Paul stated the FACTS and asked the VALID questions! Kerry took his marching orders from Israel!! And someone tell me again......who exactly is Kerry's wife?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Joey never disappoints. Ad hominem attack with ZERO substance to defend his post. He posts a question with 5 question marks and 4 exclamation points, and I answer the post, and Joey attacks with his predictable "Cissy World" post. Whether you agree with my answer or not, you should be embarrassed at the fact that you can't form a coherent argument.
I'm embarassed that people that act and think like you even exist in today's society! Coherent means open discussions with open thoughts...so coherent with you is irrelevant, uselss and a total waste of time. Your whole existence is to distort and twist words. Cissy's ball; Cissy's rules; Cissy's game. Play by Cissyboys rules or you can't play. Glad you can count!!!! Hate being called out don't you!!! Cissyboy's world...it's the only way!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
I'm embarassed that people like you even exist in today's society! Glad you can count!!!! Hate being called out don't you!!! Cissyboy's world...it's the only way!
Yeah, called out. Ya got me!LOL
You ran away from your silly original post because it was non sense. You are smart to go with the "Cissy World" argument. You don't want to resurrect that piece of illogical trash you posted earlier today.
You ran away from your silly original post because it was non sense. You are smart to go with the "Cissy World" argument. You don't want to resurrect that piece of illogical trash you posted earlier today.
RAN AWAY...now that's classic you. Post is there, it stands on it's own. Find some 10 year old to explain it to you! Of course it's illogical to you, becuase it doesn't fit CISSYBOY's world and rules!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Lurch looks like a subject of an Arbus pic. And here he is ready to bomb another country to further radical Islam, which makes him a moral freak as well.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Now I may be wrong, and we al know that Cissy is the resident expert of all, but I thought that for us to be at war, that there would have to be a DECLARATION OF WAR, which is an act of the national legislature. I thought his power is vested in congress by the constitution, art. 1, s. 8. There is no form or ceremony necessary, except the passage of the act. Not sure that the President, unilaterally, has the power to declare war, and unless war is declared, technically we are not at war.....right?!?!?!?!?
Lets try to simplify this for even a dummy.
The definition of WAR 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
Congressional declaration of war doesn't define war, war has its own definition. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says that for the United States to WAR(as defined above), it first must be declared by Congress. The constitution didn't define war, it defined which branch of government makes the decision to wage war.
So one more time for Dummy Joey. The president unilaterally committing the military to war, IS STILL TECHNICALLY A WAR. If you think a congressional declaration of war is the definition of war, and that technically the unilateral use of the military to bomb and kill without a declaration is not war, then it must be unilateral murder.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a Senator John McCain plays poker on his IPhone during a U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing where Secretary of State JohnKerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testify concerning the use of force in Syria, on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, Tuesday, September 3, 2013. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
The definition of WAR 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. 2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
Congressional declaration of war doesn't define war, war has its own definition. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution says that for the United States to WAR(as defined above), it first must be declared by Congress. The constitution didn't define war, it defined which branch of government makes the decision to wage war.
So one more time for Dummy Joey. The president unilaterally committing the military to war, IS STILL TECHNICALLY A WAR. If you think a congressional declaration of war is the definition of war, and that technically the unilateral use of the military to bomb and kill without a declaration is not war, then it must be unilateral murder.
Let me further simplify this for you CissyDUMB! I was not stating the definition of war, if you read what I wrote. I was stating how a declaration of war is intended within our Government. It is not unilateral...requires Congressional vote, as you have repeated in your pointless comment. So once again CissyDUMB, it is not technically possible for us to be at war if it is a unilateral act of the President...IT REQUIRES A VOTE OF CONGRESS!!!!!!! It's ojnly technically possible in Cissy's world becuase that is how you want to interpet it! All the rest of your gibberish is your own "opinion". DUH!!! HAVE A NICE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Paul stated the FACTS and asked the VALID questions! Kerry took his marching orders from Israel!! And someone tell me again......who exactly is Kerry's wife?
the ketchup queen HEINZ....gotta send the sh!t to the troops in their MREs....nice government contract.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
So once again CissyDUMB, it is not technically possible for us to be at war if it is a unilateral act of the President...IT REQUIRES A VOTE OF CONGRESS!!!!!!! It's ojnly technically possible in Cissy's world becuase that is how you want to interpet it! All the rest of your gibberish is your own "opinion".
Once again, you are wrong. It is still WAR. If you want to be technical, it is unconstitutional undeclared war waged by the executive. It is your "opinion" that it is "technically" not a war. In that case, get rid of the Constitution and let the executive branch go to war any time it wishes and we will NEVER technically be at war.
Once again, you are wrong. It is still WAR. If you want to be technical, it is unconstitutional undeclared war waged by the executive. It is your "opinion" that it is "technically" not a war. In that case, get rid of the Constitution and let the executive branch go to war any time it wishes and we will NEVER technically be at war.
" If you want to be technical, it is unconstitutional undeclared war waged by the executive" There you go...now was that so hard. After all your twisting, bending, distorting, ad humma-humma-humma, bantering, gibberish, you knew what was being stated all the time...you just wanted to play your games!!!! You finally got it!!! Congratulations!!!!!!! There's hope for you after all...(NAH, just kidding!)
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Sh!t, Bush was able to get a coalition of 49 countries for the Iraq war. Obama has France and Turkey. Yup, they are winning the argument for war.
They aren't making an "argument for war"... are they. War... like the Iraq war, or the Vietnam or Korean war... They are making an argument for a punitive strike against the use of chemical weapons.
(BTW, you can add my name to those opposed to going to WAR in Syria.)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
For those who see any military action as WAR, consider the Israeli strike against Iraq's Nuke facility in the '80's:
Quoted Text
Operation Opera also known as Operation Babylon, was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, Iraq. This operation was after Iran's Operation Scorch Sword that damaged this nuclear facility months before.
Outcome of the attack:
Quoted Text
Iraq said it would rebuild the facility and France agreed, in principle, to aid in the reconstruction. Because of a mix of factors, including the Iran-Iraq War, international pressure and Iraqi payment problems, negotiations broke down in 1984 and France withdrew from the project.
The Israeli strike to destroy the facility was a success and prevented it's reconstruction. These surgical strikes are an example of military options to achieve a political goal. Consider how the GWB's Iraq war might have gone if Iraq had successfully completed it's NUKE program and possessed NUKE weapons.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
