http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/20/sh...lose-illinois/
Printable View
:lol Daily Caller.
:lol Tucker Carlson.
:lol CATO institute.
:lol the idea of Romney winning Illinois.
:lmao
How much money do you want to put on it? I'll give you 10:1 odds.
:lol The idea of Obama losing his home state
:lol
In other news, the Bobcats will the NBA Finals in 2013.
Looks like the latest gallop poll has Obama by minus 2!
I read that linked article and others that expanded more on McKeon's poll. I wouldn't dismiss it so readily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
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.
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)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
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.
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Do you live under a rock? Republicans and Democrats alike were pushing for a war in Iraq as early as 1997, tbh...Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
"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.
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
We haven't declared a war constitutionally since WWII, dumbass.... :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
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 uncontrollablyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
thank the policy makers in DC for fucking up this country tbh
What makes up a constitutional declaration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Where does it say congress cannot delegate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Where does it say the declaration has to be a formal draft?
Where does it say the wards "declare war" must be used?
Please...Quote:
I mean, is there some specific form that must be signed?
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.
The War Powers Clause of the Constitution:
Actual quote from the 2002 Iraq War resolution:Quote:
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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....Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
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.
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?
I'm sorry, but the "strickly" interpretation never made it to the legal text. Even if I agree with that, congress did delegate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Did I say I was comfortable with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
Quote please.
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
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....Quote:
Did I say I was comfortable with it?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipper Nation
The people who wrote the document agree with my interpretation for the most part, so I'm pretty sure I'm right, tbh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It would not surprise me in the least if Obama lostb illinois. God bless