Signs of the Apocalypse: Republicans and Wingnuts Join Forces with Dennis Kucinich

The all-new anti-war right wing
Wingnuts • Views: 23,260

What does it take to get Republicans and right wing bloggers to unite with far left congressman Dennis Kucinich, oppose a war, and come out in favor of leaving an Arab dictator in power?

Simple: a black President. Lawmakers sue President Obama over Libya.

A bipartisan group of House members announced on Wednesday that it is filing a lawsuit charging that President Obama made an illegal end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

Of all the wingnut bloggers, lunatic anti-Muslim bigot Pamela Geller says it best (with characteristic typos and mangled grammar):

Finally, elected officials are holding a runaway President to account. Does anyone know what the hell we hope to accomplish in Libya? What is Obama’s endgame in Libya, aiding al qaeda? On May 20th, the 60th day of Obama’s war in Libya,  Obama was requird [sic] by law to get Congressional approval to continue his ops in Libya. The war he consulted no one about, the war he did not go to Congress on, the tyrant’s war.

Jump to bottom

170 comments
1 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:03:35pm

Qaddafi is a dictator, but I would not call him Islamist, he is way too secular. Islamists do not have female bodyguards...

2 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:05:01pm

re: #1 ralphieboy

Qaddafi is a dictator, but I would not call him Islamist, he is way too secular. Islamists do not have female bodyguards...

Been following Gaddafi for many years, and he absolutely follows the Islamist line in his speeches. Like many Arab dictators, he's corrupt as hell in his personal life.

3 Four More Tears  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:06:09pm

This isn't the bi-partisanship you are looking for...

4 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:06:40pm

In another sign of the Apocalypse, Secessionist Redpot governor Rick Perry has raised pandering to a high art, and all but confirmed that he is running for president, by actually endorsing NEW YORK BARBECUE!

5 [deleted]  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:07:03pm
6 nines09  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:07:26pm

So the Mayans have it right? /

7 darthstar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:07:38pm

Did Geller finish high school?

8 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:08:48pm

Don't tell crazy people to do dangerous stuff. It might actually happen.

9 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:08:50pm

Sorry about the comment. I'm incredibly angry right now.

10 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:09:25pm

What a difference three years makes. If Dubya had gone into Libya, Kucinich would be a lone voice in the wind and the GOP would be calling him an America hating traitor.

Elect a black guy and suddenly the GOP becomes an anti-war party. Who knew?

11 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:10:33pm

That spinning sound you hear is coming from Reagan's grave

12 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:12:35pm

Geller's readers are speculating that Obama hates the military so much that he's putting them in danger so they get killed and don't vote.
/Not kidding

13 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:13:15pm

Isn't the US basically just supporting our Nato allies with radar and intelligence?

Yes we used up a bunch of cruise missiles in the beginning, but the hardware and action is now from Nato.

These guys want us to drop out of Nato?

14 darthstar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:13:37pm

re: #9 ProLifeLiberal

Sorry about the comment. I'm incredibly angry right now.

It happens to everyone. Try rephrasing in a non-deletable manner. Sometimes a little word-play is quite therapeutic...just don't call for violence or anything like that...

15 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:14:22pm

re: #2 Charles

He spouts Islamist populism, but from what I understand, his state is not Islamist in the sense of Iran. But he is as corrupt a dictator as they come.

16 engineer cat  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:15:00pm

if we just remember the simple rule Everything Obama Does Must Be Wrong, the reactions of republicans in congress is perfectly predictable

17 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:15:07pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Geller's readers are speculating that Obama hates the military so much that he's putting them in danger so they get killed and don't vote.
/Not kidding

And I guess Dubya sending soldiers into two wars during his presidency was sacrificing brave men and women for freedom?

The cognitive dissonance is almost painful.

18 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:15:31pm

re: #9 ProLifeLiberal

How about: "Hey, Qaddafi, duck!!!"

19 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:16:03pm

re: #14 darthstar

This whole thing is stupid. I'm pretty sure that us intervening is giving us some good credit in parts of the Arab World. And yet, these morons are willing to fritter it away for idiotic naivety (Kucinich and other dems) or racism.

20 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:16:34pm

re: #18 ralphieboy

It was actually against Geller, and was extremely nasty in character.

21 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:17:46pm

Quoting myself from the page on the same subject...

The War Powers Resolution has been basically ignored by Congress, or when it has been taken up by them, ignored by various Presidents.

I have zero love for the GOP, but I actually do care about checks and balances in US government (and unlike them, not only when it suits me). I think it was right to go into Libya, but it isn't right (nor legal) to remain there without Congressional authorization.

I didn't like it when Bush ignored Congress when it came to military adventures, and I will not like it if Obama does likewise.

All that said: the details of whether or not the current administration has *actually* violated any part of the War Power Resolution seem entirely unclear. That won't stop the GOP from making political hay over the subject, and I will stand by anyone who condemns them for such shenanigans. It doesn't mean I'm not still interested in the truth of the matter.

22 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:17:47pm

re: #17 Lidane

And I guess Dubya sending soldiers into two wars during his presidency was sacrificing brave men and women for freedom?

The cognitive dissonance is almost painful.

Oh, the modern GOP has already thrown Bush away. Turns out he was a big-spending liberal and they all were fooled while he was in office.

23 JeffM70  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:17:54pm

Huh. I would have thought that Obama bombing dirty Muzlimz would make Geller happy. I guess some hatreds outweigh others.

24 Bulworth  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:18:53pm
I would have thought that Obama bombing dirty Muzlimz would make Geller happy. I guess some hatreds outweigh others.

Me, too. I'm pretty confused.

25 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:19:46pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Geller's readers are speculating that Obama hates the military so much that he's putting them in danger so they get killed and don't vote.
/Not kidding

Yep:

rodney said...
Here's my theory.

Obama, as we know, takes all possible steps to exclude military men and women from voting--since he knows they are predominantly opposed to him.

So, by engaging in pointless, endless wars, he puts their lives in danger and decreases his opposition.

How else to explain his pretending to fight the sources of terror, or tyranny, but not really doing so?

26 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:20:12pm

re: #23 JeffM70

Huh. I would have thought that Obama bombing dirty Muzlimz would make Geller happy. I guess some hatreds outweigh others.

She hates Muslims in the Middle East. She hates them even more when they sit in the Oval Office.

///

27 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:20:21pm

re: #23 JeffM70

Huh. I would have thought that Obama bombing dirty Muzlimz would make Geller happy. I guess some hatreds outweigh others.

She (all of them, really) will whine about it because they think it's a smart political tactic, while secretly hoping that we kill as many as possible.

28 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:20:26pm

oh look my favorite podcast is on [Link: cascadia.fm...]

29 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:20:48pm

re: #23 JeffM70

I think Geller's thinking is that Qaddafi is killing more Muslims than we are.

I'm dead serious.

30 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:22:11pm

re: #21 gehazi

This is my position too. It's an unavoidable problem that determining how the checks and balances on the use of military force can be applied will always go hand in hand with politically-motivated attacks on specific individuals.

31 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:23:27pm

re: #30 iossarian

"...if you can keep it!"

32 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:23:35pm

re: #29 ProLifeLiberal

I think Geller's thinking is that Qaddafi is killing more Muslims than we are.

I'm dead serious.

Dude, that makes my head hurt in the worst way. How can anyone be so mind-numbingly STUPID?

33 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:24:15pm

I've never heard of a lawsuit against the president...this is just bizarre...maybe there was a precedent

34 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:24:52pm

It's not just the lawsuit. The House today voted to defund our operations in Libya:

US Congress votes against Libya funding

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya.

Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163.

A number of members of Congress have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at President Barack Obama's decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorization.

The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.

Sherman's text states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act."

The appropriations bill still have to get through the Senate and to Obama's desk, so it's not written in stone yet. But it's certainly a wake-up call when you see the number in favor of it.

35 JeffM70  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:25:11pm

re: #26 Lidane

But wouldn't one evil Muslim killing other evil Muslims be a good Muslim?

36 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:26:16pm

re: #35 JeffM70

Only after he himself is dead.

37 aagcobb  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:26:49pm

re: #25 Charles

And how many casualties has the US taken in Libya? Another example of a wingut talking point which makes absolutely no sense.

38 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:26:57pm

re: #34 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

These people really want Qaddafi to continue his mass murder spree.

And how much has Afghanistan and Iraq cost?

Over 1300 times that of Libya.

39 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:27:02pm

re: #33 albusteve

I've never heard of a lawsuit against the president...this is just bizarre...maybe there was a precedent

Clinton v Jones is somewhat relevant in this regard.

40 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:27:05pm

re: #35 JeffM70

But wouldn't one evil Muslim killing other evil Muslims be a good Muslim?

Not if he's in the White House. At that point, he's just an Evil Kenyan Mooslim Commie Nazi Overlord Usurper that is bent on destroying America, no matter how many Muslims he kills elsewhere.

///

41 engineer cat  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:27:10pm

re: #32 thedopefishlives

How can anyone be so mind-numbingly STUPID?

it seems to me that a lot of people have taken up this challenge and are outdoing themselves

42 rhino2  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:27:19pm

re: #32 thedopefishlives

Dude, that makes my head hurt in the worst way. How can anyone be so mind-numbingly STUPID?

Willingly, that's the only way.

43 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:27:40pm

re: #25 Charles

rodney said...
Here's my theory.

Obama, as we know, takes all possible steps to exclude military men and women from voting--since he knows they are predominantly opposed to him.

So, by engaging in pointless, endless wars, he puts their lives in danger and decreases his opposition.

How else to explain his pretending to fight the sources of terror, or tyranny, but not really doing so?

What did rodney have to say while George W. Bush was President?

44 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:28:55pm

re: #43 Alouette

What did rodney have to say while George W. Bush was President?

45 Bulworth  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:29:08pm
How else to explain his pretending to fight the sources of terror, or tyranny, but not really doing so?

Especially fake sources of terror and tyranny like OBL.

/

46 ihateronpaul  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:29:17pm

Yeah I don't think any republican can try to tell me with a straight face that the GOP would be such peacenicks if it was 2008. give me a fucking break.

47 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:30:12pm

re: #30 iossarian

This is my position too. It's an unavoidable problem that determining how the checks and balances on the use of military force can be applied will always go hand in hand with politically-motivated attacks on specific individuals.

BTW, in this instance I have no particular animus against Kucinich and Paul, because they are pretty consistent in their demands that US military engagements be under the control of Congress.

48 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:30:27pm

re: #38 ProLifeLiberal

These people really want Qaddafi to continue his mass murder spree.

And how much has Afghanistan and Iraq cost?

Over 1300 times that of Libya.

That's just it, they're not portraying it as a funding thing, but as a permission thing. "Obama didn't ask 'Mother, May I?,' so he's violating our Constitution!" Except not only is there plenty of precedent in our nation's history that runs contrary to the War Powers Act, but I doubt there's anything in the authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq that included nation building.

49 darthstar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:30:32pm

This is all very easy to explain...Republicans don't hate all muslims...just this one.

50 Bulworth  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:30:40pm
How else to explain his pretending to fight the sources of terror, or tyranny, but not really doing so?

I wish the wingnuts would let us know which real sources of terror or tyranny we're supposed to be fighting...

51 aagcobb  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:31:42pm

I predict Orly Taitz will try to intervene in the lawsuit to argue that the President's birth certificate is fake. Layers!

52 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:31:43pm

re: #50 Bulworth

I wish the wingnuts would let us know which real sources of terror or tyranny we're supposed to be fighting...

They are: it's Obama.
/

54 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:33:38pm

re: #42 rhino2

Willingly, that's the only way.

Your Honor, the case for involuntary sterilization./

55 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:34:00pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

I think he made it worse, but we aren't actually the one shooting, so he may have a point.

56 Bulworth  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:34:41pm
I wish the wingnuts would let us know which real sources of terror or tyranny we're supposed to be fighting...

To answer my own question, I'm sure they'd rather we be fighting a real war against Iran or NK, neither of which, naturally, any of these fighting commandos of the 101st Keyboarders would be volunteering for.

57 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:35:10pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

I'm sure Obama and his advisors have a rationale for justifying their actions, and I'm also not saying that their rationale is necessarily wrong. I am certainly no expert on the War Powers Act.

On the other hand, Bush benefited from his own "expert legal advice" and we all know where that got us.

58 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:36:17pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

thanks for that...so hostilities are not that hostile....sounds a little weak to me....this is going to get very interesting

59 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:37:52pm

re: #58 albusteve

The logic is:

We're not shooting. We are helping those who are shooting.

We are doing Intel, Refueling, and Supplies now.

60 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:38:09pm

re: #48 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

That's just it, they're not portraying it as a funding thing, but as a permission thing. "Obama didn't ask 'Mother, May I?,' so he's violating our Constitution!"

Dingdingding we have a winnah.

61 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:38:48pm

re: #53 Killgore Trout

*angry face*

In general I love the President, but the argument that our current "supporting role" in the Libyan conflict doesn't count just brings to mind the mid-60s supporting role in Vietnam--precisely the kind of thing the War Powers Resolution was meant to prevent!

By the time that particular conflict has escalated into a full scale war, we were too committed (seemingly) to back out, which is the whole point of the 60 days authorization rule, to prevent a President from unilaterally getting us involved in a conflict without congressional oversight.

And because I seem to be in the minority here, no I didn't support it when Bush pulled the same crap!

62 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:40:24pm

re: #59 ProLifeLiberal

The logic is:

We're not shooting. We are helping those who are shooting.

We are doing Intel, Refueling, and Supplies now.

This does seem to be the logic used by the administration. Too bad it's shitty logic.

63 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:40:54pm

re: #61 gehazi

*angry face*

In general I love the President, but the argument that our current "supporting role" in the Libyan conflict doesn't count just brings to mind the mid-60s supporting role in Vietnam--precisely the kind of thing the War Powers Resolution was meant to prevent!

By the time that particular conflict has escalated into a full scale war, we were too committed (seemingly) to back out, which is the whole point of the 60 days authorization rule, to prevent a President from unilaterally getting us involved in a conflict without congressional oversight.

And because I seem to be in the minority here, no I didn't support it when Bush pulled the same crap!

Same here. I'm against these interventions but already knew I wasn't voting for an antiwar candidate (of which there have been zero since McCarthy.) I do find it hilarious the indignant conservatives are suddenly antiwar/anti-intervention themselves, now. Lol who do they think they are fooling? LOL!

64 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:41:01pm

re: #59 ProLifeLiberal

The logic is:

We're not shooting. We are helping those who are shooting.

We are doing Intel, Refueling, and Supplies now.

Wait, isn't that how we got involved in Vietnam?

65 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:42:48pm

time for the academics to define war, asymmetrical war, guerrilla war, hostilities, offense, defense...whoa

66 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:43:17pm

re: #61 gehazi

And where are the boots on the ground?

67 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:44:51pm

re: #64 Alouette

Wait, isn't that how we got involved in Vietnam?

LONG before my time....///

68 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:45:05pm

I think it was a huge mistake and very bad timing for Bush and Blair to free the Lockerbie bomber and normalize relations with Libya. It was a very dumb thing to do.

69 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:45:33pm

re: #66 ProLifeLiberal

And where are the boots on the ground?

I don't think anyone is arguing this is an open-and-shut case (or at least, there is a spectrum of opinion).

It does deserve to be properly argued out though, without too much name-calling.

70 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:45:33pm

re: #64 Alouette

I've been under the impression that between the French leaving and us entering (fully) there were a number of troops in Vietnam. There are almost none in Libya.

71 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:45:43pm

re: #65 albusteve

War Powers Resolution

72 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:46:21pm

re: #66 ProLifeLiberal

And where are the boots on the ground?

I'm sure the CIA is on the ground...but they are DNI not part of the Defense Dept....whatever difference that might make

73 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:47:07pm

Meh, people just need to accept that 1) the war powers resolution is unconstitutional and 2) the president, irregardless of party, has total authority short of war over the use of military force. The fine line between war and peace has been debatable since day one, but there have been operations that go beyond simple defense of property and lives with out congressional declaration of war since the founding of the nation.

The boomers have caused enough trouble with this. Hopefully the courts will just slap them and declare it void and be done with it.

74 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:47:21pm

re: #68 Killgore Trout

I think it was a huge mistake and very bad timing for Bush and Blair to free the Lockerbie bomber and normalize relations with Libya. It was a very dumb thing to do.

I assumed they did that because there were going to be further revelations that put the original case/conviction in an unfavorable light, but maybe that's a bit too conspiracy-theorish.

75 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:47:23pm

re: #68 Killgore Trout

I think it was a huge mistake and very bad timing for Bush and Blair to free the Lockerbie bomber and normalize relations with Libya. It was a very dumb thing to do.

agreed and I still don't understand that one...humanitarian reasons?

76 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:47:29pm

re: #71 gehazi

Quoting from the act:

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
77 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:47:36pm

re: #58 albusteve

thanks for that...so hostilities are not that hostile...sounds a little weak to me...this is going to get very interesting

I'm kind of surprised Obama even responded. It will be very easy to draw the wingnuts into fully supporting Q'Daffy (who's already sending them thank you letters). It's political suicide but the GOP simply can't resist their impulse to oppose everything Obama does.

78 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:48:09pm

re: #73 wlewisiii

You can't just declare a law congress passed (over the veto of a president) unconstitutional.

79 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:48:12pm

OT but....

Tea Party Summer camp

*facepalm*

80 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:48:21pm

re: #73 wlewisiii

the president, irregardless of party

"irregardless" is a fake word, like "refudiate"

81 Ericus58  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:49:21pm

Divided Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds anti-union law

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

"MADISON, Wisconsin (Reuters) – A sharply divided Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a controversial measure that curbs the collective bargaining rights of public workers in the state can go into effect.

In what was essentially a 4-3 decision, the high court overturned a lower court, which had ruled Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings law when they passed the measure in March.

"Access was not denied," the Supreme Court declared in Tuesday's decision. "There is no constitutional requirement that the legislature provide access to as many members of the public as wish to attend meetings of the legislature or meetings of legislative committees."

But Tuesday' 68-page decision was a thicket of concurrences and dissents, reflecting the sharp divide the measure has created in the state itself."
..................

82 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:49:23pm

re: #75 albusteve

agreed and I still don't understand that one...humanitarian reasons?

The Lockerbie bomber being let go for humanitarian reasons?

84 Political Atheist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:49:30pm

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

I think our NATO obligations are being fulfilled via the relevant statutory authorization in Libya, nothing more.

85 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:49:32pm

re: #76 gehazi

I'd assume from the material I quoted that the Admin is arguing that our Libyan adventure falls under the exception in number two. To my way of thinking, anybody down there (and almost none is not the same thing as none) is certainly in danger of imminent hostilities.

86 Achilles Tang  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:49:41pm

OT.

I'd like to ask if anyone knows about Bachmann and foster children.

Googling doesn't answer the question of "23" foster children and there is a suggestion that she has had 23 different children at different times; but that is not what she said on TV.

Needless to say, if she has 23 + 5 now, she can't be much of a mother for them while running for president. It would seem more like running an orphanage remotely.

Then there is the question of whether she is collecting between $400 and $1000 per month from the state for each child, depending on needs. For one or two that would be a legitimate expense, but with 23 it sounds more like a business.

87 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:51:20pm

has anyone ever met a female ron paul supporter?


They all seem to be men

88 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:51:59pm

GOP picks up another ally....
Farrakhan defends Libya, lambasts UN, US, NATO

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is lambasting the U.N., the U.S., and the "coalition of demons" that he says makes up NATO, accusing them of trying to assassinate Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and promote regime change.

Farrakhan says the United Nations and its 15-member Security Council, which he calls "the terror council," have no legitimate right to exist for passing a resolution that's allowed NATO to take military action in Libya.

The Chicago-based Muslim clergyman, addressing a news conference Wednesday a block from the U.N., defended his "brother leader Gadhafi" and praised his leadership of the North African country for more than four decades.

He's also encouraging Gadhafi to resist pressure to step aside.

89 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:09pm

re: #82 Cannadian Club Akbar

Yeah, but not the one your thinking of. I read somewhere that Britain released him because they were afraid Qaddafi would do some sort of retaliation if Al-Megrahi died in British custody.

90 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:11pm

re: #82 Cannadian Club Akbar

The Lockerbie bomber being let go for humanitarian reasons?

he was supposedly dying of cancer I think...but he didn't die
there's got to be a hell of a lot more to it

91 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:12pm

re: #84 Rightwingconspirator

That's when the President is even allowed to commit troops. Later on in the document (see the part I quoted) it specifies that he must receive continuing authorization from Congress except in a declaration of war only. "In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—"

92 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:18pm

re: #78 gehazi

You can't just declare a law congress passed (over the veto of a president) unconstitutional.

It's very easy because it _is_ unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches. The courts have found such things unconstitutional now for, oh, 200+ years :)

93 Political Atheist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:42pm

re: #87 WindUpBird

Oh LOL!
[Link: women4ronpaul.com...]

94 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:52pm

re: #86 Naso Tang

re: #88 Killgore Trout

oh man farrakhan should start talking about how big a fan he is of Herman cain, hahaha

95 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:52:56pm

re: #87 WindUpBird

Well my wife, lukewarmly, and not so much these days.

96 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:53:15pm

re: #87 WindUpBird

has anyone ever met a female ron paul supporter?

They all seem to be men

Ron Paul!
[Link: disinter.files.wordpress.com...]

97 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:53:20pm

re: #87 WindUpBird

has anyone ever met a female ron paul supporter?

They all seem to be men

I've seen hand-wringing articles at Reason wondering why there are no women or people of color interested in their ideology.

98 Kragar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:53:27pm

War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

99 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:53:32pm

re: #88 Killgore Trout

Yeah, we're going to listen the leader or psuedo-Islamic group with about 15,000-20,000 followers in the US. Out of 310,000,000.

///black hole massive

100 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:53:40pm

re: #92 wlewisiii

It's very easy because it _is_ unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches. The courts have found such things unconstitutional now for, oh, 200+ years :)

Fine, then get a federal court to rule on such. It's been the law of the land for more than 40 years and that hasn't happened.

101 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:54:04pm

re: #100 gehazi

*almost 40 years*

102 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:54:13pm

re: #93 Rightwingconspirator

hahahahahahahaha well done


Check this out: [Link: www.ronpaulforums.com...]

If five intelligent and attractive female Ron Paul supporters go on a date with me I will donate the max to his campaign($2300).

I'm a single, not unattractive and intelligent guy myself, and if I can find a woman who supports Ron Paul that's a big, big bonus.

This is for fun, but is not a joke!

So, reply here or private message me. After 5 dates I will donate! Ok I might just do it for one date.. No strings attached!

I live in Texas but I'll travel anywhere or maybe meet you at a Ron Paul event.

Ok, I'll even include a picture of myself...

103 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:54:14pm

re: #96 Killgore Trout

Ron Paul!
[Link: disinter.files.wordpress.com...]

Obviously fake tits Ron Paul supporter is obviously fake.

/

104 arbitraryname  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:54:25pm

I liked what McCain said in this circumstance, from an article here

McCain said there are continued signs of deterioration for Qaddafi's hold on power, including high-level defections from his regime.

"I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?" McCain said.

105 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:54:32pm

re: #83 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

John Boehner gives President Obama warning: Libya war may violate US law

Two weeks after he said that Obama was complying with the law:

[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

106 darthstar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:55:08pm

27 Senators (including two Republicans...co-sponsor Mike Lee and liberal stalwart Rand Paul) sign letter calling for Obama to stick with his plans to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Mr. President, according to our own intelligence officials, al Qaeda no longer has a large presence in Afghanistan, and, as the strike against bin Laden demonstrated, we have the capacity to confront our terrorist enemies with a dramatically smaller footprint. The costs of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan.
107 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:55:12pm

The GOP is making friends all over the world with this one....
NATO sliding towards Libyan ground war: Russian envoy


Dmitry Rogozin also said the conflict could have dire consequences for Europe by stoking hatred of the West.

"It is our observation that NATO is sliding down and being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya," he told a news conference during a visit to London.

108 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:55:13pm

re: #90 albusteve
Yea. He's not dead. Got a heros welcome and a snazzy Nike running suit.

re: #89 ProLifeLiberal

Yeah, but not the one your thinking of. I read somewhere that Britain released him because they were afraid Qaddafi would do some sort of retaliation if Al-Megrahi died in British custody.


There was questions about BP being able to obtain drilling rights off the Libyan coast as well.

109 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:55:30pm

re: #104 arbitraryname

Hey pre-2008 John McCain! How you been?

110 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:55:32pm

re: #105 Lidane

Two weeks after he said that Obama was complying with the law:

[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

It's part of his jobs strategy.

1) Twist in the wind
2) ???
3) JOBS!

111 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:55:36pm

I love a crazy

112 Kragar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:56:02pm

re: #90 albusteve

he was supposedly dying of cancer I think...but he didn't die
there's got to be a hell of a lot more to it

Oil contracts

113 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:56:15pm

re: #104 arbitraryname

I wish Obama had made McCain defense secretary. I really do.

114 Political Atheist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:57:00pm

re: #91 gehazi

That's when the President is even allowed to commit troops. Later on in the document (see the part I quoted) it specifies that he must receive continuing authorization from Congress except in a declaration of war only. "In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—"

Can you imagine congress pulling us out of a NATO operation that has UN sanction? The Senate and the President of the time approved and signed the NATO deal. This is ridiculous grandstanding, that could be dangerous abroad.

115 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:57:15pm

re: #100 gehazi

Fine, then get a federal court to rule on such. It's been the law of the land for more than 40 years and that hasn't happened.

Every president since passage has held it to be unconstitutional. Until now, no one was silly enough to take it to court and test it. Now they have.

There is a nice discussion of the issues involved on wiki:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

116 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:57:19pm

re: #113 ProLifeLiberal

Maybe 2000 McCain or (seemingly) 2011 McCain, but surely not 2008-2009 McCain.

117 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:58:12pm

re: #112 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oil contracts

I remember that now

118 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:58:39pm

re: #108 Cannadian Club Akbar

Here's What I was talking about:

Cable 09TRIPOLI65 (dated 2009-01-28) from US Embassy Tripoli reports: the case of convicted Pan Am 103 bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi is arguably the regime’s most sensitive political subject, in part because it involves a firm timeline in the form of the ailing el-Megrahi’s approaching death. Through remarks by senior officials suggesting that al-Megrahi is innocent and a steady diet of publicity about his case, the regime has limited its room for political maneuver. U.K. Embassy interlocutors here are planning for a scenario in which the U.K.-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement is ratified in early March and the GOL makes application shortly thereafter for al-Megrahi’s transfer to Libya. The U.K. Embassy expects a sharply negative GOL reaction if al-Megrahi dies in prison or if the Scottish Executive and/or FCO oppose his transfer.[122]

Another stated that the UK feared action by Libya against British interests if Megrahi died in jail. It also stated that the UK government fully supported his release by the Scots.[123]

119 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:58:44pm

re: #114 Rightwingconspirator

Can you imagine congress pulling us out of a NATO operation that has UN sanction? The Senate and the President of the time approved and signed the NATO deal. This is ridiculous grandstanding, that could be dangerous abroad.

Countries withdraw their support from NATO ops all the time, due to changing domestic politics. Happened in Afghanistan, not sure why it's crazy for it to happen in Libya.

120 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:58:51pm

BTW, I think it's obvious the reason why the GOP is doing this. After killing Bin Laden they're afraid of Obama collecting another terrorist scalp.

121 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 12:59:02pm

re: #73 wlewisiii

Meh, people just need to accept that 1) the war powers resolution is unconstitutional and 2) the president, irregardless of party, has total authority short of war over the use of military force. The fine line between war and peace has been debatable since day one, but there have been operations that go beyond simple defense of property and lives with out congressional declaration of war since the founding of the nation.

The boomers have caused enough trouble with this. Hopefully the courts will just slap them and declare it void and be done with it.

I support your point, but "boomers"? You're blaming all people born between 1946 and 1964?

122 Political Atheist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:00:09pm

re: #119 gehazi

Countries withdraw their support from NATO ops all the time, due to changing domestic politics. Happened in Afghanistan, not sure why it's crazy for it to happen in Libya.

It's crazy for us to do it. The ostensible "leader of the free world". Undermining NATO would be really dangerous IMO.

123 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:00:12pm

re: #120 Killgore Trout

BTW, I think it's obvious the reason why the GOP is doing this. After killing Bin Laden they're afraid of Obama collecting another terrorist scalp.

LOL
"new sheriff in town!"

124 goddamnedfrank  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:00:13pm

re: #87 WindUpBird

has anyone ever met a female ron paul supporter?

They all seem to be men

They reproduce asexually, by budding.

125 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:00:45pm

re: #121 wrenchwench

I support your point, but "boomers"? You're blaming all people born between 1946 and 1964?

I tend to hyperbolically blame a lot of Vietnam related madness on The Boomers in general :D

126 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:01:07pm

re: #124 goddamnedfrank

They reproduce asexually, by budding.

And graft. I mean grafting...

127 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:01:15pm

re: #122 Rightwingconspirator

It's crazy for us to do it. The ostensible "leader of the free world". Undermining NATO would be really dangerous IMO.

If we were the primary driver of it to begin with, yes. But we weren't and aren't and NATO isn't an arm of the US military.

128 sanfranciscozionist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:01:42pm

re: #1 ralphieboy

Qaddafi is a dictator, but I would not call him Islamist, he is way too secular. Islamists do not have female bodyguards...

He's a little bit country, a little bit rock and roll--there are several elements in his schtick. The girl guard is part of the Pan-African, I'm-A-Berber-Chieftain schtick.

129 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:01:52pm

re: #125 wlewisiii

I tend to hyperbolically blame a lot of Vietnam related madness on The Boomers in general :D

Hyperbole rarely enhances an argument. Understatement is a sharper tool.

130 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:02:22pm

re: #115 wlewisiii

I'm happy to wait for an actual court ruling.

131 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:03:22pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

Geller's readers are speculating that Obama hates the military so much that he's putting them in danger so they get killed and don't vote.
/Not kidding

How much more must GWB have hated the military?

132 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:03:42pm

re: #13 Naso Tang

Isn't the US basically just supporting our Nato allies with radar and intelligence?

Yes we used up a bunch of cruise missiles in the beginning, but the hardware and action is now from Nato.

These guys want us to drop out of Nato?

NATO is an Islamist secularist communist plot!!!

///

133 Interesting Times  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:03:54pm

re: #87 WindUpBird

has anyone ever met a female ron paul supporter?

Remember "B Girl"?

134 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:04:15pm
135 Political Atheist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:04:46pm

re: #127 gehazi

Well along with the French we were the big start of it, then backed off to a supply/drone/support role. So my point is not what we are allowed to do but what we should or should not do. Again IMO-undermining NATO now would be a bad idea. There is a lot more going on than Libya.

136 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:04:55pm

re: #22 Obdicut

Oh, the modern GOP has already thrown Bush away. Turns out he was a big-spending liberal and they all were fooled while he was in office.

Oh, no, none of them were. They all disliked him, and spoke out often against his policies.

Same as the people who will now tell you really solemnly that they never liked Clinton much.

137 Lidane  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:05:25pm

re: #133 publicityStunted

Remember "B Girl"?

Was she a Paulian? I thought she was just blindingly stupid.

Oh, wait.

138 allegro  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:05:49pm

re: #79 Dreggas

OT but...

Tea Party Summer camp

*facepalm*

The comments are great. My favorite...

You finally get away from your moldy, fringe, Wingnut-parents for a week and you wind up at Kamp Ku Klux.

139 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:06:21pm

re: #127 gehazi

True, but how many times has Britain, France, Norway, and Denmark (the principal actors) followed us into places. We should reciprocate. It's what allies do.

140 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:07:34pm

re: #138 allegro

The comments are great. My favorite...

That fucking place is in Tampa? Man....

141 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:08:58pm

re: #135 Rightwingconspirator

I mean that we weren't pushing to get involved at all, but your point is valid. And I'm not even suggesting that we shouldn't be in Libya: I think there are good reasons to be there.

But just because there are good reasons to be involved in a conflict (there were good reasons to be in Iraq, too), doesn't mean that a President should commit us there and flip his nose at Congress when they ask for an accounting of it. It was wrong for JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and it will be wrong for Obama too. Call me an idealist on this point if you must, but I don't believe that a President should be able to unilaterally engage the military, even if I agree with the specific mission.

143 Political Atheist  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:11:08pm

re: #102 WindUpBird

hahahahahahahaha well done

Check this out: [Link: www.ronpaulforums.com...]

I just had this hunch and tried the URL.

144 darthstar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:11:59pm

re: #134 Lidane

Fiscal responsibility, y'all:

Pawlenty’s Tax Cuts For The Richest 0.1 Percent Would Be Four Times As Large As Bush’s

Why does this tack work? Poor white people vote for tax breaks for the rich (and the politicians who promise them) because one day that could be them enjoying the tax breaks - and they work hard for their money.

145 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:12:54pm

re: #139 ProLifeLiberal

We did reciprocate, but various countries that initially went in with us to Afghanistan have pulled out over the years, for a variety of reasons. Starting something doesn't mean we should be forced to finish it. If Congress passed a resolution (let's say over a veto, or with a signing) to pull out of Libya, you wouldn't say we should stay anyway, would you?

146 iossarian  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:13:25pm

re: #144 darthstar

Why does this tack work? Poor white people vote for tax breaks for the rich (and the politicians who promise them) because one day that could be them enjoying the tax breaks - and they work hard for their money.

Too sophisticated.

At this point it's TV commercials with a snarling dark-skinned man superimposed next to the Democratic candidate.

147 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:17:04pm

OT- Sometime last week or so I posted the question what the over/under was for Gloria Allred to pop up in the whole Weiner fiasco. Not sure how to find my exact post, but it's there.

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]


"'I have wardrobe demands too. I need to highlight my package,'" Weiner wrote Lee, in an email read aloud at the news conference by Lee's attorney, Gloria Allred.

148 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:18:29pm

re: #145 gehazi

You haven't seen me on here. Yes we should. And not really to be a loyal ally, but also to make sure Qaddafi does fall. He threatened annihilation of tens-of-thousands. He must not be able to retain power. He must fall.

149 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:20:11pm

re: #148 ProLifeLiberal

You haven't seen me on here. Yes we should. And not really to be a loyal ally, but also to make sure Qaddafi does fall. He threatened annihilation of tens-of-thousands. He must not be able to retain power. He must fall.

So NATO > Congress?

I agree that we should get rid of Ghaddafi, but not at the cost of ignoring our own laws and constitution.

150 Kragar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:21:53pm

re: #149 gehazi

So NATO > Congress?

I agree that we should get rid of Ghaddafi, but not at the cost of ignoring our own laws and constitution.

The WH has made the argument they are adhering to the law my limiting US involvement in the NATO actions.

151 jaunte  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:22:00pm

re: #142 recusancy

Two weeks ago Boehner was saying everything was hunky-dory.

“I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

152 ProGunLiberal  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:22:15pm

re: #149 gehazi

We have been since WWII. Deal with it later. The slight miscarriage of law that has occurred many times over 60 years is much smaller than the crimes Qaddafi is committing. We'll deal with it later.

153 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:23:55pm

re: #150 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yes I know. And that's true for now, I was posing a hypothetical: what if Congress passed a resolution (over a veto if necessary) to withdraw all support from the Libyan conflict.

154 Kragar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:24:51pm

Congress Probes Radicalization of Muslims in US Prisons


Republican Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, strongly defended his decision to hold the second in a series of hearings on the threat of radicalization of Muslim Americans.

This hearing focused on the conversion to radical Islam of some U.S. prison inmates, which King said is an increasing threat. "I will say that again: dozens of ex-cons who became radicalized Muslims inside U.S. prisons have gone to Yemen to join an Al Qaeda group run by a fellow American, Anwar al-Awlaki, whose terrorists have attacked the U.S. homeland several times since 2008 and are generally acknowledged to be Al Qaeda’s most dangerous affiliate," he said.

Most of the Democratic members of the committee objected to the narrow focus of King's hearings, pointing out that there are many different kinds of violent prison gangs, and white supremacist groups which also operate inside prisons and pose a threat.

The ranking member, Democrat Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said, "Limiting this committee's oversight of radicalization to one religion ignores threats posed by violent extremists of all stripes. And there are other threats to be concerned about."

155 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:25:27pm

re: #153 gehazi

Yes I know. And that's true for now, I was posing a hypothetical: what if Congress passed a resolution (over a veto if necessary) to withdraw all support from the Libyan conflict.

Trying to remember here. They would need 2/3 vote to override a veto, right?

156 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:25:46pm

re: #152 ProLifeLiberal

We have been since WWII. Deal with it later. The slight miscarriage of law that has occurred many times over 60 years is much smaller than the crimes Qaddafi is committing. We'll deal with it later.

Well this is where we hit a fundamental disagreement. I can't accept this kind of logic: that it's acceptable to break the law (even if past Presidents have been breaking the same law) in order to fulfill some higher good.

That same logic got us American-approved torture.

157 gehazi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:26:29pm

re: #155 Cannadian Club Akbar

Yes, which I doubt they would ever get. I was really probing to see how far ProLifeLiberal would go, given the hypothetical.

158 darthstar  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:27:48pm

And people thought my taking all those shrooms was bad for me...

More important, 89 percent reported lasting, positive changes in their behavior--better relationships with others, for instance, or increased care for their own mental and physical well-being. Those assessments were corroborated by family members and others.

159 windsagio  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:28:09pm

re: #154 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hasn't Mr. King been 'probing radicalization' for a while now?

160 albusteve  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:30:56pm

re: #158 darthstar

And people thought my taking all those shrooms was bad for me...

you didn't eat the brown shrooms...only use the lavender ones with the pink dots

161 rhino2  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 1:39:23pm

re: #80 Alouette

"irregardless" is a fake word, like "refudiate"

Except worse, because it contradicts itself (double negative) in the context it's always used in.

162 sagehen  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 2:06:02pm

re: #4 Shiplord Kirel

In another sign of the Apocalypse, Secessionist Redpot governor Rick Perry has raised pandering to a high art, and all but confirmed that he is running for president, by actually endorsing NEW YORK BARBECUE!

Figures he'd pick the wrong one.

the best BBQ in NYC is this one

(note to tourists: it's one long block east of The Intrepid, or 4 short blocks south of The Daily Show/Colbert Report).

163 navi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 2:12:36pm

re: #2 Charles

Been following Gaddafi for many years, and he absolutely follows the Islamist line in his speeches. Like many Arab dictators, he's corrupt as hell in his personal life.

Or like many dictators, period. Last I check Kim Jong Il wasn't Arab, or Muslim....

164 navi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 2:20:20pm

re: #21 gehazi

but is it an act of war if it's a part of NATO action, rather than a unilateral action?

165 Hal_10000  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 2:44:16pm
And because I seem to be in the minority here, no I didn't support it when Bush pulled the same crap!

Just curious -- when did Bush blatantly ignore the War Powers? He got Congressional authorization for both Afghanistan and Iraq. As much as we might dispute why we went to war, he did, albeit reluctantly, go through Congress.

I have to side with Kucinich and the GOP here. Congress goes to war, not the President.

166 navi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 6:21:37pm

re: #104 arbitraryname

I liked what McCain said in this circumstance, from an article here

okay that sounds a lot more like McCain than what he sounded like during the last presidential election...

167 navi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 6:41:20pm

re: #164 navi

but is it an act of war if it's a part of NATO action, rather than a unilateral action?

okay finally got through all the comments and this question was already answered.

168 navi  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 6:42:28pm

re: #165 Hal_10000

He lied to get the authorization and he did more in Iraq than he originally requested authorization for, if I'm remembering, but I could be wrong. because I'm not remembering rightly.

169 Hal_10000  Wed, Jun 15, 2011 7:02:22pm
He lied to get the authorization and he did more in Iraq than he originally requested authorization for, if I'm remembering, but I could be wrong. because I'm not remembering rightly.

I'm not sure if he lied or was grossly mistaken (the Brits thought the same thing), but even so, lying to get us into a war is not illegal. It is in fact a sad tradition from Woodrow Wilson to William McKinley to Lyndon Johnson. Had the Democrats revoked the war authority at some point, I would have supported that.

Not getting the authorization of Congress is most definitely against the law.

170 RIRedinPA  Thu, Jun 16, 2011 8:27:53am

re: #21 gehazi

Unfortunately the only way to reign in the imperial Presidency that we've allowed to be established is for a partisan Congress to oppose it for purely political reasons. If this is how we get back to a separation of powers and checks and balances so be it. I've long lost hope that members of Congress would do things out of, ya know, a responsibility to the nation, the Constitution or their job description.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Detroit Local Powers First EV Charging Road in North America The road, about a mile from Local 58's hall, uses rubber-coated copper inductive-charging coils buried under the asphalt that transfer power to a receiver pad attached to a car's underbelly, much like how a phone can be charged wirelessly. ...
Backwoods Sleuth
3 days ago
Views: 187 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4