Illegal Wars, Obama Says He Don't Need Congress.
Earlier today, The Blaze reported on the bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House. Now, President Barack Obama’s administration is speaking out, claiming that the War Powers Act does not apply to U.S. action in Libya. The New York Times has more:
In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.
On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-t … -approval/
This war in Libya is an Illegal war, and if it was a Repubican or Consevative in office the Left would freaking out. So where is the anti-war Left? I hear crickets...
And it is a laugh that Lara Miason and others on the Left and Progressive Right, call any call by America and the Right to end the Conflicts, Isolationiism. Same BS they screamed in WWI and WWII. The fact is most Consevatives I know are not isolationists, but we are non-interventionalists.
We have killed Osama Bin Laden and that should be the end of doing any thing in, or for, Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as I am concerned let them wallow in the mire of their great Islam.soo it is only a war if we have Boots on the Ground?
what a bunch of bovine scatology this is! The law suit needs to proceed I thinkCan you hear a the screams of war-moner and hawk coming from the Leftists on here Dutch. I have a headache it is so deafening. Please all you all be quiet all ready...
We were silenced during Iraq, torture and 9/11.....
What do you want?
Haven't you already told us the President can do what he wants, and just shut up?
You did with Bush.
You scream all you want...it's a little too little, and a little too late.The only thing I endrse was killing Osama... since that is done, our time in those nations shold be done.
And since when has anyone ever been able to silence you Chris... gimmie a brak.
Hypocrosy is what it is.I think you're the hypocrit.
Endorsing all of Bushco's criminal behavior, then expecting a parade playing for you when you want Obama punished.
What do you think....your side will "get" Obama, while Bushco rides off into the sunset?
How is it that Obama must be held to account in your eyes, yet Bushco should not?
You all laughed at Kucinich, even though he had 38 articles of impeachment drawn up.
So what......now you want respect?
Sorry--you never gave it out, so don't look for it in return.Congress declares war Chris... simple concept. And the war powers act is run out of time, so that war must be over, Libya.
As for afghanistan, we got what we went for. the only thing we should grab on the way out are the poeple who helped us and bring them here. Pakistan can be cleared because we don't need to supply Afghanistan anymore.
Iraq we should be out of already. i am not the one who wanted to go remove Saddam and set up a new country. So... bring em home.No, but Bush was. So--Where's his punishment???
Cheney admitted to waterboarding and was proud of it. Hello!! It is against the LAW. Where's his punishment??
They stonewalled investigations into 9/11, then testified, but not under oath.Why were they allowed to do that? Clinton had to be sworn.
They outed a CIA agent,and commuted the sentence of the one they charged for the crime.
They made up evidence, lied to the public, and committed detainee abuse in numerous prisons.
Congress gave Bush power to use force as a last resort.....then Powell lied to the UN, and the force they had wanted since 1999 came to be.
Where are any of their punishments?
And if they looked into 9/11...the charges would lead to treason and mass murder.
But it never happened....and your side was calling ME an America-Hating traitor for wanting it to.
So, I will fight ANY attempt to bring Obama down. After what we went through with Bushco...with the Conservatives blessing, and name-calling the ones calling for action....saying you have a lot of nerve is an understatement. And your sudden change of heart is suspect.as I thought I understood the War Powers Act it was to provide quick response as a defensive interest for America, or in cases where we could not wait on offical declorations.
A fill in measure until Congress and the Senate acted. Obama has followed the Bushes and Regan down the same hallway using it. But He is the first to be called on it?
We did not call out Bush 1 or 2, or Regan when he bombed Lybia the first time.
sooo, now we did! Congress is correct to re-assert Congressional power.
It is not nor intended to make War a one man decision. Should never be.
Look to Viet Nam for a partial answer, Not Johnson or Nixon or Kennedy, but the commanders on the ground there. No war Plan, they picked and choose the battles they wannted, based action on the ribbions,rank and retirment they would get for Promotions to General.
The past few years have been exactly that mentality from all of our latest Presidents.
The real problem in Bush 2 error was Iran, but he never addressed it, He knew it would be a World War starter. He went after Sadam, for his Fathers historical record, and for things that the Bushes want hidden about Dads CIA endevor's. Gauranteed wins, no risk, except Young Men and women not invested in Jobs, college and US partisan? calculatable loss to Him nothing more.
we have no real purpose to police an Arab world, when we do not understand it well enough, we got Ben Laudin, we are harassing Terriorists and removing them, we need no more than that. The world knows the truth about both sides.
Far to many young men and women burried to justify the shelfish costs of Historical correctness, for me.
Why all this comparison with Bush? Obama is now in office. That was then -- this is now. Pointing fingers at Bush does not justify Obama doing the VERY SAME THING. BTW, the Libya "not-war" is costing $10 million a day. Certainly there must be a better use for that money.
Nothing has been done about Bushco.
You can forget it if you want...I never will.
And all your talk of Obama is just that....talk. Cause, What are you gonna do about it?
You let Bush slide....so what???
Nothing. And unless we deal with Buscho, there is no reason for me to hear about Obama.
Did your mom say, "Honey---Kenny broke that window, but we're not going to do anything about it. But by golly--if you break it, we are going to punish you, and punish you good!"
I was not raised that way.
Equal treatment, or none at all.I am not trashing Obama Chris, read up please. I am saying its like he was the last one in line on the Highway and all of them were speeding, and the when the Cop caught up to them. The cop got him as last in line.
nothing intendedAs far as I'm concerned, the cop caught Bushco, but his adorers were too powerful, too crooked and too hard-headed to see beyond "Bush is my hero".
It breaks my heart to see what is happening. And angers me no end.
I don't know about you, but the Buscho years were horror for me. And I was demonized for saying so.
Now Obama is demonized for anything he does, and people say forget the 8 years of horror! Forget all that happened in that time....just let it go.
That is wrong. People want to say abortion is immoral...letting treasonous murderers go free as if nothing is immoral. Refusing to stand up and take care of our own is immoral.
Letting those people die in vain is immoral.
Cindy Sheehan asked What did my son die for, and she was demonized.
I've had it with this so-called morality!
I want Justice. And Justice means doing something about all the crimes committed from 2000-2008.
Until then, you want to talk about how bad Obama is? (not you personally...the righty you)
LalalalalalalaI can not disagree with this, and yes both Bushe's were hard on me also.
I see what you are sayingWow--thank you. I had my fists up, ready for an attack.
I don't think we ought to've done a thing in Libya, or any of the other mid-eastern or north African countries currently experiencing unrest. We have no business there, especially when we aren't even entirely sure who the rebels are.
Bombing people sure sounds like 'hostilities' to me. If there's a clear case for attacking or invading, then make it. But don't drop bombs willy-nilly--it costs money and lives (our money, which we can ill-afford, and their lives, which admittedly aren't our responsibility to protect, but we oughtn't be so cavalier about ending them either.)Obama needs to be de-throned.
Not because I'm a "Right-wing nut job" or because I'm a "radical anarchist" but because this president is CLEARLY expanding presidential power.
He ran as an anti-war choice, but here he is wiping his nether regions with the Constitution.
He lied to us - he swore to uphold the Constitution, and he clearly isn't.
Wow, "let them wallow in the mire of their great islam." And we wonder why people from this region want us dead.
Aside from that, look, I agree that the Libyan mission was an overreach. Obama should have sought approval from Congress. We should be just sending a little money and strategic support.
However, that doesn't mean republicans should waste our time by suing the administration for this. We have bigger things to worry about.
Also, the Republicans have been getting us into much more unmanageable wars recently. Iraq was just as unjustified as Libya, and yet your party encouraged not just intervention but nation building there. Afghanistan may be more justified, but we've been there ten years and have spent hundreds of billions for a handful of operatives. How can you complain about Libya after Bush got us into so much crap?
I think this situation is comparable to Kosovo in the 90s. We bomb the bad guys, we give support to the good guys, but we do not invade and take over the country. Clinton showed how to handle an intervention successfully, and Obama is following the playbook. The difference: back then, we didn't already have two wars and a recession to fight, so we could afford it.
So... yes, we overstepped, but not as much as you guys did in the past. Let the prez get back to figuring out some way to create jobs.They hate us because we are not Muslims... read the damn Qu'ran and hadith before you spout about something your clearly are clueless on. And if you would like I can post dozens of verses from the Qu'ran which Abbrogate all the concilliatory verse toward non-believers. And they are all hate filled violent verses about killing all others who are not Muslim... or converting them. And that isn't anything compared to the hatred for infidels in the hadith and Sunnah.
They hate us because their god tells them to, they hate us because we will not bow down in Submission to Islam... which is exactly what the word Islam means.
And the difference is that Clinton had rape charges, adultery, and perjury to use to wag the dog. that is the simple truth. And we were not on the "good guys" side in that conflict... not at all. And that is to say nothing about all the people around the Clintons who were found murdered min unexplained ways and never solved case. Not to mention his, Clinton, givin intr-continental bullistic missle tech, to the commie chinese. A traitor of the highest order. I do not understand how any woman could respect that rapist.
Islam in the Baltics has been committing genocide there for centuries... all we did was buy the, "I am the victim" routine, from a bunch of muslim terrorists. But that is the Leftist card, they always use it, that and "your a racist" whaa.Erm, no, Islam means "the way to peace", peace and submission to god.
On, and my Muslim landlord shows me not one jot of hatred, unlike Christian landlords I've had in the past.
Interesting...you say Republicans are non-interventionalist huh? What about Grenada, Libya, Honduras, Vietnam, Korea, Beruit, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan? Non-intervention my arse! Why are there fewer protests? Because there aren't soldiers on the ground. Yemen and Syria involve drone attacks on Al Queda...which as I recall, you are totally in favor of. Libya was a UN sanctioned bombing mission with no ground troops and then the CIA went in, and Congressional approval isn't needed for that. Now that we have addressed this...I assume by your statements that you were EXTREMELY against Vietnam. Is that correct?
"They hate us because we are not Muslims."
Must be why we are fighting five wars, all in their countries. Hey but it's your money - enjoy.Read the Qu'ran and Hadith then tell me about Islam. Then maybe you would grasp why Islam hates us and dispises the jews.
I can read you passages from the Bible that talk about God ordering the rape of young girls, ripping babies from the bellies of pregnant women and bashing them against rocks, genocide, etc. Do you really want to compare? They are both horrible books, but the Holier than Thou attitude you portray is naive.
Christ never ordered anyone to rape... wow. The OT again. You all cannot get past that, can you. We Christians have... The old testament was another age, and God treated men in another way, so as to teach them. We seem to be like children, don't you think. Never learn till you get burnt and all that.
I can't get past the very book you hold dear ordering these things? Are you kidding me? "The old testament was another age"? SO WAS THE KORAN! What a moron.
The qu'ran has had no progression in the last 1480 years... the OT has... it is called the New Testament. Matter of fact is has completely morphed into what would seem a different religion to the untrained laymen. Your words show you do not have a clue. Do you think before you speak.. or write?
So you get to decide upon what timeline "progress" is measured in huh? The New Testament dates back to 100 years after Jesus died...so at the earliest, 98 AD. WHEREAS the Koran wasn't INVENTED until after 800AD. So BY DEFINITION, the Koran is newer than the New Testament. You haven't got even the slightest clue do you?
AGAIN - you have been found lacking. It isn't that you are just wrong all of the time; it is that you are really bad at debating as well.If you want to get into actual cannons (i.e. the list of books included in the Bible), I get get into that with you too. The Bible existed before King James dude, and I happen to (obviously) know miles more about it than you do.
Go ahead...tell me the NT is newer than the Koran.
The earliest book we have an actual pc of is papyrus 51, dating back to the 4th or 5th century. Now go look up when Muhammed was born and come back to me.
You get defeated daily and just move on though, so I doubt you'll come back to this one.Yes the secular theologions would try to date all the Gospels late, but we know that the universal testimony of the early church dates matthew to the Apostle Mathew, KATA MATHAION, we could argue the two author hypothesis, but we won't... the fact is it can be dated to anywhere between 80 and 100 AD.
The Apostle john wrote the Revalations about 93 AD and his boks even ealier. So you take your critical theory secular theologions and there BS and go on your way. The gospels are dated way before Momo and his ilk. Or do you think momo actually got his confabullated info from the angel gabrial? he didn't... wold you like to know who authored the Qu'ran?Let me know I will educate you on that also.
And you know Mohhammud never wrote a word of the Qu;ran?
But this isn't the thread for that conversation... so go start one if you want to have this discussion.Also the book of Mark can be found in Eusibius, who quoted from the work of Papias', Exgesis Of The Lord's Oracles, about 140 AD.
Man give me a break... mohammud wrote the Qu'ran first. Where the hell would you get that? Some college or university I bet. I am bored now... see ya.Again - this is MORONIC! You are playing dumb and projecting what YOU said by claiming I said it.
YOUR WORDS:
The qu'ran has had no progression in the last 1480 years... the OT has... it is called the New Testament. Matter of fact is has completely morphed into what would seem a different religion to the untrained laymen. Your words show you do not have a clue. Do you think before you speak.. or write?"
How can you claim that the Koran hasn't progressed in 1480 years, and the OT has, in the form the New Testament, which was written BEFORE the KORAN?!
Then you try to claim that I said Mohammed wrote it after the New Testament. You are either the most dishonest person on these board that any of us have ever seen, or the absolute least intelligent person we have ever encountered. Either way, very bad. I tend to think you are just dishonest and a little dumb, as opposed to flat out ignorant. You appear to have more heinous intentions than just being an idiot.Where do you get that I said the NT was "newer" than the qu'ran? I said, -The qu'ran has had no progression in the last 1480 years... the OT has... it is called the New Testament. Matter of fact is has completely morphed into what would seem a different religion to the untrained laymen. Your words show you do not have a clue. Do you think before you speak.. or write?"
Were does that say the NT is "newer" than the qu'ran. It is not there. Stop trying to put words in my mouth... I say what I say, and you don't get to translate it to your own words. Grow up.
I said the OT has progressed into a kinder gentler religion, a sort of enlightenment... where doe that mean newer than the qu'ran? Can you read? If you cannot understand that the new testament is a growth of the OT... then you need help.
And you can keep calling me all the names you want... it shows your a lil man who cannot support his arguments without twisting my words and lying about what I am saying.And this was my response way back to your ramblng rants about newer than the qu'ran.
"Yes the secular theologions would try to date all the Gospels late, but we know that the universal testimony of the early church dates matthew to the Apostle Mathew, KATA MATHAION, we could argue the two author hypothesis, but we won't... the fact is it can be dated to anywhere between 80 and 100 AD.
The Apostle john wrote the Revalations about 93 AD and his boks even ealier. So you take your critical theory secular theologions and there BS and go on your way. The gospels are dated way before Momo and his ilk. Or do you think momo actually got his confabullated info from the angel gabrial? he didn't... wold you like to know who authored the Qu'ran?Let me know I will educate you on that also.
And you know Mohhammud never wrote a word of the Qu;ran?
But this isn't the thread for that conversation... so go start one if you want to have this discussion."
"Also the book of Mark can be found in Eusibius, who quoted from the work of Papias', Exgesis Of The Lord's Oracles, about 140 AD.
Man give me a break... mohammud wrote the Qu'ran first. Where the hell would you get that? Some college or university I bet. I am bored now... see ya."
No I don't. But I get to point out the fact that they have not progressed.
You just read then ignore and think I said what you want. get a grip man.
Hi TM: Instead or reading the ' Qu'ran and Hadith' maybe you should
take a peek at the
present and get real.Yo want to understand a muslims thinking you better have a grasp of Islam or you won't know anything about that process.... I live in the modern world and have always dealt in the NOW... they do not, and do not want to. So knowing the religion of our enemy in this case is a matter of life and death. Take the time to learn now... or you may not have the chance later.
The problem is most western minds cannot concieve of cutting off heads and hands and stoning people because your god says to... it has been gone from our lives for a long time now.Really? There are plenty of neo nazis who might differ with your perspective.
NAZI's are your ilk. Socialists... see how that one works. Are you keeping track of this tex, take notes so you don't bable the same foolishness more than a few more times. I will write S...l...o..w..l..y.. f...o..r.. y..o...u
Hitler was a socialist! Really!
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Actually he was far closer to you lot.Do you even know what Nazi means? Appearently not. More revisionist history, which we are about to re-claim, and teach correctly.
I will give you a hint... Nationalsozialist.
And that doesn't mean the Nationalist Social club... nope. It means national Socialist Party. Did hitler become a facist? Yes... but that dioesn't actually cannote Right wing. Unless your in Europe where Socialism is the Right wing. But here in America Socialism is to the Left.
Simple.You really are very naive if you believe everything that it says on the tin!
And yes, I do know what Nazi means, we have discussed it before but typically you're deaf when it comes to hearing something that challenges your ideals.Hahaaa.. your a riot. And what the hell is tin? Do you mean the internet? I do not. My history come from real History texts, penned before the 1960s and the rise and dominance of revisionism and critical theory. So get real. Go invest in some leartning materials and learn for yourself and stop parroting the revisionism the teachers filled you full of.
And get back on topic...
And Hitler's first actions were nationalization of all the industries, as he centralized the Govt. Same as his buddies, Stalin, FDR and Mao.
Read a book of real history... like this one. "Lennin, Stalin and Hitler, the Age Of Social Catastrophy", start there then come see me and I will guide to the next level.I should have remembered your limited grasp of the English language, tin = can.
Funny you saying that your history comes from pre 1960s, it was America much post 1960s that revised Hitler into a socialist.
Shame you didn't have a look at the link I posted.Hitler was a Socialist. Read my Hub on the American Left and their love of Socialists and commies... even the NYTimes and the media knew him for what he was pre-WWII, then when he turned on Stalin, (they turned on each other actually), the American media and Leftists turned on him and cast him from their club. I even source the NYTimes in their own words. Remember Duranty? Probrably not.
He kept it well hid from everybody apart from you lot then!
There was nothing socialist in his cutting wages, removing worker participation, his blatant racism, his hatred of Marxism, his contempt for pacifism
And what, or rather who, does abolishing trade unions, collective bargaining, and strikes sound like?
Sounds much more like you than me.
But I don't see how a book about how Hitler was opposed to communism supports your cause!
That book is not about how Hitler was oppossed to Communism. Read it and see the results of a century of Marx's demented children.
And beoieve it or not, Wiki has a pretty fair write up about the mis-use of the word Fascist, and the way people toss it around.
"The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word. As a political epithet, the word fascist has been applied, in an anti-authoritarian sense, mainly to a broad range of people and groups on the extreme right, but also to groups on the far left and at points in between. It has also been applied to people of many religious faiths, particularly fundamentalist groups. The individual, institution, or group(s) called fascist often find the use of the term in this way to be highly offensive and inappropriate.
In this sense, the word fascist is intended to mean "oppressive", "intolerant", "chauvinist", "genocidal", "dictatorial", "racist", or "aggressive" – all concepts that are allegedly inspired by the ideology of actual fascism, and pervasive through fascist states. One might accuse an inconveniently placed police roadblock as being a "fascist tactic" for its perceived oppression or interloping, or an overly authoritarian teacher as being "a total fascist". Terms like Nazi and Hitlerite, are often used in similar contexts."
"The phrase social fascists was used by communists against social democrats before 1933, and is still used in some communist circles to refer to modern social democracy movements. As early as 1944, the term had already become so widely and loosely employed that British essayist and novelist George Orwell was moved to write:"
It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.[1]
"Following the end of the Second World War, no group wanted to affiliate with the term "fascist" and both the propaganda systems of the USSR and Western World branded fascism as an irrational ideology because it stood in opposition to those of the Allies. The term subsequently lost all significant meaning"
And here is where the Marxist Trotskyites slung it against the Right wing Capitolists...and the left hasn't stopped since.
"Marxist theorists such as Trotskyists, which harbor an economic and materialist view of history, examined fascism strictly from an economic point of view. This bias led them to conclude that fascism was merely a form of extreme reactionary state capitalism, since fascist states adopted corporatism, promoted class collaboration, protected private property and wanted to eradicate all forms of socialism."
So as you can see the word is useless for anything more than an inslt to be slung by those who do not know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(epithet)Placing the word fascist in front of the word Nazi, doesn't change the FACT that NAZIs were, and are, Socialists. ie; He is a member of the fascist NAZI party... see... nothings changed.
Apply everything you say about fascism to the word socialist in the context that you use it.
And you've yet to answer my point - "what, or rather who, does abolishing trade unions, collective bargaining, and strikes sound like?"It sounds like free market capitolism, America. Not Socialist Workers of the world.
Getting rid of unions and nationalizing all industry is not free market capitolism, it is Socialism, heading for the commie stage. See the difference? Probrably not.
Oh make up your mind, first it sounds like freemarket capitalism, and then when you realise what you've admitted, it becomes socialism!
Believe me, it's nothing like socialism, socialism isn't anti trade unions.
No I did not. You asked about getting rid of Unions etc, that is free market capitolism.
Nationalizing all industry and centralizing the Govt. is Socialism at the very least john, and that is what Hitler did. Along with the rest. He got rid of the Unions and other so as to get rid of compitition, only Hitler ruled hitler's germany.
The two steps added together are not free market capitolism, they are Socialism.
You structured your ? so as to illicit a certain response, then applied that response as if to the general conversation, that is deceptive and twisting. I have played that game before with many a Leftist who cannot win a debate. it is old and over-played.But they were also the actions of Hitler!
You know full well that there are more systems than free market capitalism or socialism and it does not follow that if one is not free market capitalism then it must be socialism.
Please take the time to find out what socialism really is and not continue to peddle your mistaken beliefs.
I structured my ? not to get a certain response but an honest response and you, firstly, give me an honest response, only retracting it when you realised that you'd put your foot in it.
I know exactly what Socialism is, john. I defined it, I thought for you, the other day. And your remark was, "see that wasn't so hard people, excellent definition of Socialism."
And if it wasn't you then I will re-post the definition I know of Socialism, just ask.
And I thanked you in the other thread for reading my hub, if you didn't get it, then thanks and I posted your comment.It wasn't me, as far as I recall, please post again.
You are welcome to the comment I made on your hub, don't suppose it made a blind bit of difference but who knows, keep chipping away and we might get you to take a more balanced look at the world.Just another loon arguing that because they called themselves Socialist in their name, that they were in fact socialists. They ignore that Hitler rounded up the socialist/communists at the beginning before the Jews. It isn't worth fighting...he doesn't care what is real or not. He lives in a fantasy land.
Just like you don't follow your Bible, most of them don't follow the word of their Koran. You could care less about the poor, yet your Jesus told you to sacrifice everything for them, to give up your possessions and travel the world sharing your testimony. Instead, you are on hubpages at your house. If you were a real Christian you wouldn't shill for corporations and fight against the people. BUT - we all know how you feel, and thus we all know exactly how "Christian" you are.
99% of Muslims follow the Qu'ran and of them 99%.. 85 to 90% follow the true Islam of Mohhammud, as do the so called radicals. Would you like some Islamic scholars of the modern day to read? They may teach you a thing or two. But you would probrably say they do not know about islam either. Sad. Islam has not chnged in the 1400+ years it has been around.
75.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot, yours in particular being a flat out dishonest lie. Is there a poll? What are the metrics?
How is this : 99.999999999% of everything you write is completely and knowingly dishonest and essentially crap. Sad, you haven't changed from the mindset of 1400 years ago in your lifetime. Again - shameful. You bring shame to my country.You know the personal attacks just high-lights your limited intelligence, from which you draw your baseless arguments, and the fact that I have spoke true and painful words which you cannot handle, is obvious from those constant attacks from you and all the others. Show me your facts... show me your qu'ranic understanding and where you draw it from. You cannot!
Second, most Muslims are religious because they understand full well the penalty for Apostasy, death.
And when one undertakes interpretation of the qu'ran, one must look at it in the same way as the scholars of Islam and the Ulema do, Legalistically, that is the only way to interpret the qu'ranic doctrine, and that is because every word of their god is considered law.
Like I said, I suggest you read some of the more modern scholars of Islam, Qarawdawi is very excellent and well respected, and he is very honest in his words regarding islam, non-believers, and Apostates.
And lets not forget that Islamic favorite, Ruhollah Khomeini, Iranian superstar and modern day legend in Islam. And then you could always research some things through Al'Azhar university, in Cairo.
But I suggest you go further back and look into the foundations of Islamic Itjahadi, and Usul Al'Fuiqh, (look up al'fiiqh if you do not know what it is, it is the derivation of Islamic legal theorism from the qu'ran, Hadith and Sunnah.
Then I would suggest reading all you can of Imam Shafi'i, from who, all Islamic Al'Fiqh draws it understanding, both Sunni and Shi'ite.
Also some of the older scholars such as, Majid Khadduri, Al'Baydawi, Ibn'Hazm, Al'Gazali, Al' Bukhari, Al' Zamakhshari (known as jar'idla, god'sclient.), and Ibn Ishaq's biography of the prophet is worth a read to get a look at mohhammud, malik B Anas, author of Al'Muwatta the oldest extant treatise on Islmic Law in the Hijaz, that should be plenty to begin your education of Islam.
So when you ask me about where I get me facts?
I get them from islam... of course.
An another thing... you think I discuss Islam on here and no Muslims come to confront me because?... I don't kow what I am saying? What a laugh... Yeah right.
It is because they know I am on to them, and know what I am talking about, man. I speak of Islam in terms of Al'fiqh, because that is the way it is suppossed to be looked at, I know it, they know it.
You need to do alot of reading and learning to catch up to me on this issue.
And go spend about 10 to 20 years in an Islamic nation, then tell me you need a statatician to tell you about the Islamic population.
Also, I would recommend reading, Andrew Bostom's, "Legacy of Jihad", and, Joel Richardsan's, "Anti-Christ, Islam's Long Awaited Messiah." Also, Serge Triffkovik, "Sword Of The Prophet".
And then get back to me. I will guide you from there.
You maybe might be able to out debate me on a thing or two, and I do mean maybe... but not Islam. Not in the least."Legalistically"
Is that a real word?
However, Mr. TMMason, you make a good argument about the dangers of Islam in the Christian world. In the mind of the Muslims, either you are one of them ... or you are their enemy. There's NO middle ground with them.Oh, and as for tex, mr. "You bring shame to my country"
...TMMason, he's a dolt you should best ignore. If you say , or imply, you're a Christian , you are public enemy #1 to him. He's such a sad little man. (I think he made a reference to his small stature in one thread). A very sad little man indeed.You really don't know what your talking about with me, huh. I don't like Christians, eh? What a laugh. You don't know anything about me and that statement shows it.
And yes, legalistically, as in, in a legalistic manner.
Another one with nothing but personal attacks. Oh the brain pans have been simmering on the burners too long, and they have burnt on the stoves in here.TTMason, I SAID I AGREE WITH YOU. RE-READ.
My "personal attack" was on tex. You're fighting a good fight here. Tex...is the dolt.Sorry. I was a lil amped from the name calling and twisting of my words all day by that guy. My apologies. If I cannot understand clearly next time I will ask. I read that completely wrong... sorry. I missed the coma. lol I am a lil twisted by his attakcs one after the other, among many others here.
First of all, legalistically isn't a word. A legalist is an advocate of the law, and the word you were look for is "legally", however, again...you don't care.
You made the statement :
"99% of Muslims follow the Qu'ran and of them 99%.. 85 to 90% follow the true Islam of Mohhammud, as do the so called radicals."
It is a ridiculous idea that you can account for how 99% of all Muslims in the world think and act on a daily basis, the idea that you know what the "true" word of Muhammad is, despite that fact that they have been fighting over what the "true" word of Muhammad is and how it should be interpreted is just as ignorant. It is REMARKABLE to me that you actually believe you know the heart, direction, and actions of a single other man in the world, much less 99% of the largest religious population on the earth. The ignorance and arrogance is astounding.
You are in good company Mason - the McCarthy-ite and the Klansman. You two should make a sitcom...I mean, another sitcom other than the one you have going on in here.
Your statement:
"And go spend about 10 to 20 years in an Islamic nation, then tell me you need a statatician to tell you about the Islamic population."
First, "statistician" is how you spell it. Secondly, you believe that living in a single example of a thought is enough to declare what 99% of the entire world's population of that same belief? From that perspective, you can live in a town in Mexico, populated by Christians per capita, and make the statement that all Christians work in the drug cartels. A single example of a single place is not enough data to extrapolate into a generalization, measured in an actual statistical number, about the entire planet.
I know you don't understand this, and it is less of a personal attack than an observation. You don't have the brain power to get it, simple enough.
This is, however, for everyone reading. Like always...you have been weighed, measured, and found lacking.
I need your address to send you a certificate of ownership...because I own you.Secondly, you believe that living in a single example of a thought is enough to declare what 99% of the entire world's population of that same belief?
Seriously. There are tremendous differences between Islam as practiced in, say, Malaysia, versus the Islam of Saudi Arabia, while the Islam of Ethiopia is different still.
There are aspects of my husband's native culture (85% Sunni, 5% Shia for a total of 90% Muslim) that make me want to scream with frustration, but the percentage of women wearing veils is probably lower than most of Europe, most men shave, mosque attendance is spotty, and a substantial percentage of the population consumes alcohol and/or pork. If I spent 10 years in his country, I'd be forced to conclude that most Muslim are substantially less religious than most Christians! Cross the border into neighboring Afghanistan, on the other hand, and my conclusion would be exactly the opposite. How would either experience make any sort of sweeping generalization I could make about 99% of all Muslims in the world any more accurate?No. I believe most Muslims live by the Qu'ran. As I have stated. And your husband does not give you full knowledge of the entire Muslim world either. The fact is all Muslims try to live by the Qu'ran, are some more fanatical then others, sure. But in the end to follow the Qu'ran takes a lil fanatisicm to begin with.
And as a women you would have no say as to who interprets the Qu'ran and what that interpretation would be. Woman have no say in religion in Islam.
And that is not an attack. I respect your opinion. But those your defending, most of them, do not. And that is striaght Qu'ranic Law, and it is re-enforced throughout the Sunnah and Hadith.
So...I am glad your husband is a good man, and respects women and others, but that is not the norm in the Isamic world.
REALLY? Okay Mason - show me proof that 99% of all Muslims follow the Koran by the word. You claim you write the painful truth - okay, so prove it. I'll wait.
Tex, you're A very sad pathetic little man. I don't dislike you. I pity you. Little tex, you can grow in other ways than size.Try making an effort to grow intellectually.
Awww...did I make you upset? Did you have to go and iron your white hood? I don't pity you. I despise racists, period. To be clear...I can't stand your existence. How is that for venom on the hubs?
Spew your venom little tex. Water off a ducks back. I still don't dislike you. If i had to look up to everyone i met like you do, i might also hv your surly disposition. Little man.,please try to ...well, never mind. Some are beyond hope. I will continue to pity you little man.
"Yo want to understand a muslims thinking you better have a grasp of Islam or you won't know anything about that process...."
Maybe you should try to understand American Empire thinking.
"The problem is most western minds cannot concieve of cutting off heads and hands and stoning people because your god says to..."
No - western minds can conceive of bombing the hell of anybody as they do as we speak, and the new remote warfare of sporting kings - Drone Warfare.I have heard all the American Empirialism BS already. We have never been an Empirialistic nation, more revisionist history. Have we done some awful things around the world.. sure... look at the 70s and 80s the Leftist Dems and progressives went all around the middle east and set up the same dictators they now say they want out. Look at after WWII the dems through Truman's containment policy allowed Comunism to spread world-wide, because that was the plan. Yes the American Left and Progressives have done awful things in the name of America. You guys are a laugh.
Wow... My reply should stop there, because as I divulge the real story of what you are trying to say, will prove you so very wrong. Let's start with the lefties in the middle east during the 70's and 80's. Question number 1: Who put Saddam in power, and why? That would be George HW Bush while director of the CIA in 1976. Why? To stop what was then looked upon as the threat of a shi'ite uprising that would threaten Isreal. Saddam, and the Bathist party are Sunni's and are a large minority in the region. He was propped up by the US government during the 10 years war against Iran. Heck, Saddam gassed the Kurds with Anthrax provided by the US, and shot Scud Missles (also an American product) at Isreal in the begining of the first Gulf war.
Shah of Iran? Was ovverthrown because of the Carter Administration's lack of intervention. The Shah was another buddy of: Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon neither of whom are "leftist" While we are on Iran, we also have Reagan and George H.W. meddling in that country as well, and illegially selling arms to Iran (who was still in the 10 years war with Iraq) so that they could fund another clandestine illegal war in Nicaragua. Ollie North anyone?
Imperialism is the American way. From the take over of the native lands in America to the quest and fight for free labor (more commonly known as slavery). America has, and always will expolit darker skinned people of the world. No different than any other imperilists.
Now the the Yalta Conference (which you are loosely referring to), - the folks who were at the table were: Truman, Churchill, DeGalle, and Stalin. The latter wanted to maintain its ideology, which at the time was fine. Heck, these are the folks who just beat the Nazi regime. They were talking about how to split up the world (sounds rather imperial, correct?). Stalin did not become an enemy at that point. America was the world's primary hegemon, because we had the bomb.
Eisenhower was also the containment guy, not truman. Guess what party he was from? Please try to get 1 thing correct in the next post. We can't even give you partial credit on this one.Bush is a Progressive, older and son, and Jeb. Not my peple... I am a Conservative. And we all know that progressives are nothing but patient Socialists in a suit who have infiltrated the Right.
As for yalta, that was decideed before we even got to the table, by Stalin's agents, who were WHO WERE FDR's aides, all of FDR's presidential aides were on the KGB payroll and known comintern members. That is fact of history
Now I am done playing pass off. You all want to continue to group up and have me re-argue all the points a million times till I am worn out. I won't do it. Go back and read my posts in here and the other threads, I will not repeat myself over and over.Bush a progressive? O......K...... I see ono point on continuing. Also likely very good that you won't continue to repeat the blatant untruths that you have proported.
"Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htmAh but . . .
Thanks LMC, glad somebody can read.It's insulting to the max to equate that murdering egotist and Satan worshipper with Socialism.
Oh for God's Sakes....here is where mason gets it from...should have known!
Beckles the Evil Clown!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVrjFlFraETruth hurts, eh, my lil leftist friends. I will try to be gentler on you tomorrow.
Yeah rightlollllll
As I hum to myself... stir stir stir the pot... and watch the leftists float... round and round they go, then flush them down the moatOh my.... YOu are getting your information from someone who barely graduated from high school, then dropped out of college without completing 1 class? Oh, I also forgot the drunk drug addict part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_BeckYou should try it, even one time. Remember the truth will set you free and boy, do you need some freedom it must be a very dark place you live in TM.
Speaking of hypocrit.....
"Do you have any links to videos of Glenn Beck attacking Bush while he was in office? I searched "Glenn Beck on Bush" here on YouTube and all I came up with were videos of Beck praising Bush on how "smart" he is and how he's "the next Lincoln". LOL.
I hadn't seen Beck attack Bush until after Bush left office."
Somehow I bet that applies to many here as well.Actually Beck attacked Bush alot on CNN when he was there, Chris.
Yes--I remember him on CNN...Our healthcare system was the worst on the planet according to him.
Then when he got to Fox...suddenly it became the best!
And yet--he was the hero of all time to the Tea-Baggers....and so was Palin, and so is Teddy Boy Nugent Obama suck on this.
And better yet...anyone pointing this out is labeled a Hater.
As per usual.
Wow, this forum quickly delved into "Hitler was a socialist", "no he wasn't".
How bout we recreate the essential bit of the OP:
Obama lied to us about swearing to uphold the Constitution. He is now in 5 undeclared wars, and has refused to gain support from congress in any way shape or form from Congress.
To go one step further, Gitmo's still open, and he extended the Patriot Act against his own US citizens FROM ACROSS THE GLOBE (that's how important the act was to him).I knew when I posted this topic where it would go. Unfortunately.
AND??????
BUSH DID THE SAME AND WORSE>>>>When do we deal with that?
Or do we forget it, and just go after Obama?
Are you saying it's ok for one and not the other? Cause you didn't get the original criminals doing the original crime.....you gonna come in now and get the aftermath?
How is that Justice for All?Bush had a declararion of war... what part of that do you not get.
Your just so biased in your Leftist mentallity that you cannot even speak the truth. And that goes for alot of the Leftists/Socialists/Democrat and Progressives on here.War? For what? WMD's? There WERE none!
Who told us there was? Bushco. Lying to kill people is against the law.
As is torture.
What part of your conservative mentality accepts leaders lying and breaking the law?
Don't bother...let me guess. The part where it's Obama being accused of it...THEN we get him!
But---let Bushco off the hook.
CON is a good word for it.I told you, Chris, you can string Bush up, along with all the other Progressives, for all I care. You are arguing this debate by yourself. Calm down hun... have some valium or something. But the fact is a democrat Congress gave him a Declaration of War". So that is on you guys.
Iraq is on the Democrats?
Iraq is on the Democrats.
Republicans are not responsible for this economic mess.
Tax cuts create Jobs
The tooth fairy is real
santa Claus comes every Christmas
the elves make Keebler cookies
Elvis is not dead and neither is John Lennon, Biggie Smalls or Tupac Shakur
Democrats have caused all the problems in America, and Republicans are saviors, awaiting God's blessing their governance so they can Shock and Awe another county into submission....but wait.
Rummy was not in charge
Gonzales was not the ag
Bush was president, but he cannot be blamed for anything.
Cheney is just a sweet-heart
We must blame Obama NOW. And the Democrats in Congress.
Everyone else is blameless. Pure as the driven snow...why just look at Weiner. No Repub ever did anything like that.
Yeah...I get it.
Yeah...I get it.
Yeah...I get it.Yes the Progressive Repubs are as respnsible as the Dems and their Fanny mea and freedy mac attack on our economy.
And no, both parties have been to blame. That being said both parties are basically the same party. That is why Consevatives are taking the Republican Party from the Progressives.It is the banks that caused the recession, and last I knew they are not progressive in the least.
Banks are causing the gas bs too.
And that is my point....if BOTH parties are to blame.....why are you going after Obama?
Did you just notice a problem NOW?
Where were you from 2000-2008????
Obama is not like Bush. Bush is not like Obama.
You are trying to blur them into one, but it is not true.
Obama is for my freedom---Bush was not.
Obama gave me a tax break....measly-invisible me...no one ever has ever done that in my entire working life....and that's a long time.
Obama passed a healthcare bill that has a lot of very good things in it....Repubs never would.
Obama talks about helping poor moms and poor kids and the middle class. Repubs condemn them as useless lazy bums.
Obama does not promote America take it or leave it....neither do many of us...Repubs always do.
Obama wants to rescind the Bush era tax cuts...his stimulus was aimed at the American people, he supports my right to make my own reproductive decisions.
I could really go on and on.
If the Repub Congress is right now...where were they back then? Where have they been?Love, you conceded WAY too early in this debate with TMMason -- Bush never had a declaration of war.
There has not been any declaration of war since WWII.
I highly suspect that, unless Ron Paul is elected, there never will be another.
Bush didn't have a declaration of war.
There hasn't been a declaration of war since WWII.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
"BUSH DID IT SO IT'S OK"
no, that's not what I'm saying.
It's intriguing that you would defend Obama's misdeeds by saying that Bush did the same thing.
That means that YOU actually LIKED Bush.
Bush was evil, and so is Obama.I am not defending Obama's actions in Libya. I am defending his actions at home.
And I refuse to bash him on his actions in Libya unless and until something is done about Bushco and Iraq, 9/11 and torture.....
And I do not think Obama is evil. Not in the least.
But this is:
"And Obama hates this nation and is a racist pig."
This is finally the truth of what Obama is up against.There have been very few true Consevative republicans in office in a long time, Chris. And the few there could do nothing without more votes to help them.
Same predicament the Democrats found themselves in these past 2 years, when you all were busy asking why they couldn't get anything done.
And I see the obvious effort to rid our gvt of all liberals. Then you can be happy.
Crush the opposition, by any means neccessary. Play dirty. And I see you learned well from McCarthy.
It's the red scare all over again...only this time you are after liberals.
Using his tactics too I see.
Call the president a racist pig who hates America,then say everyone else is a hater. Classic.
And Obama isn't even liberal.....must be something else you don't like about him.Ron Paul has an excellent chapter on this discussion in his book "Liberty Defined" entitled "Noble Lie":
"Hermann Goering, second in charge to Hitler, had [a]... cynical understanding of how to use lying and patriotism...
"'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship... that is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Paul proceeds to discuss how the idea of a "noble lie" -- that where it is OK to lie so long as the ends justify the means -- is used regularly on both sides of the political spectrum today in the US. He especially comes down hard on Neoconservatives.The tactics you are complaining about are those of the Democrats, Progressives and HUAC, not ole Joe. See here..
Overman Committee (1918)
The Overman Committee was a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Democratic Senator from North Carolina Lee Slater Overman that operated from September 1918 to June 1919. The subcommittee investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States.[5]
The Committee was originally concerned with investigating pro-German sentiments in the American liquor industry. After World War I ended in November 1918 and the German threat lessened, the Committee began investigating communist Bolshevism. Bolshevism had appeared as a threat during the First Red Scare after the Russian Revolution in 1917. The Committee's hearing into Bolshevik propaganda, conducted February 11 to March 10 of 1919, had a decisive role in constructing an image of a radical threat to the United States during the First Red Scare.[6]
[edit] Fish Committee (1930)
Congressman Hamilton Fish III, who was a fervent anti-communist, introduced on May 5, 1930, House Resolution 180, which proposed to establish a committee to investigate communist activities in the United States. The resulting committee, commonly known as the Fish Committee, undertook extensive investigations of people and organizations suspected of being involved with or supporting communist activities in the United States. Among the committee's targets were the American Civil Liberties Union and communist presidential candidate William Z. Foster.[7] The committee recommended granting the United States Department of Justice more authority to investigate communists, and strengthening of immigration and deportation laws to keep communists out of the United States.[8]
[edit] Special Committee on Un-American Activities (1934–1937)
From 1934 to 1937, the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized to Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities, chaired by John W. McCormack and Samuel Dickstein, held public and private hearings in six cities, questioned hundreds of witnesses and collected testimony filling 4,300 pages. Its mandate was to get "information on how foreign subversive propaganda entered the U.S. and the organizations that were spreading it." The committee was widely known as the McCormack-Dickstein committee.
The committee investigated and supported allegations of a fascist plot to seize the White House, known as the Business Plot. It was replaced with a similar committee that focused on pursuing communists. Its records are held by the National Archives and Records Administration as related records to HUAC.
[edit] Special investigation committee (1938–1944)
On May 26, 1938, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was established as a special investigating committee, reorganized from its previous incarnations as the Fish Committee and the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist or fascist ties.[9][10] It was chaired by Martin Dies Jr., and therefore known as the Dies Committee.
In 1946, the committee considered opening investigations into the Ku Klux Klan but decided against doing so, prompting known anti-black committee member John E. Rankin to remark, "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."[11] Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project and the Federal Writers' Project. In 1965–1966, however, the Committee did conduct an investigation into Klan activities under chairman Edwin Willis.[12]
The Committee also carried out a brief investigation into the wartime internment of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast. The investigation primarily concerned security at the camps, youth gangs allegedly operating in the camps, food supply questions, and releases of internees. With the exception of Rep. Herman Eberharter, the members of the committee seemed to support internment.
In 1938, Hallie Flanagan, the head of the Federal Theatre Project, was subpoenaed to appear before the committee to answer the charge that the project was overrun with communists. Flanagan was called to testify for only a part of one day, while a clerk from the project was called in for two entire days. It was during this investigation that one of the committee members, Joe Starnes, famously asked Flanagan whether the Elizabethan playwright Christopher Marlowe was a member of the Communist Party, and mused that "Mr. Euripides" preached class warfare.[13]
In 1939, the committee investigated leaders of the American Youth Congress, a Comintern affiliate organization.
Ironically, congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the respective committees, was himself named in Soviet NKVD documents as a Soviet agent.[14]
And gee look at this Chris...
In 1947, the committee held nine days of hearings into alleged communist propaganda and influence in the Hollywood motion picture industry. After conviction on contempt of Congress charges for refusal to answer some questions posed by committee members, the "Hollywood Ten" were blacklisted by the industry. Eventually, more than 300 artists—including directors, radio commentators, actors and particularly screenwriters—were boycotted by the studios. Some, like Charlie Chaplin, left the U.S. to find work. Others wrote under pseudonyms or the names of colleagues. Only about ten percent succeeded in rebuilding careers within the entertainment industry.[citation needed]
In 1947, studio executives told the committee that wartime films—such as Mission to Moscow, The North Star, and Song of Russia—could be considered pro-Soviet propaganda, but claimed that the films were valuable in the context of the Allied war effort, and that they were made (in the case of Mission to Moscow) at the request of White House officials. In response to the House investigations, most studios produced a number of anti-communist and anti-Soviet propaganda films such as John Wayne's Big Jim McLain, Guilty of Treason (about the ordeal and trial of Cardinal József Mindszenty), The Red Menace, The Red Danube, I Married a Communist, Red Planet Mars, and I Was a Communist for the FBI, which was nominated for an Academy Award for the best documentary in 1951 and also serialized for radio.[17] Universal-International Pictures was the only major studio that did not produce such a film.
[edit] Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss
In 1948, the committee heard testimony from former spy, and then foreign desk editor of Time magazine, Whittaker Chambers, that numerous figures working for the federal government were in fact, communist agents. Some of the people Chambers named had already died or left the country. Some refused to answer committee questions, citing the Fifth Amendment, and one, Alger Hiss, denied all the charges. In his testimony before the commission, he made a number of false statements for which he was later convicted of perjury and imprisoned.
The truth is Dems and Progressives were out to get all the commies, so as to clear the way for their Ideology to prevail.
HUAC was a Democrat concieved idea and created by them, yes both sides sat on it, but the Dems birthed this plan and comittee. Martin Dies was a democrat, look it up.
Woodrow Wilson imprisoned people in the 20s for nothing more than their ideology, and you all ignore it, McCarthy never imprisoned, nor black-listed, nor ruined the careers of anyone... and that is a historic FACT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-A … _Committee
The Progressives and Democrats have done a wonderful job of throwing all the guilt of THEIR actions and policies onto Joseph Mccarthy, as I said the TRUTH is out, and America knows all about now.
Would you like some facts as regards Woodrow Wilson's illegal actions against the far Laft, in an attempt to secure the Prgressive/Socialist position in this nation? Just ask Chris.
You refuse to insult a president for being a lying cheat until we deal with a previous lying cheater?
Man! I hope that doesn't just apply to Obama!! Let it apply to me! I'll lie and cheat all I want until BOTH Bush AND Obama are dealt with!!
It'll be decades before anyone ignores me!! I'll get away with murder, and just tell the cops that Lovemychris did it!
...
And do not ever forget 9/11, torture and Iraq....these are Bush's legacy, not Obama's.
Stop trying to make them equally bad.Who's worse?
The person who tortures, or the person who yells and screams for an entire year about how torturing is wrong, and how they'll work to end torturing... but then proceeds to do nothing different?
Fanny Mea and freddy Mac set the rules for the housing market Chris. They forced banks to give no money down loans to people who couldn't afford the houses, the Acorn and other groups were involved in that forcing also, and yes the bankers went into it whole-heartedly to make what they could.
And I have been right here in Florida, Maine and Massachusetts Chris. And no... I have seen this coming since the 1990s when Clinton and the dems and progressives did all they could to set us up for the fall.
And yes Obama talks a good game, I agree.
Obama is a Marxist who wants to impliment American National Socialism, just like his hero FDR.
And you are damn right I promote and love my country above all others, and my country is what is most important to me, and most Americans. And Obama hates this nation and is a racist pig.
And Gibbs stated plainly those tax cuts staying in place are what has sustained us from falling further off the cliff. And no-one form the administration has come out to rebutt it, and if it was false they would be out there screaming.
And I know you could go on... you rant 24 hours a day. That is no secret.All you really need to know about the original poster of this question is that joe mccarthy is his hero.
You're right! Just because some guy likes Joe McCarthy means that Obama doesn't need to follow the Constitution!
Good argument!
Joseph McCarthy, was noted for claiming that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers, engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the United States, inside the federal government. He was proven correct by government documents and inquiry, including decrypted Venona files.
http://conservapedia.com/Joseph_McCarthy
"I have before me a letter which was reproduced in the Congressional Record on August 1, 1946, at page A4892. It is a letter from James F. Byrnes, former Secretary of State. It deals with the screening of the first group, of about 3,000. There were a great number of subsequent screenings. This was the beginning.
The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President--and I think wisely so--set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agencies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters in some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes in his letter, which is reproduced in the Congressional Record, says this:
Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of state from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.
In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are unsafe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this group of 205, and some are from subsequent groups which have been screened but not discharged. I might say in that connection that the investigative agency of the State Department has done an excellent job. The files show that they went into great detail in labeling Communists as such. The only trouble is that after the investigative agency had properly labeled these men as Communists the State Department refused to discharge them. I shall give detailed cases."
McCarthy was able to characterize President Truman and the Democratic Party as soft on or even in league with the Communists. McCarthy's allegations were rejected by Truman who was unaware of Venona project decrypts which corroborated Elizabeth Bentley's debriefing after her defection from the Communists.
McCarthy's support and popularity peaked in early 1954 when a January 1954 Gallup Poll showed that 50 percent of the respondents had a generally "favorable opinion" of him.[20] On March 9, 1954, CBS broadcasted Edward R. Murrow's See It Now TV documentary attacking McCarthy.
And thus the hatred for a man who called them all out and had the proof to verify what was being claimed.
And lets not forget the people of his day loved joseph Mccarthy. Only those who wanted to hide their treason and anti-Americanism did not. and they controlled the Media and Hollywood and the Left of our Politics... so they wrote the script an created history.
"McCarthyism" is the aggressive exposure of Communists influences in America and the people who protect them.
Related Discussions
- 51
News flash from we the people
by OLYHOOCH 13 years ago
A NEWS FLASH, to Mr Obama, from, WE THE PEOPLE. There are 3.4 Billion of us, SENIORS.We are wise to your, OBAMA PLOY'S.Obama Care, no thanks.......Libya NO FLY ZONE TRICK, this will end soon and you think, WE THE PEOPLE, will give you our votes because you will say, YOU prevented another WAR....
- 377
Jeff Sessions and Obama Wire Tapping
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for...
- 174
Report Card for President Obama
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
Election time is nearer and nearer. It is time now for President's Obama assessment. What grade you give President Obama so far? Please detail what grade you would give and why?
- 142
What is your opinion of President Obama, the President, not the man?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
- 18
If the election was held tomorrow would you vote for Obama, or anyone else, and
by Rachel Woodruff 12 years ago
If the election was held tomorrow would you vote for Obama, or anyone else, and why?Television news outlets always like to ask the question if the election was held tomorrow, would voters reelect the current President or someone else. I am curious to see how the people of HubPages would vote, whom...
- 21
14th Amendment, Can Obama Ignore Congress, raise the Deb anyway?
by dutchman1951 12 years ago
...Title should say Raise the Debt, not Deb.. sorry.A facinating Article below. From Huffington Post. Is it a real possibility that President Obama could, or should Bypass and Ignore Congress, If Negotiations fail?Could Obama ignore Congress if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling?...