GOP Congress Plans To Deal With ISIS

[g5000]

See, the cowards don't want to be measured by their own yardstick. They dare not say anything until they get their signal from higher up the food chain. They can't think independently.

 

[g5000]

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.

I'm ask YOU to say what should be done. Over and over and over. And I am enjoying watching you dance your yellow belly away! BWA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[Jarhead]

The GOP controlled Congress will do nothing about ISIS. They will take every opportunity to score political points while criticizing the President's policies......but they will take no action of their own. They won't seek to authorize any kind of actions in Iraq or Syria, the Republican controlled Congress plans to stay as far away as they can get from taking any actual responsibility for anything. They certainly won't debate about this country going to war; the Republican Congress will do what ever they can to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities.

Congress does not set foreign policy, doofus. That would be the President of the United States. And every foreign policy set by this president has been an abject failure.

Since when do we make war without Congressional approval?

Waging war is not a legislative action. It is a foreign policy action and such is performed by the executive branch.
Funding a war, however, IS a legislative process....and thus why congress needs to vote for war.
They are not actually voting for a war or voting against a war.. They are voting to fund it, or not to fund it.

 

[Discombobulated]

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?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I'm ask YOU to say what should be done. Over and over and over. And I am enjoying watching you dance your yellow belly away! BWA-HA-HA-HA!

No you werent. Yoiu were blaming Congress and the Repiublicans for not formulating a plan. At least now you ar admitting they arent required to.
What should Obama do? What I've said all along: formulate a policy that is geared to solving the problem if ISIS rathert than mollifying his domestic supporters.

 

[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?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

Interesting logic, side stepping the Constitution is just a matter of tradition.

 

[g5000]

Any dumbass parroting retard can attack someone who took action. It takes a spine to say what should be done instead of taking one's cues from one's hack media sources or by just opposing what the other guys does.

We see in this topic, 13 pages of the Dance of the Chickenshits. They simply can't commit and say what THEY think should be done.

They are more than happy to tell you what the other guy should have done AFTER THE FACT. They can post HUNDREDS of topics about that shit, pontificating out their asses. "He shoulda done this. He shoulda done that."

But when it comes to pinning them down BEFOREHAND, they clam up. Suddenly, they are cautious and inactive.

Cowards. Just look at them run.

 

[Jarhead]

The GOP controlled Congress will do nothing about ISIS. They will take every opportunity to score political points while criticizing the President's policies......but they will take no action of their own. They won't seek to authorize any kind of actions in Iraq or Syria, the Republican controlled Congress plans to stay as far away as they can get from taking any actual responsibility for anything. They certainly won't debate about this country going to war; the Republican Congress will do what ever they can to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities.

What actions do you think the Congress can take? The last I checked only the CIC also known as the President could order military action or a troop deployment against ISIS.

Since we are already at war in Syria without Congressional approval shouldn't the Congress now be legally obliged to act? Shouldn't they at least approve or disapprove the President's actions? Or should the Congress only act on issues that present no danger of political consequences?

Again exactly what action do want Congress to take? Congress could officially declare war on ISIS but they could not carry it out only the President could do that.

The Congress of the United States of America are the only one's who can legally declare war. So hard to figure out why they've avoided doing that for so many years.

They can not declare war. Only the Commander in Chief can.

Congress are lawmakers.

 

[Discombobulated]

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?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

You haven't even touched the subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

The GOP controlled Congress will do nothing about ISIS. They will take every opportunity to score political points while criticizing the President's policies......but they will take no action of their own. They won't seek to authorize any kind of actions in Iraq or Syria, the Republican controlled Congress plans to stay as far away as they can get from taking any actual responsibility for anything. They certainly won't debate about this country going to war; the Republican Congress will do what ever they can to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities.

Congress does not set foreign policy, doofus. That would be the President of the United States. And every foreign policy set by this president has been an abject failure.

Since when do we make war without Congressional approval?

Waging war is not a legislative action. It is a foreign policy action and such is performed by the executive branch.
Funding a war, however, IS a legislative process....and thus why congress needs to vote for war.
They are not actually voting for a war or voting against a war.. They are voting to fund it, or not to fund it.

These idoiots think Congress makes foreign policy. Or at least they will until Republicans criticize Obama's next move. Then they'll scream Congress is interfering in the Executives duties.

 

[Kosh]

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?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

Then why do you support Obama illegal wars?

 

[Discombobulated]

The GOP controlled Congress will do nothing about ISIS. They will take every opportunity to score political points while criticizing the President's policies......but they will take no action of their own. They won't seek to authorize any kind of actions in Iraq or Syria, the Republican controlled Congress plans to stay as far away as they can get from taking any actual responsibility for anything. They certainly won't debate about this country going to war; the Republican Congress will do what ever they can to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities.

What actions do you think the Congress can take? The last I checked only the CIC also known as the President could order military action or a troop deployment against ISIS.

Since we are already at war in Syria without Congressional approval shouldn't the Congress now be legally obliged to act? Shouldn't they at least approve or disapprove the President's actions? Or should the Congress only act on issues that present no danger of political consequences?

Again exactly what action do want Congress to take? Congress could officially declare war on ISIS but they could not carry it out only the President could do that.

The Congress of the United States of America are the only one's who can legally declare war. So hard to figure out why they've avoided doing that for so many years.

They can not declare war. Only the Commander in Chief can.

Congress are lawmakers.

 

[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?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

You haven't even touched the subject.

You havent answered the question as to where Congress' authority over foreign affairs comes from. Despite many many requests. Do you even understand the question?

 

[Kosh]

Any dumbass parroting retard can attack someone who took action. It takes a spine to say what should be done instead of taking one's cues from one's hack media sources or by just opposing what the other guys does.

We see in this topic, 13 pages of the Dance of the Chickenshits. They simply can't commit and say what THEY think should be done.

They are more than happy to tell you what the other guy should have done AFTER THE FACT. They can post HUNDREDS of topics about that shit, pontificating out their asses. "He shoulda done this. He shoulda done that."

But when it comes to pinning them down BEFOREHAND, they clam up. Suddenly, they are cautious and inactive.

Cowards. Just look at them run.

The irony impaired far left strikes again!

Please post your solutions other than cut and run as your messiah has already done that one..

 

[The Rabbi]

What actions do you think the Congress can take? The last I checked only the CIC also known as the President could order military action or a troop deployment against ISIS.

Since we are already at war in Syria without Congressional approval shouldn't the Congress now be legally obliged to act? Shouldn't they at least approve or disapprove the President's actions? Or should the Congress only act on issues that present no danger of political consequences?

Again exactly what action do want Congress to take? Congress could officially declare war on ISIS but they could not carry it out only the President could do that.

The Congress of the United States of America are the only one's who can legally declare war. So hard to figure out why they've avoided doing that for so many years.

They can not declare war. Only the Commander in Chief can.

Congress are lawmakers.

And when pushed liberals resort to cartoons and the like.

 

[g5000]

The GOP controlled Congress will do nothing about ISIS. They will take every opportunity to score political points while criticizing the President's policies......but they will take no action of their own. They won't seek to authorize any kind of actions in Iraq or Syria, the Republican controlled Congress plans to stay as far away as they can get from taking any actual responsibility for anything. They certainly won't debate about this country going to war; the Republican Congress will do what ever they can to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities.

What actions do you think the Congress can take? The last I checked only the CIC also known as the President could order military action or a troop deployment against ISIS.

Since we are already at war in Syria without Congressional approval shouldn't the Congress now be legally obliged to act? Shouldn't they at least approve or disapprove the President's actions? Or should the Congress only act on issues that present no danger of political consequences?

Again exactly what action do want Congress to take? Congress could officially declare war on ISIS but they could not carry it out only the President could do that.

The Congress of the United States of America are the only one's who can legally declare war. So hard to figure out why they've avoided doing that for so many years.

They can not declare war. Only the Commander in Chief can.

Congress are lawmakers.

Wow.

Read the Constitution, dude.

 

[The Rabbi]

Any dumbass parroting retard can attack someone who took action. It takes a spine to say what should be done instead of taking one's cues from one's hack media sources or by just opposing what the other guys does.

We see in this topic, 13 pages of the Dance of the Chickenshits. They simply can't commit and say what THEY think should be done.

They are more than happy to tell you what the other guy should have done AFTER THE FACT. They can post HUNDREDS of topics about that shit, pontificating out their asses. "He shoulda done this. He shoulda done that."

But when it comes to pinning them down BEFOREHAND, they clam up. Suddenly, they are cautious and inactive.

Cowards. Just look at them run.

The irony impaired far left strikes again!

Please post your solutions other than cut and run as your messiah has already done that one..

Their solution is to blame Republicans. I guess blaming Bush doesnt work anymore.

 

[g5000]

They can not declare war. Only the Commander in Chief can.

Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

<snip>

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

 

[Discombobulated]

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?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

You haven't even touched the subject.

You havent answered the question as to where Congress' authority over foreign affairs comes from. Despite many many requests. Do you even understand the question?

Read the Constitution some time, not that it would help you. The President's foreign policy options don't include military action against a sovereign nation without Congressional approval.