The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[unofan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/j...se-patriotism/

Jon Stewart skewers Fox News, especially Karl Rove and Eric Bolling, over their "fake patriotism."

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

and for budgetary reasons, how about a serious conversation about how it will be funded?

Just like how we fund everything else - our Bank of China World DoublePlusGood Rewards Mastercard.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I also would like to see a Congressional vote to approve this war on ISIS and other terrrorist groups. Not only for Constitutional reasons, but also as an expression of national will. If we want to rally allies to participate in this fight, let's show them we are serious.

and for budgetary reasons, how about a serious conversation about how it will be funded?



It's been said that partisan politics (of the party vs party variety I mean, not the isolationists in each party vs the realists in each party) ends at the nation's borders. Time to see that again.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

starting at about the 1 minute mark of this video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/380462846...=3804628469001

is a clever piece that is both sobering and a bit ironic. the whole clip is 10 minutes long.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Why is it the people who scream the most about free speech know the least about the first amendment or what it actually means?

They may not be cheap ambulance chasers, graduates of third tier law schools, evicting old ladies and getting drug dealers and kiddie diddlers off, but they have some understanding of the concept of free speech. A concept which many liberals, including some who post here, think should be "flexible." As in: I and the people who agree with me have free speech rights. They and the ones who disagree with me probably don't.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I do not think this is true. I don't have a scorecard, but I think there are a bunch of liberals here who take Congressional approval of acts of war seriously and want to see the Executive hamstrung unless it is a case of defense against immediate, specific danger. One of Obama's many failing in my eyes is he campaigned on the understanding that Unitary Executive Theory is unconstitutional and hugely dangerous and should be tossed onto the ash heap of history. No doubt he would argue that in the absence of a functioning Congress he has no choice. I disagree. I think by continuing the trend of usurping legislative prerogatives he has emboldened the cynics in the GOP caucus, since they can both have their cake (not take potentially embarrassing actions) and eat it too (blame him if it goes wrong; say he should have acted sooner if it goes right; sue him for the usurpation of power in either case). For that matter, he's also let a lot of Dem Members off the hook who don't want to risk making their own version of Hillary's Iraq vote.

The presidency is far, far too strong as has been so since WW2. Every subsequent president, of both parties, has made it worse. The incumbent party is always tempted to use this power "for good," particularly when the other party controls Congress, but that's not the way our government is supposed to work. Even if it is too much to ask for a president to "unilaterally disarm" in the face of a opposing Congress, I hope that someday the fever breaks and, perhaps during a period of hat trick rule, the branches come back into alignment.

I was referring only to our colleagues who post here.

[burd]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I'm going to give you credit for spending only half your time in fantasyland in this post Opie! I've often been on Obama's case for not sending you to that gulag you so richly deserve to reside in, but I must complement you on the self realization that you're a weird, unpleasant, smelly old geezer. So, kudos to you...I guess...

I have to say I will regret the day they move Pio over to the dementia unit. He writes well, has an extensive, though dated, fund of knowledge, is an inventive name-caller, and disagrees with just about everything I've ever thought or written.

So I cherish these last days.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I guess this makes the most sense here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-on-the-ground

And yet they have a problem with women voters. Who would think it?

[French Rage]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I guess this makes the most sense here: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-on-the-ground

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler, to the best of my knowledge, is the only member of the chorale to suggest He needs congressional approval here.

This is the most laughable comment, yet. The guys in Congress who scream the loudest about war (Lindsey, McCain, and King) are also the biggest ******* when it comes to Congressional approval and fighting for it.

The Bone Man and McConnell have been gutless on the matter.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler, to the best of my knowledge, is the only member of the chorale to suggest He needs congressional approval here.

I do not think this is true. I don't have a scorecard, but I think there are a bunch of liberals here who take Congressional approval of acts of war seriously and want to see the Executive hamstrung unless it is a case of defense against immediate, specific danger. One of Obama's many failing in my eyes is he campaigned on the understanding that Unitary Executive Theory is unconstitutional and hugely dangerous and should be tossed onto the ash heap of history. No doubt he would argue that in the absence of a functioning Congress he has no choice. I disagree. I think by continuing the trend of usurping legislative prerogatives he has emboldened the cynics in the GOP caucus, since they can both have their cake (not take potentially embarrassing actions) and eat it too (blame him if it goes wrong; say he should have acted sooner if it goes right; sue him for the usurpation of power in either case). For that matter, he's also let a lot of Dem Members off the hook who don't want to risk making their own version of Hillary's Iraq vote.

The presidency is far, far too strong as has been so since WW2. Every subsequent president, of both parties, has made it worse. The incumbent party is always tempted to use this power "for good," particularly when the other party controls Congress, but that's not the way our government is supposed to work. Even if it is too much to ask for a president to "unilaterally disarm" in the face of a opposing Congress, I hope that someday the fever breaks and, perhaps during a period of hat trick rule, the branches come back into alignment.

[unofan]

Why is it a lot of liberal Democrats shout from the highest mountain they love free speech, yet do their ****dest to restrict it - particularly when they disagree with the speaker or subject matter?

Why is it the people who scream the most about free speech know the least about the first amendment or what it actually means?

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Why is it a lot of liberal Democrats shout from the highest mountain they love free speech, yet do their ****dest to restrict it - particularly when they disagree with the speaker or subject matter?

I'm not trying to restrict Opie's free speech. He can have a computer in the gulag if he chooses.

[joecct]

I'm going to give you credit for spending only half your time in fantasyland in this post Opie! I've often been on Obama's case for not sending you to that gulag you so richly deserve to reside in, but I must complement you on the self realization that you're a weird, unpleasant, smelly old geezer. So, kudos to you...I guess...

Why is it a lot of liberal Democrats shout from the highest mountain they love free speech, yet do their ****dest to restrict it - particularly when they disagree with the speaker or subject matter?

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Perhaps. At least the old dude makes an effort (not always successfully) to be consistent. Unlike others (who shall go nameless) who find no fault whatsoever with any Democrat anywhere, ever (unless he/she changes party) especially The One. Kepler, to the best of my knowledge, is the only member of the chorale to suggest He needs congressional approval here. The rest of you just genuflect every time he walks by. The old boy also occasionally wonders when the ladies of the chorale will start laying at least a little blame at the feet of the Community Organizer in Chief. It's been six years, girls.

BTW, that's not a scowl. It's gas.

I'm going to give you credit for spending only half your time in fantasyland in this post Opie! I've often been on Obama's case for not sending you to that gulag you so richly deserve to reside in, but I must complement you on the self realization that you're a weird, unpleasant, smelly old geezer. So, kudos to you...I guess...