OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12527 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
Some of you boys are pretty good at hind sight and making fun.
Amazing how none of you ever jump up and present what should be done and how.
Had Obama shot the place up based on his authority alone you bird would have ranted and raved about that.
Then when he goes to congress you rant and rave about that.
Then when a non-military option is available you rant about that.
Just what would you nit wits have done in the past and what would you do in the future regarding Syria?
Please for once come up with something other than some stupid one liner.
Still nothing out of the peanut gallery.

They ask my opinion but never dare come out with a full opinion of what they would do.

If Reagan or Bush was President they would be just fine with anything they did regardless of the constitution, public opinion or a vote of Congress where the Republicans would have lined up like a bunch of sheep with their talking points.
nac

Merrick, NY

#12528 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Just a few days ago, before Obama’s decision was known, legal scholars from both the right and the left were in agreement that waging war over Syria — no matter how briefly — without congressional approval would bend the Constitution beyond recognition.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who served as a Bush administration lawyer during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, wrote in the legal blog Lawfare,“The planned use of military force in Syria is a constitutional stretch that will push presidential war unilateralism beyond where it has gone before.” And liberal constitutional scholar Garrett Epps, writing for the Atlantic , concluded,“It’s pretty clear that an American attack would violate the Constitution.”
Virtually no one in politics, the press or the academic community expected Obama to go to Congress for approval. That isn’t the way the presidential power works in the modern era. It is a sad truth that whoever occupies the Oval Office invariably expands rather than trims back the Imperial presidency. Obama himself has reflected this pattern with his aggressive enhancement of the National Security Agency’s efforts to monitor electronic communications.
For more than six decades, the war-making powers of Congress have been eviscerated by presidents of both parties.
I’m glad he did and wish he would have in Libya even thought it was a NATO action.
So you're backing off your lie:
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you knew your history, you would have known that Obama has always maintained that if time permitted any military action should be approved first by Congress.
Unfortunately for you, I do know my history. Please try to be more truthful in the future.

***

Back to the topic of why Obama chose to ask Congress in THIS instance, as opposed to Libya, etc... it is obvious that Obama miscalculated.

He believed that he would have international support. He didn't.

He believed that he would have support at home from the left. He didn't.

He needed a way to get out of his call for military action. He knew Congress would not approve it, so he punted the ball to them. It had nothing to with the Constitution.

Candidate Obama believed that the Constitution needed to be adhered to. President Obama does not. See: The NDAA, The Chrysler Bailout, the NSA spying programs, Fast & Furious "Executive Privilege," military action in Libya, etc.

Oh, and by the way, he waived the federal provision that prevents the U.S. from arming terrorist groups.

It was a political decision to go to Congress, not a Constitutional decision. That is, unless "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama finally got around to reading the Constitution on August 31st, 2013.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12529 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're backing off your lie:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, I do know my history. Please try to be more truthful in the future.
.
Fact is Obama as a Constitutional lawyer has maintained that Congress should be involved. Right or wrong he maintained that Libya was a Nato action. I do not agree.

Ronald Reagan dispatched the Marines into Grenada in 1983 under the preposterous rationale that he was only protecting endangered American medical students. Bill Clinton skirted congressional approval for the 1999 airborne attacks to halt Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo on the shaky grounds that this was a NATO operation. And I fully agree that Obama himself was even on flimsier footing when he justified America’s participation in the 2011 bombing campaign over Libya based on a United Nations resolution.

But Syria did not provide Obama with any of these fig-leaf justifications.

No American lives are in danger and the national security threat is hard to identify. Not only is NATO not participating, but also neither are the Brits, the United State’s closest diplomatic ally. With Russia serving as Assad’s enabler, there will be no Security Council resolution or U.N. mandate.

Every time a president employs questionable legal arguments to wage war, it becomes a valuable tool for the next commander in chief impatient with the constitutional requirement to work through Congress.

That’s why it would have been so dangerous for Obama to go forward in Syria without a congressional vote or the support of the U.N. or NATO. It is as much of a slippery slope argument as the contention that Iran, say, would be emboldened with its nuclear program if America did not punish Assad’s chemical attacks.

If you must find something to feel right about and pat yourself on the back about. Why don't you state fully what your position was in the past in regards to all past Presidents, what Obama should have done and what should happen in the future.

Just jumping all over whatever course Obama has taken using hind sight does not say much about where you stand or what you believed to be the right course at the time.

I realize that it a slippery slope for you to get on because you might show yourself to be the fool you likely are.
DILLIGAF

New York, NY

#12530 Sep 18, 2013
So now this inept administration is going to research security on all DOD bases, really? Why wasn't this done after Ft. Hood? Why did 12 more innocent people lose their lives due to the failure of Obama and his wacked out policies, their blood is on his hands, workplace violence my ass, Mr Barack [Barry [empty suit] Soetero] Obama.
DILLIGAF

New York, NY

#12531 Sep 18, 2013
Finally, it is nice to hear 2 former members of his administration Panetta, and Gates criticizing their former boss aka empty suit, on his Syrian policy. What this country did not need is another war orchestrated by Obama, he may not have started them but certainly continued them, all the while backing the wrong sides, aiding, and abetting his buddies the Muslim brotherhood.
DILLIGAF

New York, NY

#12532 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Russia/Putin getting a foothold in Syria???? Where have you been fool? Russia/Putin has LONG held a foothold in Syria. That is a fact everyone should know.
Russia/Putin being very close to that region and also having to deal with radical Islam should be concerned far more than the USA.
Russia/Putin is not taking over any part of the middle east.
If you want to find would who the "fool" is in this issue look in the mirror.
I would prefer every major country to stand up and take an interest in what is going on in Syria. The USA is not the world's police force to appease the right-wing in the USA. Wars cost money as Bush well taught anyone who watched him almost ruin the economy with two wars run on the credit card plus a number of other stupid things.
If Syria is of such importance let the world's countries who signed on to the Agreement regarding the non use of Chemical Weapons step up and through the UN take action.
Hey, keep up the name calling lady, and I may forget I am a gentleman,
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12533 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're backing off your lie:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, I do know my history. Please try to be more truthful in the future.
***
Back to the topic of why Obama chose to ask Congress in THIS instance, as opposed to Libya, etc... it is obvious that Obama miscalculated.
He believed that he would have international support. He didn't.
He believed that he would have support at home from the left. He didn't.
He needed a way to get out of his call for military action. He knew Congress would not approve it, so he punted the ball to them. It had nothing to with the Constitution.
Candidate Obama believed that the Constitution needed to be adhered to. President Obama does not. See: The NDAA, The Chrysler Bailout, the NSA spying programs, Fast & Furious "Executive Privilege," military action in Libya, etc.
Oh, and by the way, he waived the federal provision that prevents the U.S. from arming terrorist groups.
It was a political decision to go to Congress, not a Constitutional decision. That is, unless "Constitutional Lawyer" Obama finally got around to reading the Constitution on August 31st, 2013.
Find something else to feel right about: So you claim to know your history do you??????????

It is clear, however, that Obama once thought such authorization was necessary.

“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,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/27/obama-and-h...
Obama And Biden Have Said Military Action Without Congressional Approval Is Unconstitutional

“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,” Obama said in 2008.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama...

Now you try to find some other minor point to feel right about because you are not right on the major topic at hand. In addition you will not state your position other than use hind-sight on what has already happened.
nac

Merrick, NY

#12534 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact is Obama as a Constitutional lawyer has maintained that Congress should be involved. Right or wrong he maintained that Libya was a Nato action. I do not agree.
Ronald Reagan dispatched the Marines into Grenada in 1983 under the preposterous rationale that he was only protecting endangered American medical students. Bill Clinton skirted congressional approval for the 1999 airborne attacks to halt Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo on the shaky grounds that this was a NATO operation. And I fully agree that Obama himself was even on flimsier footing when he justified America’s participation in the 2011 bombing campaign over Libya based on a United Nations resolution.
But Syria did not provide Obama with any of these fig-leaf justifications.
No American lives are in danger and the national security threat is hard to identify. Not only is NATO not participating, but also neither are the Brits, the United State’s closest diplomatic ally. With Russia serving as Assad’s enabler, there will be no Security Council resolution or U.N. mandate.
Every time a president employs questionable legal arguments to wage war, it becomes a valuable tool for the next commander in chief impatient with the constitutional requirement to work through Congress.
That’s why it would have been so dangerous for Obama to go forward in Syria without a congressional vote or the support of the U.N. or NATO. It is as much of a slippery slope argument as the contention that Iran, say, would be emboldened with its nuclear program if America did not punish Assad’s chemical attacks.
If you must find something to feel right about and pat yourself on the back about. Why don't you state fully what your position was in the past in regards to all past Presidents, what Obama should have done and what should happen in the future.
Just jumping all over whatever course Obama has taken using hind sight does not say much about where you stand or what you believed to be the right course at the time.
I realize that it a slippery slope for you to get on because you might show yourself to be the fool you likely are.
So... you're saying that Obama violated the Constitution by sending our military to Libya... but he also never violated the Constitution because it is his policy not to violate the Constitution?

NATO or not, OUR military got involved in Libya. U.N. approval is not Congressional approval. I guess Obama picks & chooses when to adhere to the Constitution just as you pick & choose when to admit that fact. Libya was no more of a "national security threat" than Syria is, Secretary of Defense (at the time) Robert Gates admitted this fact.

As for your past Presidents paragraph... Partisan-parrots never understand what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway. I do not believe that the misdeeds of previous Presidents excuse the misdeeds of current Presidents.

I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm an independent Constitutionalist. It is my position that any President that deployed our military without Congressional approval was wrong in doing so.

As for my, "jumping all over whatever course Obama has taken using hind sight does not say much about where you stand or what you believed to be the right course at the time," I didn't "jump all over anything. I merely stated the obvious: That Obama went to Congress for "approval" THIS time because he knew they wouldn't give it to him. You then responded with a lie about how he always goes to Congress for military approval. Remember?
nac

Merrick, NY

#12535 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Find something else to feel right about: So you claim to know your history do you??????????
It is clear, however, that Obama once thought such authorization was necessary.
“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,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/27/obama-and-h...
Obama And Biden Have Said Military Action Without Congressional Approval Is Unconstitutional
“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,” Obama said in 2008.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama...
Now you try to find some other minor point to feel right about because you are not right on the major topic at hand. In addition you will not state your position other than use hind-sight on what has already happened.
So... since Obama SAID that he doesn't have the authority to authorize a military attack... that means that he didn't ACTUALLY DO IT in 2011???

Are you insane?
Topless Dancer

Custer, SD

#12536 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So... since Obama SAID that he doesn't have the authority to authorize a military attack... that means that he didn't ACTUALLY DO IT in 2011???
Are you insane?
Nope not insane and if you would have read the postings in detail you would know what my position is on the War Powers Act.

Unless it requires immediate response to a actual threat no President should engage the USA into a military act of war, if there is time to engage Congress to either approve or not approve.

No President be it Obama or any past President should have the authority alone to drag us into a war.

I fully realize that Obama has taken two different position on the authority of the President. If Congress had wished to in 2011 they could have taken him to court and he would have been on shaky grounds even though past Presidents have found an excuse.

I have clearly stated my position.
frommelas

West Mifflin, PA

#12537 Sep 18, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …………… Disordinance
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12538 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
So... since Obama SAID that he doesn't have the authority to authorize a military attack... that means that he didn't ACTUALLY DO IT in 2011???
Are you insane?
Again I don't know how to explain it to you any clearer.
Go read my posting:
12456
12457

My position is pretty clear. I nor you took any past President to court for violation of the constitution or the War Powers Act.

I did not believe then that Obama had the right to strike Libya.

Neither you or I took him to court over doing it. Neither did Congress. They love the fact just like you apparently do and that is bitch either way.

I'm glad that he was planning on getting approval from Congress. Had he not gotten approval that would have been fine with me and hoped he would have not went on with a strike based upon his authority alone.

I have no problem with Russia/Putin being involved. I would have no problem with China being involved. Neither Obama or the USA is the police force for the world.

If the people who signed the Chemical Weapons Ban don't want to stand behind it, then so be it. It is not our job to enforce International law.

Obama brought the use of chemical weapons being used in Syria to the worlds attention. If the Congress of the USA says no go alone then its fine with me. If the rest of the world don't care then so be it.
nac

Merrick, NY

#12539 Sep 18, 2013
Topless Dancer wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope not insane and if you would have read the postings in detail you would know what my position is on the War Powers Act.
Unless it requires immediate response to a actual threat no President should engage the USA into a military act of war, if there is time to engage Congress to either approve or not approve.
No President be it Obama or any past President should have the authority alone to drag us into a war.
I fully realize that Obama has taken two different position on the authority of the President. If Congress had wished to in 2011 they could have taken him to court and he would have been on shaky grounds even though past Presidents have found an excuse.
I have clearly stated my position.
So... to recap:

- You were correct in stating that Obama doesn't have the authority to authorize the use of military force without Congressional approval.

- I was not completely correct in stating that Obama doesn't have the authority to authorize the use of military force without Congressional approval.

- You were correct in stating that Obama mobilized the US military in Libya without Congressional approval.

- I was not completely correct in stating that Obama mobilized the US military in Libya in 2011 without Congressional approval ... because he said in 2008 that he wouldn't have the authority to do so.

- You're not insane.

- You're a topless dancer.

OK, I'm satisfied.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12540 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
----

I do not believe that the misdeeds of previous Presidents excuse the misdeeds of current Presidents.----

I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican, I'm an independent Constitutionalist. It is my position that any President that deployed our military without Congressional approval was wrong in doing so.====

You then responded with a lie about how he always goes to Congress for military approval. Remember?
Whether you like it or not the fact is that actions of previous Presidents can be used as precedent for other Presidents. It might be found unconstitutional but the President will not be impeached if he can point to a past President who did the same and was not also challenged over his authority to do so.

I would agree that any President not responding to a act that required immediate action should get congressional approval. The problem you and I both have is that the War Power's Act doe allow the way for any President to get around the Constitution and get away with it. I believe that the War Powers Act it unconstitutional as did President Nixon.

I don't remember saying that Obama always went to Congress for approval to make a military strike. I thought I said in the past he stated that he felt the President should. But if you can point me to my statement I would double check.
nac

Merrick, NY

#12541 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you like it or not the fact is that actions of previous Presidents can be used as precedent for other Presidents. It might be found unconstitutional but the President will not be impeached if he can point to a past President who did the same and was not also challenged over his authority to do so.
I would agree that any President not responding to a act that required immediate action should get congressional approval. The problem you and I both have is that the War Power's Act doe allow the way for any President to get around the Constitution and get away with it. I believe that the War Powers Act it unconstitutional as did President Nixon.
I don't remember saying that Obama always went to Congress for approval to make a military strike. I thought I said in the past he stated that he felt the President should. But if you can point me to my statement I would double check.
#12521
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
If you knew your history, you would have known that Obama has always maintained that if time permitted any military action should be approved first by Congress. That has been his position even prior to being President.
But in your defense, that was when you were still trying to pretend that Obama didn't send our military to Libya outside of Congressional approval in 2011, even though the Sec. of Def. said that "Libya wasn't a National Security Threat."
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12542 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
#12521
<quoted text>
But in your defense, that was when you were still trying to pretend that Obama didn't send our military to Libya outside of Congressional approval in 2011, even though the Sec. of Def. said that "Libya wasn't a National Security Threat."
I guess you can recap it anyway you want.

There is a form of a paradox involved. No but yes maybe.

We have two things at issue here, which you mix together and demand an answer that fits both.

There is the issue of whether the President and act without Congress based on the Constitution. Then we have the War Powers Act with allows him to Act for 60 days. One says no and the other says maybe.

Presidents have therefore draft reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional. Whether or not the War Powers Act is unconstitutional could go either way. Congress passed the law limiting its constitutional powers and then over road a veto to place it into effect.

The War Powers Act allows the president to commit military forces for 60 days before requiring Congressional authorization
A court ruled in a 2000 case, Campbell v. Clinton, that members of Congress did not have standing to sue over violations of the War Powers Act because they could seek a remedy legislatively. Congress set on their rear ends and never remedied this situation legislatively.

President Obama under the War Powers Act, returned to the well of Congress less war, deploying US forces in support of NATO’s intervention in Libya; here the president argued that Congressional authorization was not required for the first 60 days of US operations or after that because US military forces were deployed in support of a NATO action, not for an American action. Thus invoking the War Powers Act. Congress, again, failed to either authorize the use of force or to end it.

This time, absent support from NATO or the UN that the president could use to cloak his illegal war actions, Obama has sought Congressional authorization for military action in Syria. Nevertheless, he still says he doesn’t need it. That again based on the War Powers Act.

Things depend on whether we are talking about something being unconstitutional (which I might agree) but still might be legal due to the War Powers Act.

Even though I believe it is unconstitutional it is still the law until it is changed or declared unconstitutional.
nac

Merrick, NY

#12543 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you can recap it anyway you want.
There is a form of a paradox involved. No but yes maybe.
We have two things at issue here, which you mix together and demand an answer that fits both.
There is the issue of whether the President and act without Congress based on the Constitution. Then we have the War Powers Act with allows him to Act for 60 days. One says no and the other says maybe.
Presidents have therefore draft reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional. Whether or not the War Powers Act is unconstitutional could go either way. Congress passed the law limiting its constitutional powers and then over road a veto to place it into effect.
The War Powers Act allows the president to commit military forces for 60 days before requiring Congressional authorization
A court ruled in a 2000 case, Campbell v. Clinton, that members of Congress did not have standing to sue over violations of the War Powers Act because they could seek a remedy legislatively. Congress set on their rear ends and never remedied this situation legislatively.
President Obama under the War Powers Act, returned to the well of Congress less war, deploying US forces in support of NATO’s intervention in Libya; here the president argued that Congressional authorization was not required for the first 60 days of US operations or after that because US military forces were deployed in support of a NATO action, not for an American action. Thus invoking the War Powers Act. Congress, again, failed to either authorize the use of force or to end it.
This time, absent support from NATO or the UN that the president could use to cloak his illegal war actions, Obama has sought Congressional authorization for military action in Syria. Nevertheless, he still says he doesn’t need it. That again based on the War Powers Act.
Things depend on whether we are talking about something being unconstitutional (which I might agree) but still might be legal due to the War Powers Act.
Even though I believe it is unconstitutional it is still the law until it is changed or declared unconstitutional.
It is my opinion that support/approval/encouragement /etc. from the UN or NATO is irrelevant.

I think that deep-down, you probably feel the same way.

I would like to see the U.S. withdraw from the UN, and I'd like to see the UN kicked out of New York.

I'm not naive enough to believe that it will happen, as globalist shills have taken over every level of our government ... but I believe that would be in the best interests of our republic.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12544 Sep 18, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
It is my opinion that support/approval/encouragement /etc. from the UN or NATO is irrelevant.
I think that deep-down, you probably feel the same way.
I would like to see the U.S. withdraw from the UN, and I'd like to see the UN kicked out of New York.
I'm not naive enough to believe that it will happen, as globalist shills have taken over every level of our government ... but I believe that would be in the best interests of our republic.
Constitutionally I would agree fully that UN or NATO involvement is irrelevant.

I do not have to go very deep down to agree.

Yet I believe I understand how Congress gave up their Constitutional duty and then gave the President a way to act on his own authority when they passed the War Powers Act. Nixon might have vetoed it but if memory serves me correct, he believed that he as President had full powers as President and as Commander and Chief of the Army to do about anything he wanted.

I do not agree with the War Powers Act nor do I agree with Nixon or any President who thinks they alone have the power and right to take us to war. Any President would have the right to respond to an immediate threat to the USA but ASAP Congress should be consulted with. We do not have an imperial Presidency regardless who is President.

I do not believe that the UN is worth the money we dump into it. I also wish it was not located in the USA. I might though maintain the NATO alliance. But the rest of NATO would start paying their fair share of maintain a military presence in the world.

We still have bases in Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cuba, Djibouti, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam, Italy, Israel, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. Let’s not forget the U.S. Navy’s battle ships, air craft carriers and submarines patrolling, wherever they’re patrolling, or the Marine Corps contingents at about 170 embassies around the world. Time to give up the idea of being the world's police force while the USA taxpayer pays.

This will substantially reduce our defense budget, allowing troops scattered across the globe to stay consolidated at home in preparation for America’s next undeclared war, thus freeing our National Guard to be available for local emergencies – as National Guard advertisements still stress are its primary mission.

To me, that would be good, since I’m tired of sending our young men and women around the world in a continuing political chess game orchestrated by powerbrokers.
It would also be a good place to start cutting the federal spending.
nac

Merrick, NY

#12545 Sep 18, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Constitutionally I would agree fully that UN or NATO involvement is irrelevant.
I do not have to go very deep down to agree.
Yet I believe I understand how Congress gave up their Constitutional duty and then gave the President a way to act on his own authority when they passed the War Powers Act. Nixon might have vetoed it but if memory serves me correct, he believed that he as President had full powers as President and as Commander and Chief of the Army to do about anything he wanted.
I do not agree with the War Powers Act nor do I agree with Nixon or any President who thinks they alone have the power and right to take us to war. Any President would have the right to respond to an immediate threat to the USA but ASAP Congress should be consulted with. We do not have an imperial Presidency regardless who is President.
I do not believe that the UN is worth the money we dump into it. I also wish it was not located in the USA. I might though maintain the NATO alliance. But the rest of NATO would start paying their fair share of maintain a military presence in the world.
We still have bases in Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cuba, Djibouti, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guam, Italy, Israel, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. Let’s not forget the U.S. Navy’s battle ships, air craft carriers and submarines patrolling, wherever they’re patrolling, or the Marine Corps contingents at about 170 embassies around the world. Time to give up the idea of being the world's police force while the USA taxpayer pays.
This will substantially reduce our defense budget, allowing troops scattered across the globe to stay consolidated at home in preparation for America’s next undeclared war, thus freeing our National Guard to be available for local emergencies – as National Guard advertisements still stress are its primary mission.
To me, that would be good, since I’m tired of sending our young men and women around the world in a continuing political chess game orchestrated by powerbrokers.
It would also be a good place to start cutting the federal spending.
Seems to me that you're a libertarian that is afraid to come out of the (democrat) closet.

Of course the UN is not worth the money we dump into it, just don't tell republicans or democrats.

Of course we don't have an imperial presidency, just don't tell republicans or democrats.

Of course we need to reduce our defense budget by eliminating waste, just don't tell republicans or democrats.

Of course we need to reduce federal spending, just don't tell republicans or democrats.

The banks, global corporations, and military industrial complex that fund republicans and democrats wouldn't like that at all.
Opinion

Custer, SD

#12546 Sep 19, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that you're a libertarian that is afraid to come out of the (democrat) closet.----

-----The banks, global corporations, and military industrial complex that fund republicans and democrats wouldn't like that at all.
Well I guess I am what I am. Have always been a conservative republican but sure have problems with what the republican party has developed into since Reagan.

Although I did not agree with everything Barry Goldwater believed I was involved with his campaign. Actually I generally find that I do not agree with any political party line or exactly with any politician. Yet this country is ruled by two political parties. Within those parties other parties may have varying degrees of influence.

When President Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act and the Voter Right Act politics started to do a flip. At that time all the Deep South States were Democrat. Since then they are Republican. Blacks were at one time mostly Republican and today they are mostly Democrat. The South did a flip in politics over that issue.

Goldwater had no use for bringing religion into politics. He strongly believed in separation of Church and State. Those old southern Democrats now newly reborn Republicans wanted nothing more. Along came Ronald Reagan and was willing to mix religion into politics to get a political action committee in every town that had a Catholic Church and any Protestant Church who was religiously against abortion.

The leaders of the Republican party thought they could control that group and simply play them for votes. Problem is that group has molded and transformed itself into a major player within the Republican Party.

When it becomes a case that a Republican candidate has to say that he got God's permission and ok to run for President and also take the no tax pledge & also be anti-abortion they start to lose me. The Republican Party today demands that you fall in line or get nailed in the primary. Whether or not I like the idea of an abortion it is a individual right just as owning a guy. If you don’t believe in an abortion then don’t have one. If you don’t like guns don’t have one. But you have no right to use “big government” laws to create abortion hurtle laws that are unconstitutional when at the same time demanding no gun control laws. Hypocritical at best.

When all Republican candidates stand on stage and turn down a $1 increase in taxes for a $10 cut in spending insanity is setting in. I would have said hell yes I will take that deal. The $1 in tax increase will go to pay down the debt. Now let’s talk where the $10 in cuts will be.

When Republicans of the House run for office saying jobs-jobs-jobs and then do nothing in regards to jobs but spend their time doing nothing but repealing Obamacare 40 plus times insanity is setting in. Why not fix Obamacare if it needs fixed? Much of what is part of Obamacare was old Republican ideas. Is it that Obamacare is to bad or that today's republicans are more concerned with elections than governing.

Now we are coming up on the debt ceiling and Republicans are starting to play the same old game in a economic tender moment.

Thus when Democrats show more common sense than republicans I have no problem agreeing with the Democrats. Politics is not a religion to me where my party is the only way to political heaven.

As for Corporate - wealthy controlling politics, that is actually the way its been for years. Likely you donate little or nothing compared to those who do fund politics. Those who foot the bills get listened to. The recent Citizens United decision along with political committees being set up under the tax code like a Church to hide their donors only makes the problem worse.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
jets talk back (Dec '07) 21 min Libhater AKA Sher... 13,262
Giants talk back (Dec '06) 25 min NYStateOfMind 5,670
Why do FOX News woman dress like hookers (Jul '15) 27 min NYStateOfMind 136
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 29 min FuMan Chu Yanks 334,224
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 2 hr SweLL GirL 16,751
no longer a || THE BRONX || 3 hr Floridaborn 2
Saving jobs 101 Trump OK 4 hr 2 Dogs 9

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages