36 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

Why argue with the guy Preacher. Hes delusional and doesnt care about his own freedoms. Hes never gonna care about another persons freedom.

[preacherman76]

AsteroidX, on 03 February 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Why argue with the guy Preacher. Hes delusional and doesnt care about his own freedoms. Hes never gonna care about another persons freedom.

No doubt. The only reason I respond to him at all anymore, is for folks who might be sitting on the fence with subjects like these. Dont want him influancing such people without seeing the truth.

[AsteroidX]

I hear that. I cant say Ive seen anyone else post so much opinion not backed up with any evidence. I mean this is UM. Your suppose to be able to support your opinion to an extent. Otherwise it might as well come out of the horses ass

[F3SS]

I've said the same damn thing before preacherman. His words must be countered with reason.

[ninjadude]

preacherman76, on 03 February 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

He didnt declare war? By who's standards? When you drop bombs on people, you have declared war. Where in the WPA does it say you can bomb people who are no threat to your country???

No, the president cannot declare war as you well know. He entered the US into an "armed conflict". Actually "declaring war" is a very different thing. Sure the people on the ground don't see any difference but from a legal standpoint they are different things. The WPA limits the presidents power to do this. Libya was a case of humanitarian help.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

No, the president cannot declare war as you well know. He entered the US into an "armed conflict". Actually "declaring war" is a very different thing. Sure the people on the ground don't see any difference but from a legal standpoint they are different things. The WPA limits the presidents power to do this. Libya was a case of humanitarian help.

That was not the intention of the WPA it was enacted after Pearl Harbor for use in direct threats to the United States. Libya was an illegal act of aggression by the POTUS despite its "humanitarian" shell game.

http://en.wikipedia....ers_Act_of_1941

[Babe Ruth]

ninjadude, on 03 February 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

No, the president cannot declare war as you well know. He entered the US into an "armed conflict". Actually "declaring war" is a very different thing. Sure the people on the ground don't see any difference but from a legal standpoint they are different things. The WPA limits the presidents power to do this. Libya was a case of humanitarian help.

As FDR put it so well, the President can wage war, but he cannot declare war.  A simple truthful statement.

But the action in Libya recently was unsupportable IMO.  Obama has never met a war he doesn't like, and as one might expect, and like others before him, he has never been to war.  He's never been shot at or seen his friend die.

But he sure gets into that C-in-C thingy, ya know?

What's funny is they have him shooting skeet these days, doing the manly thing. LOL

Edited by Babe Ruth, 03 February 2013 - 08:59 PM.

[F3SS]

Babe Ruth, on 03 February 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:

As FDR put it so well, the President can wage war, but he cannot declare war.  A simple truthful statement.

But the action in Libya recently was unsupportable IMO.  Obama has never met a war he doesn't like, and as one might expect, and like others before him, he has never been to war.  He's never been shot at or seen his friend die.

But he sure gets into that C-in-C thingy, ya know?

What's funny is they have him shooting skeet these days, doing the manly thing. LOL

Good points. How many presidents have actually served let alone served in war? Heck, if there were any how many of them were wartime presidents?
About the skeet, you know how every time O speaks they say it's his Reagan moment or his Lincoln moment? Guess this is his Theodore Roosevelt moment. Teddy was a mans man. Obama is just a man by technicality.

[preacherman76]

ninjadude, on 03 February 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

No, the president cannot declare war as you well know. He entered the US into an "armed conflict". Actually "declaring war" is a very different thing. Sure the people on the ground don't see any difference but from a legal standpoint they are different things. The WPA limits the presidents power to do this. Libya was a case of humanitarian help.

If there is no difference on the ground, then there is no difference. These little "legal loopholes" are just ways to get around the constitution. The WPA doesnt say anything about humanitarian help. It can only be used if America is facing a direct threat. We werent. His actions are treason.

[ninjadude]

preacherman76, on 04 February 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

His actions are treason.

I really don't think you know what that word means.

[Dan'O]

Obama is America's greatest divider, ever. He is also a horrible and delusional leader who reminds me of a small child that tries to make up his own rules and kicks and screams when he does not get his way, then does it all over again a month later.

[Corp]

Meh, I hold to the theory that Obama has been killing people's pets. Maybe that would explain who some people have such a deep and personal hatred for him. Could be that I'm paying more attention to American politics but I don't recall Bush getting this level of irrational hatred when he was in office. Know plenty didn't like him but there didn't seem to be the same eagerness to start rebellions and civil wars.

[praetorian-legio XIII]

I think just printing money, selling serious weapons to our enemies, expanding government and the welfare class, political correctness, a failed foreign policy, far left politians, corporate greed, an unaccountable mainstream media, and a general lack of common sense are just a few of the reasons, that I believe are causing this once great country to falter so far, so fast.

At times I actually feel real fear about what could/will happen over the next couple of years under Obama. At times like this I glad I'm older then younger as maybe, hopefully I won't live to see this country turned into what it seems to be destined to become.

[F3SS]

Corp, on 04 February 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

Could be that I'm paying more attention to American politics but I don't recall Bush getting this level of irrational hatred when he was in office.

I didn't even pay attention to politics back then but I damn sure remember Bush being despised quite well. The movie where he was depicted and assassinated in and recieved a standing ovation is the one thing that's always stood out for me. I'll never forget that.

Quote

Know plenty didn't like him but there didn't seem to be the same eagerness to start rebellions and civil wars.

I think it's a couple of things.
One, patience for this out of control government is wearing thin. It's been since 9-11 I think that more people are apt to pay attention to things and also that's when the constitution started getting some serious bad looks on the hill. I'm relatively young and especially new to politics. I haven't got a full decade of political interest under my belt yet.
Second IMO, this rebellious tone in the country has been set in high gear by the divisive tactics and words that come from our dear leader. He is a master at division and I don't mean math.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 04 February 2013 - 06:44 PM.

[Frank Merton]

Bush was OK, Obama is OK.  In fifty years it will seem like the difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft.