goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
-
by the Barry W. Obama administration.
The old bait and switch, the old carrot and stick.
Suckas
http://warisacrime.org/content/indefinite-detention-progressive-voter
-
that is the greatest conservative sock blog I have ever read.
-
that is the greatest conservative sock blog I have ever read.
It's absolutely spot on . . . hey now, vote for me, you don't want that Indefinite Detention stuff that I signed in the hands of Romney.
LOL . . . step up to the Kool-Aid.
-
Sorry Dax you do not qualify for being a great sock
-
I bet people thought the same thing when he first exercised his powers to send US force into military action without congressional approval/declaration of war.
Damn you Jefferson :shakesfist: :shakesfist:
-
Just say NO to indefinite detention, perpetual war, snuffing of civil liberties, unfettered CIA, wars of hegemony et. al and etc. etc . . . Unless a Democrat is President.
-
Romney and obama basically agreed on everything in the foreign policy debate. So what are you proposing Dax?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
-
Romney and obama basically agreed on everything in the foreign policy debate. So what are you proposing Dax?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
When haven't I said the exact same thing in regards to nothing changing under Romney?
-
Dax when have you displayed a full historical knowledge on a President's war powers? :dunno:
-
edn even Jefferson (and I'll be nice here) embellished the story(ies) in front of Congress to justify his actions, even though one could argue he had legitimate cause to protect vital U.S. interests. At least in one case, Jefferson operated in a formalized, declared state of war (against the U.S.) environment.
Today we just have to take their word for it, that the so called "terrorists" in various countries are going to attack the United States or U.S. interests . . . when in the vast majority of cases U.S. interests were injected into a geographic area in the name of U.S. hegemony.
-
edn even Jefferson (and I'll be nice here) embellished the story(ies) in front of Congress to justify his actions, even though one could argue he had legitimate cause to protect vital U.S. interests. At least in one case, Jefferson operated in a formalized, declared state of war (against the U.S.) environment.
Today we just have to take their word for it, that the so called "terrorists" in various countries are going to attack the United States or U.S. interests . . . when in the vast majority of cases U.S. interests were injected into a geographic area in the name of U.S. hegemony.
best post I've seen you make here in a long time, thanks for engaging.
-
I would disagree with your notion that we are not operating in a formal era of war in these regions. Now that does pose some issues with the current and former admin's view that we are facing enemy combatants. I would say that when you are fighting the defacto government of large portions of an area, you are in a state of war. ie: Afghanistan, Peshawar, Somalia, and what is happening in areas Boko Haram controls.
The notion that you are being provocative with about war powers has been an issue of constant debate since, well before, America's founding. To say that this is a issue to attack liberals with just shows how un-studied many on the left were when complaining about Bush. I would also say that I think Obama had a steep learning curve on the intricacies of the war on terror. I think candidate Obama had no idea just how deep this rabbit hole really goes. President Obama has done a fairly decent job of maintaining the fight in their lands, while preventing the insertion of too many US assets, most importantly being lots of boots on the ground.
-
When you need cover stories, nothing works better on the U.S. public than "Human Rights Abuses" and/or "Terrorist" bogeymen. Many of the so called "terrorists" have Western Intelligence finger prints all over them.
Nothing keeps the generally favorable support of U.S. political/military/intelligence subjucation of Mid-East/Western-Central Asia going like being able to toss around those tired old phrases. At the end of the day, it really has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
But back to the topic at hand, I say Bravo to O's bait and switch/carrot and stick political gamesmenship, it really has brought out some of the highest levels of avoidance, denial and obfuscation from hardcore lefties I've ever seen/read.
-
Romney and obama basically agreed on everything in the foreign policy debate. So what are you proposing Dax?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
The only key difference was that Romney doesn't think we are spending enough on defense. Other than that, they are basically the same person foreign policy-wise.
-
Romney and obama basically agreed on everything in the foreign policy debate. So what are you proposing Dax?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
The only key difference was that Romney doesn't think we are spending enough on defense. Other than that, they are basically the same person foreign policy-wise.
Also, in the places that Romney agrees on having troops, Romney says he would have gotten there earlier.
also, I think his dad is tougher than obama's dad.