EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 240
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- The war authorization that Congress passed after 9/11 will be needed for at least 10 to 20 more years, and can be used to put the United States military on the ground anywhere, from Syria to the Congo to Boston, military officials argued Thursday. The revelations came during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee and surprised even experts in America's use of force stemming from the terrorist attacks in 2001. "This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told four senior U.S. military officials who testified about the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force and what it allows the White House to do. King and others were stunned by answers to specific questions about where President Barack Obama could use force under the key provision of the AUMF -- a 60-word paragraph that targeted those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. "I learned more in this hearing about the scope of the AUMF than in all of my study in the last four or five years," said Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith, who was called by the committee to offer independent comments on the issue. "I thought I knew what the application [of the AUMF] meant, but I'm less confident now," he added later. Source | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Too funny. They should get some people to go on the offensive based on this. I don't think Obama should personally lead the criticism, because it might be false. But if we're playing by the Republican rulebook, it doesn't matter if it's false, it's just a matter of smearing them with allegations of covering up the truth. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
This comment is just too funny: “We’ve got 70 new members who have not had the opportunity to vote on the president’s health care law. Frankly, they’ve been asking for an opportunity to vote on it, and we’re going to give it to them,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters last week. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/house-obamacare_n_3288283.html Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote: House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" You are obviously missing the big picture. This is nothing but to prepare for the 2014 election. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On May 17 2013 17:58 paralleluniverse wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Too funny. They should get some people to go on the offensive based on this. I don't think Obama should personally lead the criticism, because it might be false. But if we're playing by the Republican rulebook, it doesn't matter if it's false, it's just a matter of smearing them with allegations of covering up the truth. The story seems a bit werid to me. The copy that the GOP got a few days before the white house released the emails is different? The story should be on where the GOP got their copy of the emails. For all we know it could be the white house who changed the emails in the days between the GOP getting their copy and the white house releasing theirs. And while all that remains in limbo democrats can't really use it while republicans are reveling in their newly found legitimacy on whatever crazy shit they want to say as long as it revolves around the irs. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
| ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On May 17 2013 21:16 Sermokala wrote: The story seems a bit werid to me. The copy that the GOP got a few days before the white house released the emails is different? The story should be on where the GOP got their copy of the emails. For all we know it could be the white house who changed the emails in the days between the GOP getting their copy and the white house releasing theirs. And while all that remains in limbo democrats can't really use it while republicans are reveling in their newly found legitimacy on whatever crazy shit they want to say as long as it revolves around the irs. and Parellels comment. Too funny. They should get some people to go on the offensive based on this. I don't think Obama should personally lead the criticism, because it might be false. But if we're playing by the Republican rulebook, it doesn't matter if it's false Something about 'never letting a crisis go to waste' comes ironically to mind., and he's not Republican. So I guess it's a shared playbook. None of this is really funny unless your a hack and your team is on offense. I suppose you could blame Ben Swann while your at it for breaking the story last year. Off with his head!!! | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
So what your attacking the republicans for is forcing the white house's hand on being transparent in any way shape or form. And you are defending the white house who released only 100 pages of emails when the republicans were given over 25k for the white house to cherry pick from. Obama probably wouldn't have released any emails if it wasn't for the republicans leaking false ones. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On May 18 2013 00:03 Sermokala wrote: so logically what the republicans were doing was forceing the white house to release the correct emails to prove them wrong. Yeah, right. It's so logical, how can anyone deny it. So your logical story is this: Republicans had the emails before the White House released them, and despite them having the emails, they had to force the White House to release the emails which they already had, by publicly releasing the emails with slightly altered content. Make sense. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 18 2013 00:03 Sermokala wrote: I don't know why you're automatically thinking that the GOP need to explain themselves for anything. The republicans version came out before the white house's version so logically what the republicans were doing was forceing the white house to release the correct emails to prove them wrong. The April bengazi interim report for the republicans cites the correct useage of the mails. So what your attacking the republicans for is forcing the white house's hand on being transparent in any way shape or form. And you are defending the white house who released only 100 pages of emails when the republicans were given over 25k for the white house to cherry pick from. Obama probably wouldn't have released any emails if it wasn't for the republicans leaking false ones. The mental gymnastics you're going through to justify altering official e-mails to dishonestly score political points are just fantastic to witness. | ||
|
Noro
Canada991 Posts
On May 17 2013 18:02 paralleluniverse wrote: House votes to repeal Obamacare for the 37th time. This comment is just too funny: Summary: "WWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH. It's not fair I didn't get a chance to vote to repeal Obamacare!! Let me vote against Obamacare NOW!!" Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 18 2013 00:34 Noro wrote: Yeah, voting is a silly thing anyway, lets just do away with the whole institution of democracy and let the President do wahtever he feels like. #seemslegit His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On May 18 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote: I have to say, the lack of concern being shown by Democrats over the death of four Americans, is a bit disturbing. I would say it's Fast and Furious all over again, but that was only The concern isn't about 4 dead Americans, although it should be. The concern is on who edited the talking points and "covered up" the real cause of the attack. And Republicans have only themselves to blame for this shift in concerns. | ||
|
Noro
Canada991 Posts
On May 18 2013 00:40 mcc wrote: His issue is that they are not actually voting to change anything, they are just making PR statement for their voters. If you knew pretty well what the outcome would be before casting a ballot, does that make your vote irrelevant? It's the principle of the thing. In America, you have the right to vote, the right to voice an opinion, and the right to "PR statements for voters." The moment when you start dismissing rights because one group thinks it doesn't matter, is a defeat for democracy and the constitution. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 18 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote: I have to say, the lack of concern being shown by Democrats over the death of four Americans, is a bit disturbing. I would say it's Fast and Furious all over again, but that was only I hope you are not hypocrite and you demand previous administration to be held responsible for death of thousands of Americans for which they were much more responsible than Obama is for Benghazi. If you are, good for you. I am still unclear if Obama is actually responsible in any reasonable way for what happened in Benghazi. | ||
| ||
