It was WRONG when Bush did it....It's WRONG now... (1 Viewer)

[Varmint]

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama 2007

So, why is he doing it now?

Just let al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS?) duke it out in the Middle East...then, kill the winner.

 

[johnnycakes]

 

[Gene Sackman]

Yeah.. We should ignore children having their heads cut off.. Idiot.

 

[Raider Nation]

Ban this guy?

Pretty please?

 

[timschochet]

It was wrong when Bush did it, and when Clinton did it, and when Bush Sr. did it, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR.

I could probably go back further if I wanted to. But I think you get the point. There is not a single President since at least World War II which hasn't sought to initiate the use of force without the permission of Congress.

 

[John Bender]

It was wrong when Bush did it, and when Clinton did it, and when Bush Sr. did it, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR.

I could probably go back further if I wanted to. But I think you get the point. There is not a single President since at least World War II which hasn't sought to initiate the use of force without the permission of Congress.

Why are you responding with rational responses to every one of this guys threads? Best way to make him go away is to ignore it. You are such a guppy sometimes. We need this guy out of the FFA. Please stop engaging the trolls Timmy.

 

[Jayrod]

It was wrong when Bush did it, and when Clinton did it, and when Bush Sr. did it, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR.

I could probably go back further if I wanted to. But I think you get the point. There is not a single President since at least World War II which hasn't sought to initiate the use of force without the permission of Congress.

Why didn't you list Obama in your list? Hmmmmmmm......

 

[timschochet]

It was wrong when Bush did it, and when Clinton did it, and when Bush Sr. did it, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR.

I could probably go back further if I wanted to. But I think you get the point. There is not a single President since at least World War II which hasn't sought to initiate the use of force without the permission of Congress.

Why are you responding with rational responses to every one of this guys threads? Best way to make him go away is to ignore it. You are such a guppy sometimes. We need this guy out of the FFA. Please stop engaging the trolls Timmy.

He's a troll, and he'll stay or go regardless of anything I do. I suspect that, like Jim11, he'll simply get bored. Jim11 must have started hundreds of threads attacking Obama in the past few years, but he rarely does it anymore.

In any case, the question of the President's power to use military force without the consent of Congress is an important one, and SHOULD be discussed, IMO. Doesn't really matter who started the discussion.

 

[jon_mx]

It was wrong when Bush did it, and when Clinton did it, and when Bush Sr. did it, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR.

I could probably go back further if I wanted to. But I think you get the point. There is not a single President since at least World War II which hasn't sought to initiate the use of force without the permission of Congress.

Why are you responding with rational responses to every one of this guys threads? Best way to make him go away is to ignore it. You are such a guppy sometimes. We need this guy out of the FFA. Please stop engaging the trolls Timmy.

When Tim makes a rationale response, just appreciate the rare event.

 

[fantasycurse42]

where is this #######s birth certificate!?!?!!????

 

[NREC34]

No matter what O does guys like you will criticize it.

Guy gets his head cut off--- O was golfing.

O takes action against it--- see first post.

HTH

 

[NCCommish]

It was wrong when Bush did it, and when Clinton did it, and when Bush Sr. did it, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson, and Kennedy, and Eisenhower, and Truman, and FDR.

I could probably go back further if I wanted to. But I think you get the point. There is not a single President since at least World War II which hasn't sought to initiate the use of force without the permission of Congress.

Why are you responding with rational responses to every one of this guys threads? Best way to make him go away is to ignore it. You are such a guppy sometimes. We need this guy out of the FFA. Please stop engaging the trolls Timmy.

He's a troll, and he'll stay or go regardless of anything I do. I suspect that, like Jim11, he'll simply get bored. Jim11 must have started hundreds of threads attacking Obama in the past few years, but he rarely does it anymore.

In any case, the question of the President's power to use military force without the consent of Congress is an important one, and SHOULD be discussed, IMO. Doesn't really matter who started the discussion.

Jim 11 went into hiding after his side got stomped in the last presidential cycle. He has been back on occasion. I agree with the bolded.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

where is this #######s birth certificate!?!?!!????

The Kenyan County Records and Archive Building.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Ban this guy?

Pretty please?

 

[badmojo1006]

where is this #######s birth certificate!?!?!!????

Varmints?

 

[fantasycurse42]

where is this #######s birth certificate!?!?!!????

The Kenyan County Records and Archive Building.

I knew it!!!!!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

 

[NCCommish]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

True.

 

[butcher boy]

It was one thing for Bush to have done it, but Obama? He's doing it and he wasn't even born here.

 

[Fennis]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

full moon?

 

[tom22406]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

I think Kate Upton hacked in this account as payback for all of us looking at her #### and ###

 

[RCon]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

Someone else got the keys to the account?

 

[Thunderlips]

Have you forgotten?

 

[Fennis]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

Someone else got the keys to the account?

thank god its not whoever was posting as gordon gekko.

 

[matuski]

poor Varmit

 

[trogg78]

Somebody didn't love you. ?

 

[CBusAlex]

No matter what O does guys like you will criticize it.

Guy gets his head cut off--- O was golfing.

O takes action against it--- see first post.

HTH

My favorite part is when he says it's WRONG for Obama to "unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation", then suggests we should do exactly that, just at a later date.

 

[GrandpaRox]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

Ask Varmint. He is expert.

 

[matuski]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

It is Bush's fault.

 

[NCCommish]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

Well if you consider ISIS an outgrowth of AQ, which they are really even though they aren't besties anymore, then the AUMF probably gives him all the power he needs.

 

[Fennis]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

It is Bush's fault.

Cheney's fault

 

[matuski]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

It is Bush's fault.

Cheney's fault

Wrong again. Your fault.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

 

[Gr00vus]

It was WRONG when Bush did it....It's WRONG now...

Reading that title, I was assuming this was going to be about continuing to let Varmint post on message boards.

 

[Gene Sackman]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

It is Bush's fault.

Cheney's fault

It's Michael Moore's fault for owning so much Haliburton stock...

 

[NCCommish]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

Maybe, but to really take out an enemy you need boots on the ground. Whether they arevAmerican boots, NATO boots or US-backed Kurd boots doesn't matter.

Air strikes are only so effective and have NEVER won any wars.

 

[NCCommish]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

Maybe, but to really take out an enemy you need boots on the ground. Whether they arevAmerican boots, NATO boots or US-backed Kurd boots doesn't matter.

Air strikes are only so effective and have NEVER won any wars.

How about the ####### Iraqis put on the boots you and I paid for and do the ground work? These guys make the French look like Rambo and I see no reason for our people to die if they don't have the balls to stand up for their own nation.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

Maybe, but to really take out an enemy you need boots on the ground. Whether they arevAmerican boots, NATO boots or US-backed Kurd boots doesn't matter.

Air strikes are only so effective and have NEVER won any wars.

How about the ####### Iraqis put on the boots you and I paid for and do the ground work? These guys make the French look like Rambo and I see no reason for our people to die if they don't have the balls to stand up for their own nation.

Didn't I mention the Kurds? Aren't they Iraqi?

 

[jon_mx]

It was one thing for Bush to have done it, but Obama? He's doing it and he wasn't even born here.

Exactly. Some hidden motivation to empower the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[NCCommish]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

Maybe, but to really take out an enemy you need boots on the ground. Whether they arevAmerican boots, NATO boots or US-backed Kurd boots doesn't matter.

Air strikes are only so effective and have NEVER won any wars.

How about the ####### Iraqis put on the boots you and I paid for and do the ground work? These guys make the French look like Rambo and I see no reason for our people to die if they don't have the balls to stand up for their own nation.

Didn't I mention the Kurds? Aren't they Iraqi?

Pretty sure they are Kurds. That's why they want Kurdistan and not be part of Iraq. And those guys actually have some fight in them unlike the Iraqi army.

 

[Gene Sackman]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

Maybe, but to really take out an enemy you need boots on the ground. Whether they arevAmerican boots, NATO boots or US-backed Kurd boots doesn't matter.

Air strikes are only so effective and have NEVER won any wars.

How about the ####### Iraqis put on the boots you and I paid for and do the ground work? These guys make the French look like Rambo and I see no reason for our people to die if they don't have the balls to stand up for their own nation.

They wont though, so we (the USA) will have to. A genocide is going down that includes children having their heads cut off. No time to argue, time to act and stop these evil pricks..

 

[MaxThreshold]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

He's right. However, it's going to take more than air strikes.

Reports are that air strikes have already been fairly successful in hurting ISIS. And really based on everything I have read they aren't quite the powerhouse their PR machine makes them out to be.

Maybe, but to really take out an enemy you need boots on the ground. Whether they arevAmerican boots, NATO boots or US-backed Kurd boots doesn't matter.

Air strikes are only so effective and have NEVER won any wars.

How about the ####### Iraqis put on the boots you and I paid for and do the ground work? These guys make the French look like Rambo and I see no reason for our people to die if they don't have the balls to stand up for their own nation.

Didn't I mention the Kurds? Aren't they Iraqi?

Pretty sure they are Kurds. That's why they want Kurdistan and not be part of Iraq. And those guys actually have some fight in them unlike the Iraqi army.

Then let me add them: ...and US backed or non-us backed Iraqi boots.

 

[Fennis]

Ban this guy?

Pretty please?

Why ban him? Because he has a different worldview than you? My, how open minded and tolerant you are.

who the #### wants to be open minded and tolerant? ban this guy too

 

[Fennis]

So no one has a legit answer.

Is it right or wrong of Obama to pursue this?

It is Bush's fault.

Cheney's fault

Wrong again. Your fault.

:(

its true!

 

[fatness]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

He goes back a few years. This is a gem of his: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=461952

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Varmint has been a poster here for a long time. I'm not sure why he suddenly started posting all these sorts of threads in the past few months. That hasn't historically been his practice.

He goes back a few years. This is a gem of his: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=461952

So clever. And so sane.

 

[dickey moe]

Is this a BGP alias?

 

[bentley]

The War Powers Act is nothing more than a convenient excuse for Congress to ##### when something goes wrong. They've never been interested in actually enforcing it up front.