Russia,Iran warn Trump they will respond with force if Syria is attacked again

[Iceweasel]

I don't know the details but obama ALWAYS had a political motive and likely had something objectionable tacked on to it so he could blame Republicans.

Fact is he didn't need congress for air strikes and launched quite a few missiles and drones strikes that were not as high profile.

It appears accuracy is not your goal.

You're trying hard I guess but you're not that good.

Try reading the text of the proposed Obama AUMF yourself if you like.
Feel free to point out the objectionable parts.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf

In any case, Obama felt it was necessary to get Congressional approval before bombing Syria in response to something he saw in the middle of the night on cable tv.

Maybe he was listening to the advice of the future President?

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Now you're just flinging shit to avoid my point. Obama was playing politics, as always.

playing politics is getting agreement from both parties?? I didn't know that Thank you

There's a lot you don't know.


Lawmakers press Obama to seek their input, approval on Syria strike
As the Obama administration moves ever-closer to a possible military strike on Syria, members of Congress are demanding they at least have a say in the decision -- with some pressuring President Obama to first seek their approval.

It's unclear whether the demands would slow down the administration, as it begins to build the public case for a military strike. One Defense official told Fox News that a U.S. strike is "not a matter of if, but when."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday afternoon that the president has not yet decided to authorize the use of military force. But he made a legal argument for doing so, saying that the United States and 188 other nations are signatories to a chemical weapons convention opposing the use of such weapons, and that there must be a response to a clear violation of those terms.

While officials had indicated the intelligence documents implicating the Assad regime might be released as early as Tuesday, the administration has not yet made them public.

The quickly moving developments, in response to an alleged chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime last week, have lawmakers -- currently on summer recess -- clamoring for influence in a decision that has wide-ranging implications for both the Syrian civil war and the U.S. itself.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval first for any military action.

Other lawmakers are stopping short of demanding a vote, but still want the administration to bring them into the process before moving ahead.

"I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him," Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, R-Calif., said in a statement, while urging the administration to "act decisively."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Tuesday urged the administration to submit a "detailed plan" on the objectives and cost of any strike.

After House Speaker John Boehner's office complained that the White House had not been in touch, a White House official reached out to Boehner Monday afternoon to discuss the Syria situation.

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said the speaker, too, "made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability."

Likewise, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said: "Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval."

Secretary of State John Kerry has been reaching out to Congress on the sidelines.

Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war. But presidents have routinely flouted or found ways around that resolution -- the resolution, for instance, did not stop Obama from teaming up with Britain and France for airstrikes in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi's government.

The Obama administration seems to be waiting for top allies -- like Britain and France -- to get on board before advancing with any plans to attack Syria.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called back Parliament to debate and vote on a Syria plan on Thursday. And in France, President Francois Hollande on Tuesday said France "is ready to punish" those who gassed hundreds in Syria.

In Washington, some members of Congress have long been opposed to intervention in Syria. But a number of high-ranking officials are speaking out in favor of a limited strike. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was the latest to say a multinational military action would be "appropriate"

Polls over the past year have shown the public is far less interested in getting more deeply involved in Syria. A Fox News poll in July found only 11 percent of voters favored sending weapons to the opposition. Forty-four percent said the U.S. should get out of the conflict entirely.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

 

[idb]

You're trying hard I guess but you're not that good.

Try reading the text of the proposed Obama AUMF yourself if you like.
Feel free to point out the objectionable parts.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf

In any case, Obama felt it was necessary to get Congressional approval before bombing Syria in response to something he saw in the middle of the night on cable tv.

Maybe he was listening to the advice of the future President?

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Now you're just flinging shit to avoid my point. Obama was playing politics, as always.

playing politics is getting agreement from both parties?? I didn't know that Thank you

There's a lot you don't know.


Lawmakers press Obama to seek their input, approval on Syria strike
As the Obama administration moves ever-closer to a possible military strike on Syria, members of Congress are demanding they at least have a say in the decision -- with some pressuring President Obama to first seek their approval.

It's unclear whether the demands would slow down the administration, as it begins to build the public case for a military strike. One Defense official told Fox News that a U.S. strike is "not a matter of if, but when."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday afternoon that the president has not yet decided to authorize the use of military force. But he made a legal argument for doing so, saying that the United States and 188 other nations are signatories to a chemical weapons convention opposing the use of such weapons, and that there must be a response to a clear violation of those terms.

While officials had indicated the intelligence documents implicating the Assad regime might be released as early as Tuesday, the administration has not yet made them public.

The quickly moving developments, in response to an alleged chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime last week, have lawmakers -- currently on summer recess -- clamoring for influence in a decision that has wide-ranging implications for both the Syrian civil war and the U.S. itself.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval first for any military action.

Other lawmakers are stopping short of demanding a vote, but still want the administration to bring them into the process before moving ahead.

"I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him," Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, R-Calif., said in a statement, while urging the administration to "act decisively."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Tuesday urged the administration to submit a "detailed plan" on the objectives and cost of any strike.

After House Speaker John Boehner's office complained that the White House had not been in touch, a White House official reached out to Boehner Monday afternoon to discuss the Syria situation.

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said the speaker, too, "made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability."

Likewise, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said: "Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval."

Secretary of State John Kerry has been reaching out to Congress on the sidelines.

Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war. But presidents have routinely flouted or found ways around that resolution -- the resolution, for instance, did not stop Obama from teaming up with Britain and France for airstrikes in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi's government.

The Obama administration seems to be waiting for top allies -- like Britain and France -- to get on board before advancing with any plans to attack Syria.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called back Parliament to debate and vote on a Syria plan on Thursday. And in France, President Francois Hollande on Tuesday said France "is ready to punish" those who gassed hundreds in Syria.

In Washington, some members of Congress have long been opposed to intervention in Syria. But a number of high-ranking officials are speaking out in favor of a limited strike. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was the latest to say a multinational military action would be "appropriate"

Polls over the past year have shown the public is far less interested in getting more deeply involved in Syria. A Fox News poll in July found only 11 percent of voters favored sending weapons to the opposition. Forty-four percent said the U.S. should get out of the conflict entirely.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

 

[Iceweasel]

Now you're just flinging shit to avoid my point. Obama was playing politics, as always.

playing politics is getting agreement from both parties?? I didn't know that Thank you

There's a lot you don't know.


Lawmakers press Obama to seek their input, approval on Syria strike
As the Obama administration moves ever-closer to a possible military strike on Syria, members of Congress are demanding they at least have a say in the decision -- with some pressuring President Obama to first seek their approval.

It's unclear whether the demands would slow down the administration, as it begins to build the public case for a military strike. One Defense official told Fox News that a U.S. strike is "not a matter of if, but when."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday afternoon that the president has not yet decided to authorize the use of military force. But he made a legal argument for doing so, saying that the United States and 188 other nations are signatories to a chemical weapons convention opposing the use of such weapons, and that there must be a response to a clear violation of those terms.

While officials had indicated the intelligence documents implicating the Assad regime might be released as early as Tuesday, the administration has not yet made them public.

The quickly moving developments, in response to an alleged chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime last week, have lawmakers -- currently on summer recess -- clamoring for influence in a decision that has wide-ranging implications for both the Syrian civil war and the U.S. itself.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval first for any military action.

Other lawmakers are stopping short of demanding a vote, but still want the administration to bring them into the process before moving ahead.

"I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him," Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, R-Calif., said in a statement, while urging the administration to "act decisively."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Tuesday urged the administration to submit a "detailed plan" on the objectives and cost of any strike.

After House Speaker John Boehner's office complained that the White House had not been in touch, a White House official reached out to Boehner Monday afternoon to discuss the Syria situation.

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said the speaker, too, "made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability."

Likewise, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said: "Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval."

Secretary of State John Kerry has been reaching out to Congress on the sidelines.

Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war. But presidents have routinely flouted or found ways around that resolution -- the resolution, for instance, did not stop Obama from teaming up with Britain and France for airstrikes in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi's government.

The Obama administration seems to be waiting for top allies -- like Britain and France -- to get on board before advancing with any plans to attack Syria.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called back Parliament to debate and vote on a Syria plan on Thursday. And in France, President Francois Hollande on Tuesday said France "is ready to punish" those who gassed hundreds in Syria.

In Washington, some members of Congress have long been opposed to intervention in Syria. But a number of high-ranking officials are speaking out in favor of a limited strike. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was the latest to say a multinational military action would be "appropriate"

Polls over the past year have shown the public is far less interested in getting more deeply involved in Syria. A Fox News poll in July found only 11 percent of voters favored sending weapons to the opposition. Forty-four percent said the U.S. should get out of the conflict entirely.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

 

[idb]

playing politics is getting agreement from both parties?? I didn't know that Thank you

There's a lot you don't know.


Lawmakers press Obama to seek their input, approval on Syria strike
As the Obama administration moves ever-closer to a possible military strike on Syria, members of Congress are demanding they at least have a say in the decision -- with some pressuring President Obama to first seek their approval.

It's unclear whether the demands would slow down the administration, as it begins to build the public case for a military strike. One Defense official told Fox News that a U.S. strike is "not a matter of if, but when."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday afternoon that the president has not yet decided to authorize the use of military force. But he made a legal argument for doing so, saying that the United States and 188 other nations are signatories to a chemical weapons convention opposing the use of such weapons, and that there must be a response to a clear violation of those terms.

While officials had indicated the intelligence documents implicating the Assad regime might be released as early as Tuesday, the administration has not yet made them public.

The quickly moving developments, in response to an alleged chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime last week, have lawmakers -- currently on summer recess -- clamoring for influence in a decision that has wide-ranging implications for both the Syrian civil war and the U.S. itself.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval first for any military action.

Other lawmakers are stopping short of demanding a vote, but still want the administration to bring them into the process before moving ahead.

"I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him," Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, R-Calif., said in a statement, while urging the administration to "act decisively."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Tuesday urged the administration to submit a "detailed plan" on the objectives and cost of any strike.

After House Speaker John Boehner's office complained that the White House had not been in touch, a White House official reached out to Boehner Monday afternoon to discuss the Syria situation.

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said the speaker, too, "made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability."

Likewise, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said: "Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval."

Secretary of State John Kerry has been reaching out to Congress on the sidelines.

Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war. But presidents have routinely flouted or found ways around that resolution -- the resolution, for instance, did not stop Obama from teaming up with Britain and France for airstrikes in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi's government.

The Obama administration seems to be waiting for top allies -- like Britain and France -- to get on board before advancing with any plans to attack Syria.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called back Parliament to debate and vote on a Syria plan on Thursday. And in France, President Francois Hollande on Tuesday said France "is ready to punish" those who gassed hundreds in Syria.

In Washington, some members of Congress have long been opposed to intervention in Syria. But a number of high-ranking officials are speaking out in favor of a limited strike. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was the latest to say a multinational military action would be "appropriate"

Polls over the past year have shown the public is far less interested in getting more deeply involved in Syria. A Fox News poll in July found only 11 percent of voters favored sending weapons to the opposition. Forty-four percent said the U.S. should get out of the conflict entirely.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

 

[Iceweasel]

There's a lot you don't know.


Lawmakers press Obama to seek their input, approval on Syria strike
As the Obama administration moves ever-closer to a possible military strike on Syria, members of Congress are demanding they at least have a say in the decision -- with some pressuring President Obama to first seek their approval.

It's unclear whether the demands would slow down the administration, as it begins to build the public case for a military strike. One Defense official told Fox News that a U.S. strike is "not a matter of if, but when."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday afternoon that the president has not yet decided to authorize the use of military force. But he made a legal argument for doing so, saying that the United States and 188 other nations are signatories to a chemical weapons convention opposing the use of such weapons, and that there must be a response to a clear violation of those terms.

While officials had indicated the intelligence documents implicating the Assad regime might be released as early as Tuesday, the administration has not yet made them public.

The quickly moving developments, in response to an alleged chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime last week, have lawmakers -- currently on summer recess -- clamoring for influence in a decision that has wide-ranging implications for both the Syrian civil war and the U.S. itself.

Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to Obama that urges him to reconvene Congress and seek approval first for any military action.

Other lawmakers are stopping short of demanding a vote, but still want the administration to bring them into the process before moving ahead.

"I expect the Commander in Chief would consult with Congress in the days ahead as he considers the options available to him," Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, R-Calif., said in a statement, while urging the administration to "act decisively."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Tuesday urged the administration to submit a "detailed plan" on the objectives and cost of any strike.

After House Speaker John Boehner's office complained that the White House had not been in touch, a White House official reached out to Boehner Monday afternoon to discuss the Syria situation.

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said the speaker, too, "made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability."

Likewise, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said: "Absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without congressional approval."

Secretary of State John Kerry has been reaching out to Congress on the sidelines.

Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war. But presidents have routinely flouted or found ways around that resolution -- the resolution, for instance, did not stop Obama from teaming up with Britain and France for airstrikes in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi's government.

The Obama administration seems to be waiting for top allies -- like Britain and France -- to get on board before advancing with any plans to attack Syria.

In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called back Parliament to debate and vote on a Syria plan on Thursday. And in France, President Francois Hollande on Tuesday said France "is ready to punish" those who gassed hundreds in Syria.

In Washington, some members of Congress have long been opposed to intervention in Syria. But a number of high-ranking officials are speaking out in favor of a limited strike. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was the latest to say a multinational military action would be "appropriate"

Polls over the past year have shown the public is far less interested in getting more deeply involved in Syria. A Fox News poll in July found only 11 percent of voters favored sending weapons to the opposition. Forty-four percent said the U.S. should get out of the conflict entirely.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

 

[edward37]

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

 

[Iceweasel]

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

 

[edward37]

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

 

[Iceweasel]

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

 

[edward37]

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

you leave no room for honest mistakes ,,changes of mind or being forced into changes by the repub congress who had it out for obama from the beginning Meanwhile the guy you make excuses for is a world class liar whose lies are most obvious

 

[edward37]

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

oh yeah forgot,,,,,trump lowest approval numbers for last 6 presidents Lower than bush?? Lower than the guy you hate, Obama??

 

[Iceweasel]

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

oh yeah forgot,,,,,trump lowest approval numbers for last 6 presidents Lower than bush?? Lower than the guy you hate, Obama??

...which means nothing to me. Even if they were true. But media is controlled mostly by leftists. As the economy increases people will decide what they value more, the leftists slopping the hogs or money in their pockets.

 

[edward37]

and you ignore the fact that the greatest liar in our presidential history occupies our WH now?

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

oh yeah forgot,,,,,trump lowest approval numbers for last 6 presidents Lower than bush?? Lower than the guy you hate, Obama??

...which means nothing to me. Even if they were true. But media is controlled mostly by leftists. As the economy increases people will decide what they value more, the leftists slopping the hogs or money in their pockets.

I'm real big for money in my pockets and hopefully trump gets his tax packages thru He still is a pos as a human being ...Nice chatting but need to get back to the markets

 

[Iceweasel]

No, the greatest liar ever is out of office now. You can't repeat me into obedience. Sorry.

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

oh yeah forgot,,,,,trump lowest approval numbers for last 6 presidents Lower than bush?? Lower than the guy you hate, Obama??

...which means nothing to me. Even if they were true. But media is controlled mostly by leftists. As the economy increases people will decide what they value more, the leftists slopping the hogs or money in their pockets.

I'm real big for money in my pockets and hopefully trump gets his tax packages thru He still is a pos as a human being ...Nice chatting but need to get back to the markets

I'm glad you don't like him. Gives me confidence.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Putin and Iran aren't going to do shit.

 

[edward37]

not asking for your obedience,,,but trumps lies superceed any changes Obama was forced into It's in the book ,,try and be fair and reasonable

Obama was forced into saying we'd save $2,500 dollars and you can keep your plan and doctor? You can't see how full of shit you are because you're hypnotized.

oh yeah forgot,,,,,trump lowest approval numbers for last 6 presidents Lower than bush?? Lower than the guy you hate, Obama??

...which means nothing to me. Even if they were true. But media is controlled mostly by leftists. As the economy increases people will decide what they value more, the leftists slopping the hogs or money in their pockets.

I'm real big for money in my pockets and hopefully trump gets his tax packages thru He still is a pos as a human being ...Nice chatting but need to get back to the markets

I'm glad you don't like him. Gives me confidence.

Didn't like bush either so I'm 2 for 2....unless you're going to tell me what a great job gwb did

 

[dani67]

i warn you

 

[idb]

You realise that you've just shot down your argument, don't you?

Waaaaiiittt....are you going to do a Trump and deny everything you've said up to this point?
You are...aren't you?!!

Huh? I said I didn't know the details and didn't trust liberals for any honestly. Found out you lied, big surprise. Now you want to place the blame on me? What a skid mark!

I knew it...you're denying your own statements!
There's going to be a vacancy for Trump's Press Secretary very soon...you should quote this thread on your CV.

Listen you stupid cocksucker. I said I wasn't buying your shit and there would be a reason why the Republicans wouldn't go along with Obama and I was right not to trust you. You keep proving what a dishonest dumbfuck you are!

No you didn't, you said that it would be a political move by Obama to ask for authorisation from Congress.
Yet, you've posted a link that showed Congress insisting that he request authorisation.

And then, to further shoot down your own point that he never needed authorisation, your link says "Lawmakers, in urging the administration to consult with them, point in part to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution technically requires the president to seek congressional authorization when the military is sent into "hostilities" for anything but a retaliatory attack or formally declared war."

Wrong. You lied, smeared and lied some more. I said Obama always acted politically, this example is more evidence and you can't stand the fact I called you on it. I suspect EVERYTHING liberals say, honesty isn't what you do.

I love your alternative facts.