Obama to seek congress approval

[NLT]

Numan got two red splats the 2nd one I helped him on.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I hope I'm wrong, but one thing is certain: nobody is better at arm-twisting than Obama. All that “spying” on private citizens was done for a purpose, and information is power.

Quite right; and don't forget that this process of spying on people in power and blackmailing them was started by the traitor G. W. Bush !!

.

Yeah. There was never in the history of history ever an instance of a person in power spying on other people and then blackmailing them before W. (Put aside the fact that noman offers not even a hint of an iota of a shred of evidence that W did any such thing.)

That noman is a certifiable --

Nah.

He's just certifiable.

What a pin-dick, fly-fucking, brain-dead nothing noman always is.


,


.


,

 

[Kondor3]

Where are YOU posting from? You don't sound like an American to me -- not a citizen of the America of toleration and free expression of opinion. You sound like a totalitarian who wants to stamp out dissenting opinion.

What you are saying is evil. You sound like an enemy propagandist.

Circe asked a question.

Answer it.

In order to lead-by-example...

I will volunteer that I am an American citizen, born in the US, residing in the US.

Your turn.

You lead?

Yes.

As I just did.

Taking the lead, in stating my citizenship and loyalties, in the context of Circe's question on this thread, as a preemptive defense against 'You first' or 'Why should I if you do not".

"...I have already, on a number of threads mentioned my deep American roots -- deeper than those of most people here, and deeper and longer than yours, I wager..."

For those of us who have not seen those threads nor your mention of your roots, a simple, courteous, straightforward answer to Circe would have been in order, from one colleague to another, rather than dodging the question.

People who dodge simple, straightforward questions like that bring suspicion upon themselves; people begin to wonder if there is something not-quite-right about your own American ties.

Oh, and, by the way, 'deep roots' is not an answer. You could very well have some branch or another of your family which is deeply rooted in America - either from the Native perspective or the early Euro-settler perspective - and you could still be a shill sitting in just about any other country in the world, born and raised and residing there, and not in the US.

Stating that you have 'deep American roots' is not the same as declaring that you are an American citizen and that you are residing here and that your primary national loyalty is to the United States of America.

Explicitly say the words, and you're off the hook.

Keep dancing around the question and your colleagues will (understandably) continue to suspect that your first nation-loyalties are not to the United States, and they will continue to view your opinions as being 'under a cloud'.

Your choice.

No skin off my nose, Sparky.

BTW... for the record... most Americans are not overly-impressed (outside of a genealogy perspective) with how long your family has been rooted in a country... most Americans are impressed by what YOU have done for your country... NOT your ancestors...

This forum seems to welcome people of all nationalities and the entire spectrum of politics and national loyalties and the like, and nobody has a problem with somebody outside the US joining the audience, and posting, and arguing-like-hell, when they feel like it...

It's just that from time to time, somebody or another is going to ask you (or any of us, for that matter) whether we are a US citizen, because we say something that strikes them as atypical or anti-American or pro-somebody-else...

So folks ask such qeustions, like: Are you an American? - so that they can better understand whether you're coming at a topic from the perspective of an American or from the perspective of a citizen of some other country...

An entirely permissible and commonplace gambit, and one that folks around here answer, comfortably, all the time... no biggie.

It's only when one ignores such a question or dodges the question with a roundabout answer that they raise eyebrows, so that others begin to weigh-in, and challenge the 'dodger' for a straight answer...

That, too, happens often enough...

You were asked a simple and pertinent question.

Your colleague deserved a simple and honest answer.

This is not rocket science, boy.

You are not COMPELLED to answer but you are CHALLENGED to answer, in order to help your colleagues to understand your point of view, and to (at times) explain-away any biases that seem to be manifesting from your postings.

"...I am not going to do it again because you demand and command..."

It was not a 'command', Junior, it was a Challenge.

One which you apparently lack the courage to meet head-on.

"...you are unworthy of your country..."

YOUR country, as opposed to OUR country.

Hmmmmmm... curiouser and curiouser...

As to being 'unworthy'... quite true... I live in a wonderful country, and have oftentimes felt unworthy to live in such a place and time, but I have oftentimes, served it in one manner or another, including a couple of years wearing its uniform...

So, I'm content that my citizenship-worthiness credentials are at LEAST as good as your own (with respect to whatever country that you DO live in), and, quite possibly, superior, by at least one order of magnitude...

"...Take a hike, you totalitarian shill.,."

Calm yourself, my little pissant... calm yourself... or you'll soil your pants again...

"...Any example led by you would be an evil example."

Wake me up when you find something 'evil' in the example I just served up, in declaring my citizenship and nation-of-residence.

Sooooooooo much unprovoked hostility and teenage angst...

Keep this up, Junior, and we're going to have to send you back to the Kiddie Table, for a long time-out, before you're allowed to eat with the grownups again...

 

[Circe]

The fact is we do have legal obligations under Treaties, we always did and we still do, and we can choose to abide by those obligations and refrain from attacks on other nations that are not lawful under intl law.

Treaties don't matter as soon as they don't matter.

Charles de Gaulle said it best, I think. He said, "Treaties are like young girls: they last while they last."

 

[Synthaholic]

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

Why are we so fucking obsessed with the mid east?

Israel wants us to fight this war for Israel.

It all started with dubious Intelligence provided to us from the Mossad.


Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria | Mondoweiss

could be. But unless Israel is actually attacked we should stay out of it. If Iran is dumb enough to attack Israel then we should reduce the entire country to radioactive rubble, and do it in about 3 days.

Correction: then Israel should.

 

[Synthaholic]

He made a decision to set the stage for saying "I wanted to do something but republicans wouldn't let me."

I respectfully disagree.

I would caution everyone not to underestimate Obama's ability to get his way. I don't think he would go to Congress expecting to lose. It seems that would be worse than acting on his own to begin with. If he wins, however, he can say he has the support of a Republican-controlled Congress and THAT gives him the political advantage he needs. If the Democrats play “follow the leader” Obama doesn't need many Republicans to get the vote he wants. Unfortunately, there are war mongers within the Republican ranks. When the military strikes begin, as I believe they will, the press will spin Obama's action in the most favorable light possible and the public will be sufficiently appeased to quell any thoughts of impeachment.

I hope I'm wrong, but one thing is certain: nobody is better at arm-twisting than Obama. All that “spying” on private citizens was done for a purpose, and information is power.

We shall see.

It is the Neo-Cons/Israel Hawks vs. the Liberal Doves and the Paulian/Buchanan Isolationists.

I'd bet on the Israel Hawks.

 

[Synthaholic]

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

You should not expect integrity from cultists.

I greatly misjudged Synth in this area. Learn something new every day.

I cannot support any institution that treats women as second-class citizens, is extremely secretive, and is coercive through shaming, ostracizing, and shunning.

I don't support Scientology, either.

I don't support Islam, either.

 

[Synthaholic]

Numan got two red splats the 2nd one I helped him on.

I turned two into one. Not as good as water into wine, but hey . . .

 

[Synthaholic]

The fact is we do have legal obligations under Treaties, we always did and we still do, and we can choose to abide by those obligations and refrain from attacks on other nations that are not lawful under intl law.

Treaties don't matter as soon as they don't matter.

Charles de Gaulle said it best, I think. He said, "Treaties are like young girls: they last while they last."

Pervert.

 

[Amelia]

You should not expect integrity from cultists.

I greatly misjudged Synth in this area. Learn something new every day.

I cannot support any institution that treats women as second-class citizens, is extremely secretive, and is coercive through shaming, ostracizing, and shunning.

I don't support Scientology, either.

I don't support Islam, either.

Who is asking for your support? Not supporting is different from what you posted.

You don't have to "support" us to avoid calling us cultists. You don't have to "support" us to avoid endorsing posts which make blanket insulting insinuations. I suspect that you have gotten information from hyperbolic sources. There may be some localized groups which practice "shaming, ostracizing, and shunning" but that is not the church I know.

I now know that you freely, openly and unapologetically insult people of my faith based on their membership in that religion. That's religious bigotry. I did think you were better than that.

 

[kaz]

I cannot support any institution that treats women as second-class citizens, is extremely secretive, and is coercive through shaming, ostracizing, and shunning.

You mean like what the Democratic party did to Kathleen Wiley?

 

[Kondor3]

Syria crisis: Obama wins backing for military strike

BBC News --- 3 September 2013 Last updated at 15:51 ET

President Barack Obama has won backing from key US political figures on his plans for a military strike on Syria.

Mr Obama said a "limited" strike was needed to degrade President Bashar al-Assad's capabilities in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

Key Republican leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor both signalled their support for military action. Congress is expected to vote next week.

The UN earlier confirmed that more than two million Syrians were now refugees.

More than 100,000 people are thought to have died since the uprising against President Assad began in March 2011.

'Broader strategy'

President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden met House Speaker John Boehner, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen and ranking members from the national security committees in Washington on Tuesday.

Mr Boehner signalled his support for Mr Obama's call for action, saying that only the US had the capacity to stop President Assad. Mr Boehner urged his colleagues in Congress to follow suit.

Mr Cantor, the House of Representatives majority leader, said he also backed Mr Obama.

The Virginia Republican said: "Assad's Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, is the epitome of a rogue state, and it has long posed a direct threat to American interests and to our partners."

Ms Pelosi said she did not believe Congress would reject a resolution calling for force.

...

BBC News - Syria crisis: Obama wins backing for military strike

 

[Contumacious]

SENATE "DEBATE"

.

.

 

[kaz]

It is the Neo-Cons/Israel Hawks vs. the Liberal Doves and the Paulian/Buchanan Isolationists.

You're a long time poster, first time reader. Actually the blood thirsty liberals are clamoring for the big O to drop bombs on yet another country.

Liberals opposing murdering people who are no threat to us from the sky ended in January of 2009, since then it's been blood and guts. Turns out the issue wasn't the road we were driving down, it was who was behind the steering wheel.

 

[Hoffstra]

vast majority of Americans do not support military action or haven't decided.

this shows that Obama hasn't convinced us as to why we should strike, and how its worth the possible ramifications including regional war!

i will be going to an anti-war protest on Saturday to stand with thousands of others who against attacking Syria.

 

[Hoffstra]

why should we attack Syria?

is punishing Syria worth the possible regional war it may create?

these are the two questions we must ask.

 

[dilloduck]

vast majority of Americans do not support military action or haven't decided.

this shows that Obama hasn't convinced us as to why we should strike, and how its worth the possible ramifications including regional war!

i will be going to an anti-war protest on Saturday to stand with thousands of others who against attacking Syria.

Wait til the boots on the ground option sinks in.

 

[Synthaholic]

It is the Neo-Cons/Israel Hawks vs. the Liberal Doves and the Paulian/Buchanan Isolationists.

You're a long time poster, first time reader. Actually the blood thirsty liberals are clamoring for the big O to drop bombs on yet another country.

Liberals opposing murdering people who are no threat to us from the sky ended in January of 2009, since then it's been blood and guts. Turns out the issue wasn't the road we were driving down, it was who was behind the steering wheel.

Where's the facepalm smilie? You are so fucking stupid.

I said the Liberal Doves.

I didn't say all Liberals.

Why are you so fucking stupid???

Oh - here it is:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/HandsomeTramp/smilies/eusa_doh.gif

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Funny how all the wingnuts who clamored for war because Saddam MIGHT have WMDs are now so unsure about war, after Assad actual USES WMDs.

Hey moron. Just for the record, Saddam used chems on both HIS people AND the Iranians. Still didn't justify OUR intervention any more than it does now.