   #67 
                 - Okay, then why hasn't anyone in the UN called him out for this violations?  Rex   Mar-31-11 02:42 PM   #105 
                    - There is none. Russia and, I think China, abstained on the  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:56 PM   #127 
                    - well remember his argument is  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:21 PM   #156 
              - who determines whether  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:11 PM   #62 
                 - I am not talking to congress, I am talking to you  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:14 PM   #64 
                    - and I'm telling you that  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:17 PM   #66 
                    - So again, like I asked you above. Bush never broke the law?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:18 PM   #69 
                       - Good grief  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:22 PM   #75 
                          - You are telling me Bush never broke any domestic laws?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:24 PM   #80 
                          - And, since Congress is the only body that can act to do anything  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:25 PM   #82 
                    - The person you're talking to may have an opinion about it, as you do,  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:23 PM   #76 
                       - there are only three branches that determine law  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:25 PM   #81 
                       - Can you stop repeating this if you are going to ignore all the questions I ask you  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:27 PM   #85 
                       - Well yes, that's quite obvious.  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:25 PM   #83 
                          - Actually, no. You appear to be asking people to do something for  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:32 PM   #93 
                             - Did you ever during the Bush presidency think he was doing illegal things?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:40 PM   #102 
                                - Yes, I did. And my thinking had no effect. Since I am not in  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:49 PM   #115 
                                   - But you are saying we can't question the legallity of Obama's actions because we aren't lawyers  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:53 PM   #122 
                                      - perhaps what he is saying  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:58 PM   #129 
                                      - so what you are saying is warrantless wiretapping of american citizens was legal  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:03 PM   #138 
                                         - so basically your question is  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:08 PM   #142 
                                            - Congress didn't make it retroactively legal. Once they found it they made the program going forward  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:13 PM   #150 
                                      - You can question anything you wish.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 03:01 PM   #132 
        - Well, you're reading it completely wrong, and here's how:  PurityOfEssence   Apr-01-11 12:28 AM   #249 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 01:56 PM   #44 
  - Feh! That's disgusting.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:10 PM   #58 
  - My eyes!!!!  Rex   Mar-31-11 02:11 PM   #61 
     - It's gone.  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 02:18 PM   #68 
  - Finally! Thank you!  indimuse   Mar-31-11 02:02 PM   #50 
  - President Obama has already informed Congress as per U.S. law in accordance with the War Powers Act.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:22 PM   #74 
  - "Still, the resolution was non-binding"  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:28 PM   #87 
     - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:33 PM   #94 
  - geez. what a country.  inna   Mar-31-11 02:23 PM   #79 
  - The Libyan action certainly violates the War Powers Resolution on the face of it.  Nye Bevan   Mar-31-11 02:27 PM   #84 
  - I disagree. On 3/1, a Senate resolution calling for a Libyan no-fly zone was passed unanimously.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:29 PM   #89 
     - Was that resolution binding?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:32 PM   #92 
        - See Reply 94. Congress was indeed notified as per The War Powers Act.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:36 PM   #97 
           - See reply #35. You are ignoring key parts of the resolution  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:39 PM   #101 
              - Why are you ignoring the fact that President Obama sent a letter to Congress?  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:45 PM   #108 
              - because he's decided  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:50 PM   #116 
              - Of course. Thank you for spelling it out so clearly for me.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:59 PM   #130 
                 - Only by some is he held to a different standard. It's odd that  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 03:02 PM   #136 
                 - Hmmm.... yes, it is odd.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:10 PM   #144 
                 - Thanks for ignoring what the law actually says  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:41 PM   #168 
                    - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:44 PM   #171 
                       - Is what I just quoted to you not from the war powers act?  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:31 PM   #192 
                          - The section of the law I stated trumps whatever you have to say.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:40 PM   #199 
                             - No it does not. Those are the LIMITATIONS Congress puts on him AFTER he acts legally  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 04:14 PM   #266 
              - Are you going to respond to what I asked you to respond to?  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:51 PM   #118 
                 - FACT: President Obama informed Congress as per U.S. law in accordance with the War Powers Act.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:02 PM   #135 
                    - You can't possibly be serious. I never denied Obama informed congress  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:32 PM   #161 
                       - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:43 PM   #170 
              - and where in the purpose  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:45 PM   #109 
                 - Its right there, at this point you must be ignoring this on purpose:  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:55 PM   #126 
                    - ignoring you say?  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:02 PM   #134 
                       - It states he can not go to war without approval. Jesus fucking christ  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:29 PM   #159 
                          - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:46 PM   #173 
                          - it isnt a fucking war  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:56 PM   #178 
                             - no it doesnt have the word approval. But it says the president must get congressional authorization:  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:50 PM   #207 
                                - ... within 60 days of beginning hostilities. You keep leaving this salient fact out. I wonder why?  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 06:17 PM   #225 
  - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 02:37 PM   #98 
  - And with that, the OPs silly argument is pretty much obliterated.  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 02:38 PM   #100 
     - The truth will be ignored, however...  JuniperLea   Mar-31-11 02:54 PM   #124 
     - Claiming that the law has been "debunked" over and over  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 03:40 PM   #166 
        - Or simply read the law:  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:42 PM   #169 
        - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:46 PM   #174 
           - feels like I'm talking to a fucking robot. Why do you keep ignoring what I keep quoting?  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:32 PM   #193 
              - Facts don't matter? Then your demonizing mutterings has zero credence.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:37 PM   #197 
                 - I don't have to disprove what you said, the law I keep quoting disproves what you said  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:43 PM   #201 
        - Too bad you don't know what The War Powers Act really says.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:49 PM   #176 
           - Too bad you have to cherry pick through the WPA in order to make your  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 04:04 PM   #180 
              - It's called the law as it was meant to be followed. Too bad you can't acknowledge you are wrong.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:10 PM   #182 
                 - No, you didn't cite the whole law. And you don't refute the facts.  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 04:16 PM   #186 
                    - Why should I? Neither did the OP. Plus, I cited the part of the law that debunks the OP's concern.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:27 PM   #189 
                       - You cited a small section of the entire law taken totally out of context.  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:35 PM   #194 
                          - lol! Wrong. Says you, but it's clear that section of the law is pertinent.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:39 PM   #198 
                             - You are telling me when congress wrote that part I keep quoting  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:42 PM   #200 
                                - I'm telling you that your OP claims are garbage and I have debunked them w/a fact you won't accept.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:47 PM   #202 
                                   - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 04:48 PM   #204 
                                      - You can continue spamming the boards with that all day. You are still wrong.  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 04:57 PM   #210 
                                         - I asked you a question above about Obama violating the UN resolution  no limit   Mar-31-11 05:09 PM   #216 
                                            - Moving the goalpost to avoid acknowledging you are wrong? How predictable.  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 06:18 PM   #226 
                                               - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 06:20 PM   #227 
     - That would be true if you guys stopped ignoring what the war powers act actually says  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:37 PM   #162 
        - "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves"  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 03:45 PM   #172 
           - the law requires congressional approval  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:49 PM   #205 
              - The President has specific statutory authorization to answer the call of the UN Security Council.  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 04:55 PM   #208 
                 - Let's say he does. If Obama violates the UN resolution will he then be breaking the law?  no limit   Mar-31-11 05:03 PM   #212 
                    - Describe this hypothetical manner in which he would violate it.  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 05:35 PM   #220 
                       - Let me better explain my notion  no limit   Mar-31-11 05:49 PM   #221 
                          - Every situation has its own unique events and reasons, but as a general rule...  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 06:02 PM   #222 
                             - I agree with you on that  no limit   Mar-31-11 06:13 PM   #224 
                                - Dead wrong. The CIA is NOT considered an "occupying force".  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 06:52 PM   #231 
                                   - So you are saying the UN resolution doesn't prevent ground troops  no limit   Mar-31-11 07:12 PM   #232 
                                      - They aren't an occupying force unless they participate in an occupation.  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 07:21 PM   #233 
  - Were you calling for Clinton's impeachment when he participated in no fly zones?  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 02:38 PM   #99 
  - I was too young to have an opinion.  no limit   Mar-31-11 02:41 PM   #104 
     - you are confusing and mingling  qazplm   Mar-31-11 02:43 PM   #107 
     - My point is, President's have been engaging in international no fly zones in this manner for ages...  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 02:53 PM   #120 
        - exactly  qazplm   Mar-31-11 03:23 PM   #157 
        - "They all do it " isn't a defense although you are right,  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 04:13 PM   #184 
           - Repeat: "the law requires that hostilities by the US cease within 60 days unless Congress approves."  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 04:25 PM   #188 
           - Repeat: the law requires congressional approval before the president can act  no limit   Mar-31-11 04:48 PM   #203 
              - ... within 60 days of beginning hostilities. You keep leaving this salient fact out. I wonder why?  ClarkUSA   Mar-31-11 06:05 PM   #223 
                 - The 60 days are the time limit imposed AFTER he performs an act that's legal  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 01:28 AM   #258 
           - Precedent matters.  phleshdef   Mar-31-11 04:50 PM   #206 
  - LOL!!!! I'm sure you'll get a lot of new members for that site you're advertising  DevonRex   Mar-31-11 03:18 PM   #153 
  - Just spammers mostly so far. But thanks for your concern  no limit   Mar-31-11 03:40 PM   #165 
  - I just noticed that. Funny that I missed it through all those  MineralMan   Mar-31-11 03:48 PM   #175 
  - I just noticed today.  DevonRex   Mar-31-11 03:53 PM   #177 
  - When all else fails, attack the poster. n/t  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 04:05 PM   #181 
  - What attack? I laughed at the content of the OP. Then I commented on his website.  DevonRex   Mar-31-11 04:13 PM   #183 
     - Do you have anything to say about the issues in the OP  EFerrari   Mar-31-11 04:15 PM   #185 
        - What I had to say was "LOL.".  DevonRex   Mar-31-11 04:22 PM   #187 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 04:37 PM   #196 
  - Jealous much?  Occulus   Mar-31-11 04:30 PM   #191 
     - Good for you.  DevonRex   Mar-31-11 04:36 PM   #195 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-31-11 03:38 PM   #164 
  - UN sanction to do it  treestar   Mar-31-11 06:49 PM   #230 
  - Does arming rebels fall under the UN sanction?  no limit   Mar-31-11 07:22 PM   #235 
  - He got the UN, but violated US law. Bush failed to get the UN, but obeyed US law.  PurityOfEssence   Apr-02-11 04:22 PM   #267 
  - Man this police action ploy has been going on for a very long time. We would  RegieRocker   Mar-31-11 09:16 PM   #242 
  - War powers resolution requires an attack or threat of imminent attack  Taitertots   Apr-01-11 12:09 AM   #248 
  - Our "interests and values" were attacked  pokerfan   Apr-02-11 01:46 AM   #260 
  - Just Another Notch  Kalun D   Apr-01-11 12:38 AM   #250 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC