Obama could lose illinois [Archive]

mavs>spurs

08-21-2012, 03:47 AM

lol boutons you post that as if it's some sort of good thing that Obama is going to win. the united states should just go ahead and split up. the partisan divide is at an all time high, i think everyone would be happier if they were allowed to govern themselves.

boutons_deux

08-21-2012, 03:58 AM

Ignorant fucks want Repugs to win, forgetting what a pile of continuing dogshit 2001-2008 was.

Gecko/Ryan are very clear about how they want to fuck up America, and that's just what they're telling us (Repugs in 2000 never told us their priorit was invading Iraq for oil)

mavs>spurs

08-21-2012, 04:11 AM

Obama has shown how he wants to fuck america up through actions tbh. His "vision" for America and the traditional patriotic vision are complete polar opposites. The south and the north should just go ahead and divide again along civil war lines. All these years later and the divide is still there and it's just as big as it was before the war. That way each side could get more accomplished and congress wouldn't be constantly split.

Jacob1983

08-21-2012, 04:12 AM

Obama is doing the same shit Bush did. He wants to do nation building in Syria just like Bush wanted to do nation building in Iraq.

Obama, Romney, and Bush are the same person. Wake the fuck up.

boutons_deux

08-21-2012, 04:20 AM

Obama is doing the same shit Bush did. He wants to do nation building in Syria just like Bush wanted to do nation building in Iraq.

Obama, Romney, and Bush are the same person. Wake the fuck up.

Obama voted AGAINST the Iraq war for oil, and got called a traitor, foreigner, anti-American for it.

There is momentum where the out-of-control MIC, once it has its war(s) and imperial murdering rackets get going, hides behind "national security" and will trash anybody as traitor and unAmerican.

I predicted in the dubya/dickhead Reign of Error that their shit and disasters would continue for decades. So far I'm right.

And Gecko/Ryan, with lots of neo-con oil warriors in key campaign roles, will certainly continue much more actively than Obama to support and enhance the MIC.

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 08:45 AM

Ignorant fucks want Repugs to win, forgetting what a pile of continuing dogshit 2001-2008 was.
We have a similar "Repug" in charge now, he just has a D next to his name, tbh..... of course, partisan hacks such as yourself (and Yoni and DarrinS for that matter) only care about warmongering, money-printing, and erosion of civil liberties when the other party is doing it....

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 08:47 AM

(Repugs in 2000 never told us their priorit was invading Iraq for oil)
Do you live under a rock? Republicans and Democrats alike were pushing for a war in Iraq as early as 1997, tbh...

boutons_deux

08-21-2012, 08:52 AM

Do you live under a rock? Republicans and Democrats alike were pushing for a war in Iraq as early as 1997, tbh...

I know PNAC was pushing Clinton to invade Iraq (Clinton was correctly worried about OBL, whom the Repugs ignored until 9/11), but dubya/dickhead didn't campaign on it in 2000.

What Dems were pushing publicly to invade Iraq?

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 08:57 AM

What Dems were pushing publicly to invade Iraq?
157 Democrats voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, for starters.... by 2002, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were among the many influential Democrats supporting the Iraq war....

boutons_deux

08-21-2012, 09:23 AM

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government."

That's not a declaration of war and invasion.

Along with other Repug lies in 2001-2003, it was bogusly cited as justification for invasion.

Latarian Milton

08-21-2012, 09:55 AM

the tiebreaker still lies on them swing states since you can never embezzle many states from the opposing gang, gonna be thrilled to steal a hardcore democrat/republican state when its not traditionally your hood tbh

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 10:11 AM

That's not a declaration of war and invasion.
We haven't declared a war constitutionally since WWII, dumbass.... :lol

Latarian Milton

08-21-2012, 06:25 PM

Obama is doing the same shit Bush did. He wants to do nation building in Syria just like Bush wanted to do nation building in Iraq.

Obama, Romney, and Bush are the same person. Wake the fuck up.

at least bush did all his gangsta stuffs with honesty & reality which the kenyan n!gger never gets a pinch of. america been in decline for quite a while now and it didn't start in bush or obama's administration, but clinton's when shitty policies were made and immigrants allowed to move in uncontrollably

thank the policy makers in DC for fucking up this country tbh

Wild Cobra

08-21-2012, 07:14 PM

We haven't declared a war constitutionally since WWII, dumbass.... :lol
What makes up a constitutional declaration?

I mean, is there some specific form that must be signed?

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 07:45 PM

What makes up a constitutional declaration?

I mean, is there some specific form that must be signed?

According to the Constitution, the power to declare war is expressly delegated to Congress only..... merely voting to transfer the formal declaration power to the President as Congress does nowadays is unconstitutional because the executive branch is not supposed to have that power to begin with.... Congress has to draft and approve a formal declaration of war, or else it's an undeclared war....

Wild Cobra

08-21-2012, 07:53 PM

According to the Constitution, the power to declare war is expressly delegated to Congress only..... merely voting to transfer the formal declaration power to the President as Congress does nowadays is unconstitutional because the executive branch is not supposed to have that power to begin with.... Congress has to draft and approve a formal declaration of war, or else it's an undeclared war....
Where does it say congress cannot delegate?

Where does it say the declaration has to be a formal draft?

Where does it say the wards "declare war" must be used?

I mean, is there some specific form that must be signed?
Please...

What's the form number. I want to look it up.

I would like you to quote the constitutional passages that make the Iraqi war unconstitutional please.

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 08:04 PM

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution:

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Actual quote from the 2002 Iraq War resolution:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Key words there - "as he (the President) determines to be necessary".... this leaves all the warmaking power to the President, when the Constitution clearly says it's up to Congress to declare and set the rules of every war....

The Founders were VERY clear that they wanted every war to be deliberated in Congress.... Thomas Jefferson called that clause "a check on the dog of war," James Madison wrote, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department"....

Wild Cobra

08-21-2012, 08:16 PM

The War Powers Clause of the Constitution:

Actual quote from the 2002 Iraq War resolution:

Key words there - "as he (the President) determines to be necessary".... this leaves all the warmaking power to the President, when the Constitution clearly says it's up to Congress to declare and set the rules of every war....

The Founders were VERY clear that they wanted every war to be deliberated in Congress.... Thomas Jefferson called that clause "a check on the dog of war," James Madison wrote, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department"....
We disagree.

First of all, the [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; is not stated as an exclusive power. This power was traditionally the power of the Commander in Chief. There is the argument that this clause adds that power to the congress without removing it from the president. It clearly gives the power to congress, but does say it removes it from the traditional viewpoint.

Please.

Where does it say congress cannot delegate anyway? They do it all the time.

Jefferson's intent is not shared by all, and that idea didn't make it to the written form.

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 08:25 PM

If you search, you can find even more quotes from the Founders saying the same thing: the War Powers Clause is important because it delegates war declaration power strictly to Congress, where it can be carefully debated instead of pushed through....

Considering you call yourself a libertarian, why on Earth would you be comfortable with one person having all the power when it comes to declaring and fighting a war?

Wild Cobra

08-21-2012, 08:28 PM

If you search, you can find even more quotes from the Founders saying the same thing: the War Powers Clause is important because it delegates war declaration power strictly to Congress, where it can be carefully debated instead of pushed through....
I'm sorry, but the "strickly" interpretation never made it to the legal text. Even if I agree with that, congress did delegate.

Considering you call yourself a libertarian, why on Earth would you be comfortable with one person having all the power when it comes to declaring and fighting a war?
Did I say I was comfortable with it?

Quote please.

Clipper Nation

08-21-2012, 08:35 PM

I'm sorry, but the "strickly" interpretation never made it to the legal text. Even if I agree with that, congress did delegate.
How much clearer and stricter could it possibly get than "Congress shall have the power to declare war"? I don't think the Founders would have forgotten something as important as the executive branch also having that power if that's what they intended, tbh....

And yes, Congress did delegate.... just because they did it doesn't mean it's constitutional....

Did I say I was comfortable with it?

The fact that you're so defensive about Congress unconstitutionally delegating the power to declare war to the executive branch implies that you're okay with the President having that much unilateral power, whether you'd like to admit it or not, B....

Let me put it to you another way: would you be okay with Congress voting to delegate their constitutional power to levy taxes to President Obama? Something tells me that in that scenario, you'd lose your mind at all the "socialist wealth redistribution" he'd certainly be doing, right? Congress giving up the power to declare war is no different than this scenario, tbh....

Wild Cobra

08-21-2012, 08:39 PM

How much clearer and stricter could it possibly get than "Congress shall have the power to declare war"? I don't think the Founders would have forgotten something as important as the executive branch also having that power if that's what they intended, tbh....

And yes, Congress did delegate.... just because they did it doesn't mean it's constitutional....

The fact that you're so defensive about Congress unconstitutionally delegating the power to declare war to the executive branch implies that you're okay with the President having that much unilateral power, whether you'd like to admit it or not, B....

Let me put it to you another way: would you be okay with Congress voting to delegate their constitutional power to levy taxes to President Obama? Something tells me that in that scenario, you'd lose your mind at all the "socialist wealth redistribution" he'd certainly be doing, right? Congress giving up the power to declare war is no different than this scenario, tbh....
I just disagree with your interpretation.