Holey Moley!!!! My first banning! I guess mine & my sweet Honey's (my Honey's ID is TheGuestHere, btw) truth was too much for this narrow, self congratulatory, back-slapping, strength in numbers, bully mentality forum where only those who drink the Caribou Barbie-flavored KoolAid are welcome!
This is certainly a feather in my cap (if I wore a cap with feathers) and a badge of honor I'll be sharing with my newfound friends over @ Media Matters. They're following my exploits and are having a REAL good time with all of it.
This bridge I'm 'a livin' under is very comfy and, thanks to my president, I don't really have to worry about having my freedoms infringed upon. These little victories confirm the belief I've been backing the right horse in this race --- and I bet real big this last time. Jackpot!
I'm sorry to sound so obnoxious, I really am ... just a little bit ... but if THIS is the extent of your abilities as a loosely organized group of naysayers who spit on the flag and can't get it together long enough to put up a really viable candidate for any important office, Barack Hussein Obama has NOTHING to worry about, considering patriotic, American born people of intellect & educated opinions like me & my Honey exist to tweak the crackpot fringe and give them a purpose so there's no chance of any kind of organized revolt. Whew! That was a sentence!
I have seen some contributors here who seem reasonable, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to write off my dear friend, The Pukeman (I know, he said I was practicing hate by using that moniker ... maybe like he does when he uses words like "libtard" or calls the President or Hillary Clinton names but claims not to hate them. It's not nice to lie!) and my sweet, little OrangeOne who is definitely a professional toady by her use of "yeah, gee, so there!" brand of commentary.
As for AmericanborninCanada, mother, home schooler, political activist: the God you are worshippin' and how YOU think he wants you to act has convinced me it's not the same loving & compassionate God I was raised to love. Get outside your home school, online bubble now and then ... volunteer at a soup kitchen, visit a nursing home and read (now, now, now ... no politics!) to the patients. Embrace people regardless of faith and win them over to God. With love, not fear and politics. God isn't registered to any political party. People love to tear you down if you don't model behavior. Your compassion is obscured. I sure hope none of your children "decide" to be LGBT. I'm afraid that might just be too much to bear.
Shalom! It's been real (well, not really, if I want "real," I'll have a conversation with an empty chair ..... I'm sure that chair will have a lot more perspective and offer a much better chance to exercise my constitutional right to say what I want, where I want. It's the First Amendment, maybe you've heard of it?), but, as I know this is the last chance I'll have to address the congregation, I just want to say God is Love. God loves all of us, but he's getting pretty pissed off with some of us & our willingness to write off whole populations of his children over things that don't mean a thing in the grand scheme of His plan. I will pray for you all and I mean it .... I'll pray.... HARD .... that you can extend your hand to your brother regardless of race, political ideology or even religious beliefs to spread His love the way He intended and I'll pray you can find some peace so you won't have to tilt at windmills anymore. The windmills aren't the problem, they're WINDMILLS. How you react to the windmills is the problem. And, in the spirit of, "methinks thou doest protest too much," some of you folks got lots of problems.
I know, I know .... Communism, Socialist, ignorant, liberal, you gotta put a label on it. Coolio .... Label away .... you won't see me here again! So you don't have to worry about me arguing with you! Here -----I'll start: "You Moron...."
As Linda Richman liked to say: "The Right Scoop Is Neither Right Or A Scoop .... Discuss."
The President must have the ability to engage in military action immediately without the approval of Congress. Kerry is right when he says in some situations we cannot wait for Congress. Of course, any extended actions...war....must be approved by Congress after so many days. I can't remember if it's 60 or 90 days.
However, the President must use that power wisely, in good faith, and in the best interest of the United States. Obama does not. He is siding with radical muslims time after time and is giving Islam much more power which is a very big threat to the world. We are going to forever feel the damage Obama has done to world security. A lot of it might be permanent.
I'm not sure I agree with all your points, but you are right about the President's abilities to engage in military action and I'm glad that provision is available.
I'm always VERY nervous when I hear a President has exercised this ability. Even if Congressional approval is subsequently registered. I am not someone who likes upheaval and our country always seems to be in turmoil. War is always destructive and damages world security. People hold grudges and in some countries the old expression about revenge best being served cold is a way of life.
Then, it might interest you to know that there was a Democrat in the White House at the beginning of 4 out of the 5 wars in the 20th century.
War does not always damage world security. Many times it's necessary to achieve world security. For example, if Iran closes off the Strait of Hormuz, blowing them to kingdom come would help world security. Can't wait for Congress....just do it.
If Iran attacks Israel, the ensuing war may ulitmately help world security. Remove the threats. I just worry that Obama will take the wrong side.
I have GOT to get something done besides internetting today! I just wanted to say, it's been a pleasure. I appreciate your willingness to talk to me, an obvious old, hopeless "liberal," as a person and not resorting to "I have your IP address & reported you to the IRS/I'll pull your brain out your eye sockets" kinds of threats or insulting me personally when you don't agree with me.
I do not (obviously) agree with everything you say, but the way you state your information calmly, with thought, staying in the discussion, makes me respect your opinions, your right to give opinions and makes me want to do more study to see why you may feel as you do. Not to prove you wrong, but in the interest of knowledge and garnering a well-rounded familiarity with other points of view that will help me understand whatever is going on in the government. Knowledge is key. People sometimes pooh-pooh others who prize academia and study in favor of the school of hard knocks. Yea, that is one way, but my feeling is why should you have to get the knocks if you can learn something and avoid the problems that give you the knocks?
Thanks again, Kong1967.
Maybe, but the stability of other nations impacts our stability here at home. We don't live in a vacuum. Additionally, we benefit by helping our allies in times of need. If an ally gets attacked we should help them defend themselves. The entire purpose of NATO was to fight back communism and to protect a group of nations. If you mess with one, you mess with all. It's a deterrent. It's not entirely about helping others, because we benefit from it.
About our complicated relationship with Palestine & with Israel, I saw something about how the whole US/Israel/Palestinian relationship and conflicts started. FDR & Saudi King Ibn Saud met on a ship in the Suez Canal in 1945.
I'm including information from some further research I did:
Despite the differences of view, the meeting was conducted throughout with courtesy, with both men showing respect for each other’s customs. President Roosevelt was impressed by the simple clarity with which Ibn Saud presented the
He gave two undertakings to Ibn Saud; first that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs in Palestine and, secondly, that he would never do anything to harm the Arab people. He promised that the United States Government would not make any changes to its policy on Palestine without prior consultation with both the Arabs and the Jews.
These verbal assurances were confirmed in a letter, dated April 5th, 1945, in which Roosevelt made it clear that he was committing himself, not as an individual, but as “Chief of the Executive Branch” of the United States Government.
Apparently, the meeting between Saud & Churchill a little bit later did not go very well. Churchill made no promises that Britain would temper its support for the Zionists with sensitivity to Arab rights. Ibn Saud found Churchill’s views entirely unacceptable.
I'm not sure how I feel about this and I don't know exactly what events or backroom deals have been made in the meantime, but I'm SURE in favor of cleaning our own house before we hire ourselves out as housekeepers to other nations.
There needs to be a power that fights for world security. Remove the United States and this would be a completely different world. A very ugly one. I do believe we need to limit our efforts to those that are vital to our security and way of life. It's just too bad everyone was complacent before Hitler unleashed hell on earth.
Somebody always wants to destroy the United States. Israel? Don't get me started, our association there is a mess. Like I said before, "cop of the world," we really need to stop thinking we have the solution to everybody else's problems. Their whole ethos is culturally different (nobody has the same convoluted political theories WE do) and it's like that old story of the lady finding the poor, frozen snake. she takes it in, nurses it and brings it back to health. Instead of being grateful, the snake bites her. When she asks why, the snake says, "you knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in."
No doubt. I will say that at least Iraq had a reasonable purpose. There are definitely strong arguments for why it was necessary to invade. You say it wasn't necessary, so I'd imagine you are on the side that said we had him contained. Really? I can't remember how many resolutions he ignored....all of them....maybe 17 to 20. He was involved in a food for oil program with some European countries that negated any impact of our pressure on him. He was not contained and he was making fools of us and our efforts.
What argument has Obama given for uprooting the leaders of Libya, Syria and Egypt? They are oppressive. So is Chavez, Kim Ill, and others. That's not enough of a reason.
Point is, we didn't invade just because Saddam was an oppressive leader, as Obama is doing with all these other states. No, he's not invading, but he's pushing conflicts against our best interest. Can you tell me a legitimate reason to uproot pro-America dictators and replace them with anti-America Islamic theocracies that want to destroy Israel and the United States?
I don't have any specific objections to your opinions, but I do disagree with many of your perceptions. Mine are different. Philosophical differences. For the most part.
I'll just say we DID meddle pretty severely in Iraq during GWB and it was never really necessary, so political stripe aside, meddling doesn't seem to be the "property" (for lack of better word) of any one party. They all meddle, it just depends which one works out the best. Monday morning quarterbacking is a lot easier than trying to foresee or predict outcome.
We are never going to be friends with some nations. It doesn't matter who is president. We just have to accept it and coexist, watching them carefully and ready to take action if they encroach.
It's muddier because we no longer fight to win. It's all politics.
Additionally, the reasons for engaging in combat are more shady....especially with Obama. Libs were really vocal about meddling with the leaders of other countries and dictating what their governments are. Yet, Obama...with Libya, Egypt and Syria...isn't involved in the conflicts for the benefit of the United States. It's supposedly about removing brutal dictators. So much for not meddling in the leadership of other countries. That only applies when a Republican is President. I have seen no rational reason how uprooting any of those dictators benefits the United States (Libya is yet to be seen). Obama is allowing radical Islam to run those states (Muslim Brotherhood), which is BAD for the United States. Yet, he was silent when pro-West Iranian youth wanted to uproot their oppressive leader. Obama is uprooting pro-West dictators and allowing our enemies to take over, and they are more oppressive than the last.
Obama's application of military force is crooked.
Very true. I guess I should have clarified while war is going on, most people have that nagging feeling of uncertainty, but when it's over we'll hopefully have some measure of security & personal peace. That's how it used to be, anyway. Recent wars have done nothing to reinforce my personal sense of security. There just don't seem to be winners and losers anymore. It's a lot muddier.
Rand is right. What good comes out of giving these guys advanced technology and fueling an arms race? Kerry and his ilk are naive and afraid to stand up for moral principles and call out the Muslim Brotherhood for their treatment of women, extreme hate of Jews and "infidels". Pathetic. Time to stand up and be counted!
I'm honestly tired with all of them. My contention is, when it comes to politics, if they want the job, that should automatically disqualify them. Especially president. You have to have a severe personality disorder, a self-persecution complex and a healthy dose of narcissism to want to be president.
Jon Kerry is, was and always will be a traitor.
(A perfect fit for this most corrupt islamo-fascist administration.)
Obama is a liar and has no honor whatsoever...so why should we expect him to nominate anybody different from himself? Seems to me that all of the people, past and present, in his cabinet are in perfect lockstep with Obama.
Obama, and Hillary told bald faced lies to the American people, when they knew exactly what went down in Benghazi with the terrorists attacking our embassy, and it wasn't because of a stupid movie. Americans are in grave danger with these liars in charge. When will we find "the truth".
John Kerry - an evil traitor to his men in Vietnam. Kerry is a total embarrassment to our country. Cut off monies to Pakistan from the United States that American taxpayers carry the burden, again.
Rand Paul was awesome. I hope he runs for POTUS in 16. Loved how he pointed out the fact that the constitution doesn't allow for "oh I'm having a rough day so I'm going to bypass congress" to do something.
This treasonist is a plain and simple liar that will do the dictator obamas will at every turn,he will turn on the American way in a heartbeat! Count on it! Why else would obama want him!!??
Did John F'n Kerry say, "Blah, blah, blah?" Whenever one of these leftoids starts talking George Harrison's "I Me Mine" plays in the backround.
I abhor Kerry, and I hope I am given the chance to vote for Rand Paul in 2016 because I think he is what this nation needs, but this is where he and his father go off the reservation a bit. As much as I hate to say it, there is a LONG Constitutional history and legal precedent handed down by the Supreme Court which gives the President authority to act in times of emergency. It was quite clear that with Congress away for months at a time during the infancy of this nation, that the President was authorized to use force and meet the enemy at the time and place that they choose to make war. If the U.S. is under threat, the president can in fact use his powers as the commander in chief to act. If Congress doesn't like it they can choose to not fund such a thing and effectively end it. If the Chinese launched a surprise attack when Congress was back home and unable to meet, the President can legally go to war with China without Congressional permission. This is quite clear and I don't know why Ron and Rand keep claiming otherwise. I like the idea of the War Powers Act, but ultimately it is a toothless Act that really can't be enforced.
This article and video mentions Kerry as being a "MAN WHOM BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY" amongst other things. I say that A MAN would never do what this person has done and would go out of his way to prevent being done.
Build or relationship==bribe our enemies to do what we ask... sounds like how ObummerCare was passed - bribes.
I think Libya was a "Fast and Furious" Part 2 but not only with weapons like AK 47's but with shoulder-fired missiles and who knows what other kind of technology Nero Ceasar Obama had smuggled to his comrade jihadists in the Middle East.
There was a "white board" on the wall of the "consulate" that was overrun in Benghazi which showed that "TUGS" were to arrive at "5:30"! I am pretty sure that was the time indicated on the "white board".
Why would our ambassador be interested in the arrival time of "TUGS" in Benghazi?
Tugs are used to dock and undock cargo ships in ports all over the world.
Why would our murdered ambassador be interested in that unless he was shipping very precious cargo somewhere on behalf of Nero Ceasar Obama?
And a lot of it too, it would seem since a cargo ship was needed to transport it.
And was the murdered intel specialist there to see to it that this cargo had the proper software to go with it?
And once it was all shipped, did not the ambassador and his people need to keep quiet - permanently which is what the attack was meant to accomplish but which wasn't entirely successful thanks to two brave navy SEALS who rescued 30 of the 34 Americans in that compound that was attacked by Morsi's people?
And didn't Hillary Clinton have a major headache over how she was going to pay off her $25 million dollar campaign debt from 2008 which prevented her from testifying before this past week when that campaign debt just suddenly vanished overnight but then again what difference does all this make now to borrow a quote I heard somewhere recently.
Pray, hope and don’t worry! -- Saint Padre Pio
"I think a U.N. resolution is part of the legal" requirement to go to war he says?! Really?! And there is still one any Republican senator who would vote for the bureacrat?!
We do NOT seek permission from the U.N. as part of ANY requirement, let alone something that makes it "legal".
Sen. Paul mentioned helping the enemy of the enemy. We also funded Saddam Hussein when he was fighting Iran. Saddam was more a friend to the Russians than us, he spoke fluent Russian and idolized Stalin. One thing good came out of it though, when I was in Iraq we used his SP 155 Howitzers that the U.S. sold him as spare parts. We cannibalized them and fixed our own SP's. That was great because we couldn't get spare parts out in the desert.
You can trace the Al Trikiti 'tribe' all the way back to the Grand Mufti during WW1 and his "Ba'ath" (Arab Socialist) party's affiliations with Hitler during WW2.
Where am I going with this? Saddam's full name was,
Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti. "Al-Tikriti" in Arabic means "from Tikrit ", or 'a Tikriti'. ;-)
Go Rand Paul. There is no situation on foreign soil that is in such dire circumstances that the president could not call an emergency congress session to vote on going to war. For the president to make this order alone is unconstitutional-period.
I believe Morsi. Didn't he say he would not run for office? So, that means he is a man of honor, he probably said he does not believe in sharia law either. Standard protocol for the left so naturally whatever he said is the truth. Remember the "people of the trees falling silently in the woods" because they were not there apply that sentiment to "we the people".
They were worse and I'm disappointed Rand Paul didn't follow up on that. When the Congressional team was there, Dems and Repubs, Morsi made the accusation that the US press is controlled by Jews. Apparently they were all taken aback. So Morsi's clarification was even worse.