Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

I poorly worded that. Obama's results make democrats long for the Carter numbers. There are 90 million Americans not working. Full time jobs are being converted to part time jobs to deal with the damage done by Obama's regime and Obamacare.

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2011/07/18/carter-vs-obama-unemployment/

The labor force participation rate also started at a much lower base when President Carter first took office compared with the rate under President Obama. However, during Carter’s first two and half years in office, the labor force participation rate steadily increased. For President Obama, the rate has moved in the opposite direction, as people have become discouraged and stopped looking for employment.​

Imagine that. Under our Marxist more than 90 million Americans are not working:

The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation's labor force has pushed past 90,000,000 for the first time, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...e-almost-10m-under-obama#sthash.SYbkDvUq.dpuf

 

Have you ever wondered if you are as smart as you think you are? No?

It is not a matter of conservatives or Republicans trusting Putin. The concern is that Putin has more credibility than our Marxist.

Here's how the Obama folks have been starting to spin Syria. The president made a credible threat to use military force in Syria. At the same time, he worked behind the scenes to get Russia's Vladimir Putin to push Bashir al-Assad to give up chemical weapons.

These two seemingly discordant initiatives, brilliantly coordinated, combined to produce a process to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons without even a shot being fired across the bow.

Of course, every bit of this is false. Only the most credulous Obama fans are fooled.​

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ines_us_credibility_119930.html#ixzz2enBlMVpT
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

The administration’s latest handling of the Syria situation, Corker said, has hurt Obama “tremendously” in his relations with members of Congress—relationships the president had been trying to strengthen through more outreach this year. “He's a diminished figure here on Capitol Hill, I can assure you that,” he said.​

Obama fails abroad and at home. I hope this helps to make Obama, our Marxist, a lameduck.

Before, Russia seemed isolated. Now we're looking not isolated, but with a smaller coalition, as Mark said. In Congress, I think it's bad. I think the decision to go to Congress was a very unfortunate decision, because it made it much bigger than Syria itself.

Now it's a test case for Obama's credibility, credibility around the world, and credibility at home. There is a common assumption that he can rally public opinion, he can lean on Congress, and ultimately they will force Democrats to say -- they don't like the policy, but they will say you can't let Obama go down and have his credibility destroyed.

I'm really dubious that that's going to be the case. I think Republicans are going to be largely against. That's really clear. The Democrats in their hearts, they're against. The noise from their districts is going to be solidly against.​

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_09-06.html

Obama is a dangerous fool.

 

Declare doesn't = attack

So the pres isn't acting unconstitutional by "attacking". The constitution simply doesn't forbid him to do it. I admit I'm no con law expert, and I am just beginning my studies, but from my observations, the powers given to Congress have nothing to do with what is going on in Syria. Here is a list of every single verb (with some nouns to add context) in the Congressional powers Art 1, sec 8:

Declare, grant (letters), make (rules), raise, support, provide, maintain, regulate, call forth (militia), organize, arm, discipline, govern, appoint (officers), train.

The only powers Congress has that I can see would require their permission in the Syria situation is Art 1, sec. 8.10 which says Congress has the power to "define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations". There is debate here, and here only as far as Obama using force in Syria, simply because I'm not quite sure what they mean by law of nations, and what exactly they meant by "punish".

As far as the pres, we get just Art 2 sec 2, which just says the pres is commander-in-chief of US armed forces.

There is really nothing that I see that prevents the use of the military as he sees fit (except in its organization, training, etc. mentioned above). And the founders were well aware of other words related to war (as seen by their use of them in the constitution and other documents). Words like: levy, execute, wage, engage, initiate, or commence war. These words were not used in relation to the Pres or Congress's power.

So at a minimum, it is debatable as to whether Obama can use the US military in Syria. It's definitely not automatically unconstitutional and impeachable as many claim. It's not clear, but I lean toward the Pres having authority, simply because of the lack of mention the verbs like "engage". When the Congressional section of powers reference the military is viewed as a whole, it seems Congress didn't really have powers to actually use the military for anything except repel and invasion or rebellion, and even then, Congress is only authorized to "call forth" militias (which would be commanded by the pres) to confront them.

 

A declaration of war means that a state of war exists. Only Congress can commit the nation to war. Shooting missiles into a nation that we are not at war with is a defacto declaration of war. Both laws and custom allow the president some authority to act without getting a declaration of war. The president can repel invasions. He can immediately act when a vital national interest is at issue and there is no time to build his case before the people and the Congress. If American lives are immediately threatened, for example, the president may act. If another nation declares war upon us the president may act as the state of war already exists.

Only the Congress can, if we are following the US Constitution, commit the nation to war.

 

A declaration of war is a declaration of legal status between US citizens and the citizens of the state at which we are at war with. As far as actually using the military, a declaration of war has never meant much of anything in all of world history. Hostilities begin way before declarations. In just about all conflicts. Committing nations to war have little to do with declarations. Other factors lead to wars. To declare, even in the 1700's, means "to shew" or "to make public".

To me the framer's intent is clear with all those verbs I posted earlier (like declare, organize, train, etc.). Those words have nothing to do with the wielding of the power of the military, and leave that choice to the pres. But because Congress has been given all these other powers over the military, it offers a good check on the executive's use of the military, by other means (like defunding, organization, etc.)

So if Obama uses the US military in a way in which the US public doesn't agree with, then Congress can defund, reorganize the military, etc., to inhibit that use. If they do not, then the US will vote in new reps who will. That's how it is supposed to work, imo.

 

Since you seem to repeat many of the same points, ad nauseum regardless of how I reply to them, I’ll just skip over the dreck and try to bullet point this for you.

Iraq wasn’t amateurish. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn’t make it amateurish. My calling the President’s behavior (I wouldn’t call it a policy) amateurish was just a recognition of fact.

You’re so in the tank that you can’t recognize you are part of Obama’s cult of personality. You can’t even recognize that the phrase was directed to you and others like you, not to Obama. Obama didn’t start it and doesn’t need to do anything to continue it. It’s a self generating delusion. It interesting that you think it’s a knock against the President, but you can’t see who it’s really a knock against! That’s funny.

As much as you think this was a great victory for Obama, the rest of the world seems to disagree. This isn’t a left-right thing; I’ve read much of the more liberal commentary this week on this Putin “deal” and I don’t get the feeling that they think, as you do, that this was a well orchestrated plan by Obama that played out just as he imagined. Nor are they judging the plan based on what Putin and Assad say they’ll do, rather what actually happens. I would say that when this plays out, Assad stays in power, and you’ll continue to find excuses as to why this was actually Obama’s plan all along and that it was brilliant.

And then you went into a tirade against Rush, gays Jesse Helms, Ted Cruz…totally irrelevant to the topic. In fact you seemed to touch on about everything except the most important thing I wanted out of you: You have insisted that the purpose of the military strike was to take out Assad’s chemical weapons. No one in the government has been saying it. I keep asking for proof over and over and over and you won’t provide it. I say provide proof.

 

You've lost all credibility with that answer. Class dismissed.

 

Manipulating intelligence in order to make your case is not an example of the way to take your country to war. Sorry, but that's a fail, as was the entire war.

You're full of wrong guesses aren't you. You offer the ridiculous comment on amateurism, I provide a contrast for you, to put the lie to your over blown statement that is totally laden with crap, and you now make the claim that I'm attempting to change the subject to Bush?? So you lie about your own penchant for hyperbole, and when it's illustrated for you gift wrapped with a nice bow around it and a contrast is shown to you, you once again go off the deep end with more of your crap. How predictable. Once more you reach for the bag of insults that is the conservative MO of accusing people of being a liar. How transparent of you.

Nahhh....thinking isn't something I'd credit you with. Projection maybe, but thinking...nope.

Go right ahead. If they are, they'll be on the Russians, and they aren't about to take that kind of heat for the sake of Assad. It's pretty amazing that you're now in praise of the Russians as the world peacemakers. It's so Republican of you to back the Russians. Not surprising at all. You have much in common. You both hate gays, and now your all sucking up to Putin. Russians and Republicans. Two peas in a pod.

Consider it a history lesson. Your God Reagan did nothing about a country using Chemical weapons, except to send another Repuke to kiss Saddams butt and assure him that everything was business as usual.

Very simple. It's called chess. If you think that Obama making a proposal first would bring any results you're more of a fool than I thought. The "fiasco" as you call it worked perfectly. It was a gambit. Diplomacy always works best when it's backed by force. And if you think this wasn't discussed you're a fool x 2. It's the threat of force that brought about the proposal. That's a fact. It is in FACT the sequence of events which you cannot deny. The amazing thing to see is the Republicans hate Obama so much that their praising Putin, rather than admit that Obama's threat worked. It's so typically Republican. Bin Laden is taken out, and they want to credit Bush. Obama forces a diplomatic solution in Syria and they want to credit Putin. Seems like a pattern here. Everybody knows that Republicans hate the Black guy. It oozes out of your pores like some kind of putrid bile.

Before you called Putin the worlds peacemaker. Now you call him a schemer? Which is it? Peacemaker or con artist? I'll tell you why we would agree to this. The Russians have announced to the world that they are forcing Syria to comply. Syria is now also agreeing to sign on to the ban on CW. The Russians will be hard pressed to back out of their own proposal without appearing to be completely crazy which is not something they want to do. North Korea or Iran may be willing to destroy their credibility in the world. But Russia won't. They've put the weight of this on their shoulders. And this "It gave him an out for a massive defeat in Congress on the vote to use force.. you already admitted that Obama doesn't need congress approval to launch, so why would he consider what they have to say anyway. It's not like he's running for re-election is it. If Putin backed out, Obama strikes.

It's amazing how when you can't respond to logic, you resort to more BS like your imaginary cult crap. No answers...call it a cult of personality. More hate. More BS. All the pieces fall into place according to plan and when you have no response, call it the "cult of personality". Or...damn that black guy. He did it again.

Lying again? I never said anything about a vote being imminent. In fact I said this: "They may not even need a vote". Try to avoid putting words in my mouth.

Diplomatic solutions don't happen over night. There is a timetable I'm sure, and the Administration won't wait forever. If you think that Obama will do nothing, perhaps you should ask what will congress do? Then ask should the President bother with congress? Because it's certain that congress will do nothing about it. So, you'll sit there and say Obama won't do anything about it, while ignoring the fact that congress won't do anything about it. So the country won't do anything about it. And Chemical weapons will be acceptable in the field of battle from this point on. Sounds great. So when our troops are subjected to this in the future ( and that WILL happen) it's on your head. You allowed that to happen.

It's the difference between the Conservative and the Liberal. The conservative knows he's right. The liberal knows that he could be wrong. Which do you think is closer to the truth?

Hung up?? More exaggeration. You bring up the total nonsense of Freedom Fries in another over the top exaggeration and I point it out for what it is, and I'm hung up on Freedom Fries? You miss the point. Freedom Fries isn't the issue. Hyperbole is the issue. Extremism in everything you say and do.

They're removing the CW, destroying it and signing on to the weapons ban which is exactly what we want. And you say....they won??? You don't get this at all do you? You're like that guy who's face is a bloody mess and tells me you should see the other guys fists. Syrian wouldn't even entertain the thought of getting rid of the CW. They wouldn't even admit that they had it. Now, they admit it and are willing to get rid of it, because Putin knows that Obama will send a missile strike. Putin gets them to agree to get rid of the crap. A Diplomatic solution is put forth, no missile strike will be needed, no intrusion into their war which nobody wants. We get exactly what we want...and...they won?? What did they win? Obama's not attacking?? LMAO...well no sh*t Sherlock. Because they're dumping their crap as a result of his threat of force. Apparently it's you that doesn't get that. Actually I think you do, but you can't bring yourself to accept it.

You've already been told. So save that game for somebody else. I'm not interested in your nonsense. It's history. Look it up.

Then why offer to step in with a diplomatic solution and get them to agree to the ban on CW? They were fine with their rogue status. Why get involved? What changed?

You saw that video...and you deny that he said we are targeting Syria's CW's? Ok...you're actually not worth my time. I have no patience with this kind of crap. You live in a state of denial. You've had a video of the President of the United States telling you exactly what this was about, and you deny what you actually see and hear? I have no interest in engaging with liars and fools. Rule one of a debate. You must keep it real. You're completely out of touch with reality. I'm not entering into the bubble of the alternative wingnut universe. You're irrational and willing to lie not only to others, but to yourself. You engage in hyperbolic over the top BS and now you actually deny the evidence put before you. This discussion is over.

 

There is another possibility, during the last G20 meeting Putin & Obama may have agreed on the current CW disarmament plan & waited for a pretext to set the climate right with a media show for Assad to disarm. No leader is all powerful & maybe Assad needed the pressure from outside to make sure his own forces complied.

 

And this is coming from Corker. A Republican that is now in love with Putin? There isn't a Republican in Washington with an ounce of credibility, and you bring up this dork as something meaningful???

"The president made a credible threat to use military force in Syria."
That is correct. He did exactly that. You are aware of the hearing from Kerry, Hegel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussing that very thing are you not? Rand Paul was on the committee and even commented on the point that Obama may strike without congress approval anyway. You do remember this right?

Report: Obama considers limited strike
By Justin Sink - 08/26/13 11:09 PM ET

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/v...itesection=thehill_nws_us_sty_pp&VID=25089280


President Obama is considering a military strike against Syria that is limited in scope in the hopes of preventing the United States from becoming ensnarled in the country's bloody civil war, according to a report in The Washington Post.

The attack would likely last no more than two days and involve either sea-launched cruise missiles or long-range bombers striking military targets within the country, the paper reported.

You might take note of the date of this report. Aug. 26.

"At the same time, he worked behind the scenes to get Russia's Vladimir Putin to push Bashir al-Assad to give up chemical weapons."

And what part of this do you not get? The G20 was held in St Petersburg Russia. Obama and Putin were both there. They discussed the Syrian problem. This entire thing had been back-channeled with Kerry and the Russian foreign minister, and you're dumb enough to think that this just happened to fall our of Kerry's mouth? The very thing that would get us to not strike Syria just happens to be the very thing that Russia proposes. How amazingly coincidental. Foreign Policy always happens this way doesn't it?

Of course every bit of it is true, and only the Repugnant Obama Haters can't stand the thought that he did it again. They hated that he got Bin Laden, and now they hate him for this. Oh crap, he got rid of the CW's without firing a shot. Republicans are so pathetic. And you offer me Sen. Corker?? Why not Cruz or Pinhead Paul. Hell, bring out all the scumbags. As if I would give a crap what any Republican would say. They have no credibility at all.

Bottom line. Syria is giving up the weapons they claimed they didn't have, and we got Russia to make them do it without firing a shot. I'd call that a win.

 

You mean this?



In case you can't read it, it's from Feb 08 to Aug of 13 and it shows we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Bush left office, and Under President Obama's leadership, the economy has added private sector jobs for 42 straight months. During this span, 7.5 million private sector jobs have been created. You may recall that the economy crashed prior to Obama being elected. We had to stop the bleeding and then begin a recovery. You idiots tanked the economy and now we have to clean up your mess.

 

I wonder how long it will take for the right wing idiots to get back to the subject of the thread which is:

Paul Ryan on Syria. The art of the flip flop

This has been a great exercise in conservative distraction and derailing of a thread. They've veered off topic throughout and one guy denies a video that he claims isn't authoritative that comes from the President himself in describing the purpose of the possible missile strike and what would be targeted, so I'm not clear as to what more authority he's looking for. And another wants to bring up Marxist slurs, and the economy instead of dealing with the Paul Ryan flip flop.

Conservatism is a matter of stunted growth. It's brain freeze. It's petulant and obnoxious and lives in a world of self-delusion. And they love it that way. An alternative universe where up is down, and black is white. Obama has managed to turn the Republicans into the anti-war party. All because...if he wants it, they must be against it. Rule #1 Oppose all things Obama wants. hehe. What a bunch of useless tools.

 

I think you're mostly right on this. The use of CW is not acceptable to Russia. The fools on this thread don't seem to grasp this at all. Their hatred for Obama blinds them to the obvious. It's not in Russia's interests or security to have CW in the hands of terrorists that would certainly use them against Russia in the former Soviet states and in their Southern borders. They seem to forget that the Chechens wouldn't hesitate in using this stuff against the Russians. CW falling into the hands of terrorists threatens Russia. So the Civil War in Syria has now gotten to the point where the Russians need to do something. Obama and Putin talked at the G20 and we had already announced we would strike. The pretext and climate and media show came up with Kerry's press conference when he was asked if anything might change our mind. (Open door and enter) Kerry says' yeah, there's one thing, which of course they'll never do...get rid of the CW. Russia jumps on that and announces the proposal and within minutes Syria agrees. Syria is totally dependent on Russia for everything. If Putin says do this...Assad will do it.

There are those on this thread that cannot and will never accept what is happening right before their eyes. There is a great deal of gamesmanship in Diplomacy. Obama wants the CW out of the game and is willing to use force. Putin offers the only thing that will stop a missile strike at the suggestion of Kerry, and Syria agrees. No missiles are fired, and Syria will give up its CW. There is no diplomatic solution without the threat of force. Otherwise there would never have been a proposal by Putin. He certainly didn't make the offer prior to the threat. So why make it at all?

The hate filled Republicans are a pretty despicable lot. A party that never saw a war it didn't love, is now anti-war, because Obama wants to use force. If Obama wanted to cut taxes, they'd want to raise them. Dealing with them is like dealing with 3rd graders. They stamp their feet and hold their breath and cry and whine and lie, and now claim that the party needs to get back to the idea of Jesse Helms as their role model. A guy that embraced South African Apartheid and segregation in this country. That's the role model for the GOP according to Ted Cruz and not one Republican says...whoa...I don't think we want to go there.

 

Yes I got my meetings mixed up. The threat of force definitely an enabler.

 

So, you have no problem with gays in the military?

Selectively editing what I've said doesn't help your argument. You'll find the President has the War Powers Resolution to work from.

And the use of Chemical Weapons is of vital national interests to American troops everywhere. They cannot become a weapon on any battlefield. You would put our troops at risk. I somehow think you probably approved of the war in Iraq for the very reasons of WMD being a threat to Americans. Of course there weren't any there. We know there are in this case. So on one hand you're all for launching a war without evidence, and on the other you oppose taking any action when there is. Ok...we understand that you're being hypocritical. Do you have some other talents to display?

Imagine that. A civil war moving toward anarchy? sounds like Syria to me. We have Americans in the middle east. We have them in Turkey, in Lebanon, probably everywhere. And in this case poison gas has now been introduced. In the presidents view that makes it a vital interest to us. Oh yeah...NO boots on the ground in this situation.

An AQ takeover of Syria would also have grave consequences for US interests in that region. We have allies that would now be subjected to poison gas as a WMD. So it's vital to remove the gas from the table. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. We went to War in Iraq over WMD that weren't there. Now you want to turn away from a response when they are there. Hypocrite.

No I'm not. Jefferson did not ask congress to authorize this. I'm afraid your very confused. Congress never formally declared war on the BP, in fact no lesser person than Alexander Hamilton stated outright that a formal declaration of war was NOT required when the nation was attacked by a foreign enemy and it was that interpretation that Congress embraced at the time. So...you're simply wrong. As a Republican that must really hurt to be wrong about something.

Nahhh...you're just wrong on your history. Here's the facts. I know Republicans hate facts, but here they are anyway.

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation41.html

BS...says who? You? You're a funny man. You also have no background whatsoever in constitutional law, so what authority are you speaking from? The use of Chemical weapons is all the reason needed. They are WMD and an immediate threat to our troops and allies.

Who cares about your opinion? It's misinformed and meaningless. Libya was a NATO operation and we're a member of NATO. End of story. Besides anybody that needs to toss out the "Marxist" crap has no credibility. You're a Republican, and according to Ted Cruz himself, your role modal is Jesse Helms, the self-proclaimed bigot and racist. So that's where you're coming from. You toss out the Marxist slur, because you can't get away with using the "N" word anymore. A Republican = a bigot.

There is no amendment regarding declarations of war, sonny. It falls under Article 1. Sec 8. To understand this you need to view the annotations. The War Power, Annotation 41, Clauses 11,12,13,14. Go back to engineering. You have no grasp of the constitution that you love to wrap yourself in. It's one thing to carry it in your pocket. It's quite another to actually read it, and still something else to understand what you read.

And this is more evidence that you are a blowhard extremist that is clueless about this entire subject. Amendment? You really don't even understand why I mentioned that the Constitution was amended 27 times, do you?

 

There is another possibility, during the last G8 meeting Putin & Obama may have agreed on the current CW disarmament plan & waited for a pretext to set the climate right with a media show for Assad to disarm. No leader is all powerful & maybe Assad needed the pressure from outside to make sure his own forces complied.

It's a pity I could not edit my original post.

 

It doesn't help for you to read a bunch of right wing blogs on this subject. We've all seen the bill of sale that the pentagon produced. Historical revisionism doesn't suit you very well.

The United States exported support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war over $500 million worth of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples of anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism to Iraq up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. A number of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development. For example, the Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive anthrax strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

This is all well documented. It's not some secret. Years ago the actual bill of sale from the Pentagon was available to be seen. It was like a purchase order. This is not a matter of dispute. We did this. If you want to check it out, simply google WMD sold to Iraq and you'll find what you need.

No. Not at all. But I think a stronger demonstration of logic and some legal knowledge would go a long way and you haven't shown either. In order for discerning to be accurate, you'd need to set aside your bias which you cannot do.

Nope. That's your problem. You haven't. You've shown no grasp of the legal aspects of the constitutional questions we're talking about. You were in complete error on the facts of Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates. You very good at making assumptions without any basis to them and being opinionated for what that's worth, but that's about it.

The last gasps of a dying man. You sound like the black knight in the monty python movie.

Right. He just decided...hey, today looks like a good day to toss about 200 cruise missiles. The reason that you don't see a vital national interest was already let out of the bag when you stated that chemical weapons use depended on the "context", or the situation. So you would actually find a possible use for them under some circumstance. Well, you'd be committing a war crime since they've been outlawed since 1925. So...no. The president does NOT agree with you.

That's obvious, And it's that hatred that undermines all of your criticism. You are prejudiced against him from the start.

In my view he's the best thing that has happened to this country in my lifetime, and that would stretch a bit longer then yours I suspect.

That's how I feel about Dick Cheney. My holiday wish is for him to feel excruciating pain.

I wouldn't worry about that. We've been using elements of socialism in this country since long before you were born. You've just latched on to the latest political fad of carrying signs with misspelled slogans and tri-cornered hats screaming take your government hands off my Medicare. Our entire infrastructure is a socialist design. It's what supports the capitalism that we all take advantage of. Some more so than others. You're a veteran. That means that you qualified for the GI Bill. You qualified for Free Medical. You may have even used the GI Bill to go to college or buy a home. You claim to have been an officer. You couldn't be stupid enough to not use those benefits. Where do you think they came from?

Yeah...we all know that. If you could repeal Obamacare, and then try to impeach him then you might be able to insure that he was just an asterisk in the history books. It'd be like he really wasn't here at all. Just a little experiment that we sure won't make again. But....I'm afraid that won't happen. He'll be remembered for fixing the economy, saving the auto industry,ending two wars, introducing expanded healthcare for 40 Million people, killing bin Laden, not to mention being the first African/American president in US history...getting re-elected in the process. And after him, you'll have to deal with the first Female President.

Because your hatred is irrational. You hate the man. All of your complaints are really excuses. You and others just like you, oppose him for things that you always supported. So there is something else in play here. We've all seen the overt racism that's taken place since he was first elected. I can honestly tell you that I thought we'd finally gotten over this crap when he was first elected, but I was wrong. The racism that was always there, came oozing out from under the rocks, and I hadn't seen anything like this since the 60's just prior to the civil rights act. I wrote a book called Growing up White in Racist America that documents the 50's and 60's in Suburban Chicago and brings us right up to today. There is a very racist element in your party and it comes from the very conservative south that always opposed integration. It used to permeate the southern democrats, but they all bolted to the Republican party. The same hateful people, they just put on a different tie. This is from the book;

"Conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order becoming self-conscious and reflective when other ways of life and thought appear on the scene, against which it is compelled to take up arms in an ideological struggle."

"Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values."

"The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict."

"The very notion of a race of people that was; at our beginnings as a country, only considered to be 3/5’s of a human being, now having equal footing with those that actually believed in this idea, is a direct challenge to a long held social concept. It denied the idea of white supremacy as legitimate. It’s surprising how many people still cling to this idea, and will go to extreme lengths to perpetuate it."

"The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

"Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative."

So...you'll call him a Marxist, and the liberals socialists and demand that you want "your" country back, as if you have some exclusive ownership of it. And you'll yearn to "take it back" to...what?? where? Back to those traditional "value's" from the 50's when life looked like Leave it to Beaver? Great if you were white. If not...not so good. Some traditions are pretty cool. I'm an atheist that loves a Christmas tree. Go figure? And some traditions simply suck and should be dumped. Appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. We shouldn't base our legislation on traditions but on reason. That's what works for everybody as opposed to traditions that may only apply to some.

Nope. It's observation. The Syrian situation is pure irrationality on your part. I can point to the concrete logical reason why Russia would interject with their timely proposal that just happens to fulfill the outcome that we want. So you are either completely illogical...or there is something else going on. I can point to WHY the Russians would be interested in doing this. If your honest, you'll recognize that Russia could have come up with this immediately when it happened just as Obama did with his threat to launch a strike. But they didn't. Why not? If this was on their mind, why did they wait? They waited for Kerry's opening of a door. And why would the Russians even be interested in this when they never were before? Because CW threatens them every bit as much as it does the rest of the world. They know their southern border is at risk, even if you don't. Perhaps you don't remember the Chechen terrorists that they had to deal with. I'm sure that Putin does as does the Russian people. So...you know full well, that Obama threatened a missile strike. And you now know that after Kerry's remark, Putin has made a proposal that would prevent a strike. Even a child can recognize the simple logic here. Putin would not make this offer if there was never a threat of a missile strike. It took that kind of a threat, to bring about a political diplomatic solution. The fact that Obama and Putin talked during the G20 should make you wonder why this idea would come up as it did. We don't know what was said. But certainly the issue of Syria came up. Russia is Syria's #1 ally. Obama made it clear to everyone what we were going to do and that would include Putin. He would not be out of the loop.

The fact of the Bin Laden event would have sent a clear message that Obama would be willing to follow through with exactly what he said that he'd do. That threat was genuine.

So now...in predictable fashion, the right wing goes into full discredit mode from radio to Fox in order to try and portray Putin as the man to trust rather than our own President (that from Rush Limbaugh). That's right! Lets trust the man that props up the guy that used Chemical weapons on his own people. Obama is weak. Obama lost to Putin. The Russians are leading the way in world Peace. This is how much the right wing hates Obama and it's totally irrational, and illogical. It isn't about any policy at all. It's hatred for the man. Michelle Obama is doing PSA's promoting drinking of water...and how long will it be before Limbaugh or Hannity blasts the drinking of water? WATER??? If Michelle thinks drinking water is good, the wingnuts will have to disagree. I actually wonder if she did this on purpose just to see if conservatives will have a problem with drinking water.

Barack Obama is not an evil man. Cheney is an evil man. Cheney is totally Machiavellian. Obama is not looking to get rich from his office. He could have opted for a high paying gig as a lawyer but he didn't. He taught, and then he worked for peanuts in the community to make a difference. The money he made came from selling his books. He actually cares about people. That's what motivates him. And because of that, I trust his judgment. And because of that, I don't trust those that hate him as you and others do. I believe their motives have nothing to do with policies. They oppose policies that they agreed with before he agreed with them. I hear the dog-whistles, I've heard them for a long time. I know who they're directed at.

I haven't lost a single argument. I don't lose to ideologues. They're the easiest to dismantle. They all cling to theories of rationality. That makes them easy. They'll say....Oh...you lost. you lost...but that's just childish garbage. The kind of thing you expect from a 3rd grader. The reason is simple. They can't justify any of their positions because their ideology is baseless. It demands a foundation but lacks one of it's own. If you ask a Conservative to tell you why he's a conservative he can't justify his reason. If you press him, he ends up in an infinite regress of one justification for the next and then another and on and on ad infinitum.They can't accept their own fallibility. Oh, on the surface they'll admit that they're fallible like everyone, ( unless you're Rush Limpballs) but then they can't reconcile the obvious problem. Their ideology must also be fallible. You can't create an infallible idea from a fallible source. So...You're prone to error. You could be wrong. And that's the problem that won't ever go away. The conservative KNOWS he's right. The Liberal knows that he could be wrong. Which one is closer to the truth? I don't opt for emotional appeals. That's your domain. You lead with the Gut. The repository of dark and ancient fears. Pure emotion.

 

The tenor of your posts seems to be getting angrier. And you’ve been unable to respond to any of the points I’ve made. Instead, you merely restate your old points as if they are gospel, divine and unchangeable.

So again with Iraq. You have yet to make a single point about Iraq that shows it was amateurish, let alone anywhere in the league of the Obama administration’s handling of Syria. I realize that you really want to discuss Iraq, and why not? No one on this forum has ever thought to discuss it! You’ll be breaking new ground! So if Iraq is really all you want to talk about, then go ahead and send me a link to your new thread and I’ll be glad to jump in there and have a go at it.

I don’t know if you didn’t get that referring to the Russians as “peacemakers” was ironic or not. You act as if you assumed I was serious. I get that sarcasm doesn’t always travel well into print, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. So let me be clear: The Russians are anything but peacemakers. What’s funny though is that by your version of events (Obama and Putin put this carefully crafted plan together at the G20, and it was coming across perfectly!), the Russians are the peacemakers!

So don’t accuse Republicans of falling all over in love with Putin:

First, according to you, he and Obama are working together to bring peace. Why aren’t you falling all over in love with him?

Secondly, I never said anything positive about Putin. I regard him as a ex-KGB tyrant who is playacting at being a statesman. So you trying to bring in other Republicans as Putin fans is a distraction and irrelevant to anything I talked about. Although I will say this about Putin, he is the one playing chess. Obama is playing candy crush.

I’m curious, is this part of Obama’s secret plan?

Syria Backtracking on Chemical Weapons Pledge

I would say it’s pretty clear that Obama has lost this one.

Now, I think I know why you have decided so huffily to declare this discussion over. Because you were wrong. I have asked and asked in every reply to your nonsense for proof that the military strike was supposed to be targeted against Assad’s chemical weapons, and time after time you have dodged and parried. That’s why you want the discussion over, because you were wrong. And you are not honest enough to admit it.

So go ahead, declare discussion over if you want, but remember, you are doing it knowing you lost, you were wrong, and were too immature to honestly admit it.

I win!

 

You did not answer the question.

In the last month before the Marxist was elected the job loss was about 500,000 jobs. In November, the month the takers elected the Marxist the job losses increased to about 800,000.

In how many months prior to electing a Marxist did the nation suffer from job losses of 800,000 per month? The correct answer, if you have any honesty at all is, "None, Mr Veritis. It was only after the takers elected the Marxist who promised to cause the price of energy to skyrocket and to change the nation from one based on individual liberty to one based on the socialism collective utopia did we see job losses spike."

In five years and after wasting more than six trillion dollars what do we have to show for it? Almost nothing. But I see that the Obama voter still blames Bush.

 

Does it matter what I think about gays in the military?

I also wrote, "In other words you cannot show me that Presidents have a Constitutional authority to declare war."

In other words you cannot show me that Presidents have a Constitutional authority to declare war.

Show me what I selectively edited.

 

Make your case for how rebel and or Syria's use of chemical weapons against each other is a cause of concern for the American military.

I won't bore you with any facts. I will make the general comment that Hussein was in violation of the cease fire agreement. That was sufficient reason for me. Additionally, nearly every intelligence agency believed that Hussein had chemical weapons, the ability to create biological agents and had a nuclear weapons development program. The biological agents and a nuclear weapons program would threaten American citizens in the US while all three would threaten Americans and our allies in the region. And finally Bush spent at least a year developing consensus at home and abroad before asking the Congress for a war declaration. And Congress declared war.

The talent I display is critical thinking. Far from lacking evidence in Iraq it was substantial, collected worldwide by dozens of intelligence agencies, and agreed to in all of its broad points. How are we doing so far in Syria?

 

We shall agree to disagree.

 

I do not mind that you believe differently from me. Despite having lived somewhere near Harvard it did you little good.

 

Earlier I wrote this about the Dominican Republic intervention, "We had a vital national interest and time urgency in that intervention. We also put boots on the ground in order to evacuate Americans as the civil war moved toward anarchy."

To which you replied,

It is embarrassing to discuss this with you. Remember how I said I did not believe you were a fool? I am forced to reconsider.

After nearly three years of civil war do we have American citizens living and working in Syria? And are they suddenly threatened at this point as occurred in the Dominican Republic's case? Explanations of history are lost on you. The president (Johnson) sent in the Marines to evacuate Americans in the earliest stages of an attempted communist takeover. He did not wait nearly three years to act. Americans in the Middle East are not at risk from Syria's chemical weapons but might be from Al Qaeda's known use.

Americans are not supportive any longer of the Marxist's military adventures. He cannot commit the nation to war without the serious possibility of consequences for himself and his party. If he does choose to set the stage for a regional war his splendid little war could take on a life of its own leading to many boots on the ground.

 

Earlier I wrote, "a Soviet-communist influenced takeover of the DR would have had long term consequences for the US."

It would have consequences for Russia more than for the US.

Have you shifted your stance to a large armed conflict to secure Syria's chemical weapons? Would it make more sense to not further destabilize Syria if your goal is to prevent Al Qaeda from getting them?