GOP Congress Plans To Deal With ISIS

[The Rabbi]

I guess the AUMF was unconstitutional.

Please post your source for Congress' authority in foreign policy. I've asked this before.

 

[g5000]

Does all of foreign policy consist of declaring war?

So do you think Obama should not use force against ISIS? If so, what should he do then?


Come on, coward. Commit to something.

 

[MrDVS1]

You didn't really think about that one first did you.

Admitting you're stupid and ignorant is one step towards gettng help. I applaud you.

The operative word there was "think".......you keep working at it, you'll get there eventually.

No, youneed to seek help for your ignorance and stupidity.
Again, why is the Congress suddenly resonsible for foreign policy? You've never made this clear.

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Congress has the duty to function as a governing body, while they might not set foreign policy, it is still their duty to advise, to put their two cents worth in, did they do that? Did they offer their thoughts to the president, if they had any they certainly should have, otherwise they are remiss, not only as elected leaders but also as citizens.

 

[g5000]

I guess the AUMF was unconstitutional.

Please post your source for Congress' authority in foreign policy. I've asked this before.

Was the AUMF unconstitutional?

 

[g5000]

Rabbi, you are doing the chickenshit dance to avoid stating what should be done about ISIS.

Just like you cowards always do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Admitting you're stupid and ignorant is one step towards gettng help. I applaud you.

The operative word there was "think".......you keep working at it, you'll get there eventually.

No, youneed to seek help for your ignorance and stupidity.
Again, why is the Congress suddenly resonsible for foreign policy? You've never made this clear.

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Congress has the duty to function as a governing body, while they might not set foreign policy, it is still their duty to advise, to put their two cents worth in, did they do that? Did they offer their thoughts to the president, if they had any they certainly should have, otherwise they are remiss, not only as elected leaders but also as citizens.

Please post the source for Congress' duty to advise the president. Especially since the Constitution mentions heads of offices in Article II Sectin 2.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, you are doing the chickenshit dance to avoid stating what should be done about ISIS.

Just like you cowards always do.

You posted an opinion and I am asking you to substantiate it. You have failed to do so now three times. You are the chickenshit here.

 

[g5000]

You won't find a single Republican saying what should be done about ISIS until late September.

Rabbi, you are doing the chickenshit dance to avoid stating what should be done about ISIS.

Just like you cowards always do.

You posted an opinion and I am asking you to substantiate it. You have failed to do so now three times. You are the chickenshit here.

The AUMF is an obvious example of Congress's constitutional authority in foreign affairs, dumbass.

Now commit to a plan of action, coward. Congress clearly has the authority to authorize the use of military force in Syria. This is a fact that has been established out here in the real world many times over.

So should Congress authorize force in Syria and against ISIS? What kind of force? Troops, ships, missiles, what?

If not, what should Obama do instead?

Tell us what our government should do, and stop being such a chickenshit.

 

[Discombobulated]

You didn't really think about that one first did you.

Admitting you're stupid and ignorant is one step towards gettng help. I applaud you.

The operative word there was "think".......you keep working at it, you'll get there eventually.

No, youneed to seek help for your ignorance and stupidity.
Again, why is the Congress suddenly resonsible for foreign policy? You've never made this clear.

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Yes I see why you'd like to divert the thread on to another subject. So then you apparently believe Congress has no Constitutional role when this country decides to take military action against a sovereign nation like Syria. Interesting theory.

 

[Kosh]

I guess the AUMF was unconstitutional.

What nerve! To think they need to authorize the President to use military force!

According to the far left from 2003 - 2009 it was..

However since Obama ending that war, it is now on his head with his illegal actions in Iraq and Syria!

See how the far left changes their tune based on the letter behind the name..

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess the AUMF was unconstitutional.

Please post your source for Congress' authority in foreign policy. I've asked this before.

Was the AUMF unconstitutional?

Post your source for Congress' authority over foreign affairs.

 

[The Rabbi]

Admitting you're stupid and ignorant is one step towards gettng help. I applaud you.

The operative word there was "think".......you keep working at it, you'll get there eventually.

No, youneed to seek help for your ignorance and stupidity.
Again, why is the Congress suddenly resonsible for foreign policy? You've never made this clear.

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Yes I see why you'd like to divert the thread on to another subject. So then you apparently believe Congress has no Constitutional role when this country decides to take military action against a sovereign nation like Syria. Interesting theory.

You keep deflecting from the question. WHere is Congress' role on foreign policy spelled out in the Constitution?
btw, when did Congress pass authorization for Obama to make war on Syria?

 

[g5000]

Christ, the cowardice we are seeing goes deep.

 

[g5000]

The operative word there was "think".......you keep working at it, you'll get there eventually.

No, youneed to seek help for your ignorance and stupidity.
Again, why is the Congress suddenly resonsible for foreign policy? You've never made this clear.

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Yes I see why you'd like to divert the thread on to another subject. So then you apparently believe Congress has no Constitutional role when this country decides to take military action against a sovereign nation like Syria. Interesting theory.

You keep deflecting from the question. WHere is Congress' role on foreign policy spelled out in the Constitution?
btw, when did Congress pass authorization for Obama to make war on Syria?

They haven't. But they have the authority to do so. So should they?

Commit, coward.

 

[The Rabbi]

You won't find a single Republican saying what should be done about ISIS until late September.

Rabbi, you are doing the chickenshit dance to avoid stating what should be done about ISIS.

Just like you cowards always do.

You posted an opinion and I am asking you to substantiate it. You have failed to do so now three times. You are the chickenshit here.

The AUMF is an obvious example of Congress's constitutional authority in foreign affairs, dumbass.

Now commit to a plan of action, coward. Congress clearly has the authority to authorize the use of military force in Syria. This is a fact that has been established out here in the real world many times over.

So should Congress authorize force in Syria and against ISIS? What kind of force? Troops, ships, missiles, what?

If not, what should Obama do instead?

Tell us what our government should do, and stop being such a chickenshit.

You are deflceitng and obfuscating.
Where is Congress' role in foreign affairs spelled out in the Constitution as one of their duties? You are so certain of it you must know the answer. Go share it with us so we can be enlightened.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, youneed to seek help for your ignorance and stupidity.
Again, why is the Congress suddenly resonsible for foreign policy? You've never made this clear.

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Yes I see why you'd like to divert the thread on to another subject. So then you apparently believe Congress has no Constitutional role when this country decides to take military action against a sovereign nation like Syria. Interesting theory.

You keep deflecting from the question. WHere is Congress' role on foreign policy spelled out in the Constitution?
btw, when did Congress pass authorization for Obama to make war on Syria?

They haven't. But they have the authority to do so. So should they?

Commit, coward.

So clearly Congress' approval is not needed. That's one lie debunked.
So if Congress has no official role on foreign policy why are you accusing anyone of cowardice when the Chief Executive has failed to take effective action on ISIS?

 

[g5000]

Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to declare war.

So, chickenshit, should they? What kind of force against ISIS and/or Syria should they authorize, Rabbi?

Commit, coward.

 

[g5000]

So then your theory is that Congress should have no constitutional role when we decide to take military action against a sovereign nation.......is that right?

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Yes I see why you'd like to divert the thread on to another subject. So then you apparently believe Congress has no Constitutional role when this country decides to take military action against a sovereign nation like Syria. Interesting theory.

You keep deflecting from the question. WHere is Congress' role on foreign policy spelled out in the Constitution?
btw, when did Congress pass authorization for Obama to make war on Syria?

They haven't. But they have the authority to do so. So should they?

Commit, coward.

So clearly Congress' approval is not needed. That's one lie debunked.
So if Congress has no official role on foreign policy why are you accusing anyone of cowardice when the Chief Executive has failed to take effective action on ISIS?

He's been bombing ISIS, dumbass.

Should Congress authorize him with a new AUMF to go after Syria and/or ISIS? Should they authorize boots on the ground?

Commit, coward.

 

[The Rabbi]

Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to declare war.

So, chickenshit, should they? What kind of force against ISIS and/or Syria should they authorize, Rabbi?

Commit, coward.

Has Obama requested a declaration of war? In every case Congress acts on the request of the president. The long tradition is that the president does not need Congress' approval for military action short of war. Obama expressed that himself.
If you're asking what should Obama do with regard to ISIS because his own policy is a clear failure, that is a different topic.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, that is not right. See, you are too stupid to be able to read and understand a simple sentence.
I asked a question. Why is Congress responsible for foreign policy? Unless you think foreign policy consists entirely of making war then you need to answer why Congress is responsible.

Yes I see why you'd like to divert the thread on to another subject. So then you apparently believe Congress has no Constitutional role when this country decides to take military action against a sovereign nation like Syria. Interesting theory.

You keep deflecting from the question. WHere is Congress' role on foreign policy spelled out in the Constitution?
btw, when did Congress pass authorization for Obama to make war on Syria?

They haven't. But they have the authority to do so. So should they?

Commit, coward.

So clearly Congress' approval is not needed. That's one lie debunked.
So if Congress has no official role on foreign policy why are you accusing anyone of cowardice when the Chief Executive has failed to take effective action on ISIS?

He's been bombing ISIS, dumbass.

Should Congress authorize him with a new AUMF to go after Syria and/or ISIS? Should they authorize boots on the ground?

Commit, coward.

Has Obama committed to boots on the ground? No. He's committed to the opposte.
Dumbshit. Why do you blame Congress for Obama's failures.