pineapplemike wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:14 am
war powers act was in the 1970s
was referring to obama in libya
Obama decided that bringing democracy to Libya was more important than obeying U.S. law. The War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973 in the waning days of the Vietnam War, requires presidents to terminate military attacks abroad after 60 days unless Congress specifically approves the intervention. Immediately after the bombing commenced, Secretary of State Clinton declared during a classified briefing for members of Congress that “the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.” Echoing the Bush administration the Obama administration indicated that congressional restraints would be “an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.” https://mises.org/wire/obamas-awol-anti-war-protest
I agree btw...
What pisses me off is people want to give democracy to everyone else, when in reality we shoukd suggest a constitutional republic.
Every president since Washington makes me a partisan hack?
Literally making the point that they are all the same but OK. Merry fucking Christmas to you pair of bitter wankers.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Montegriffo wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:11 am
Every president since Washington makes me a partisan hack?
Literally making the point that they are all the same but OK. Merry fucking Christmas to you pair of bitter wankers.
You are talking about a law that didn't exist for the majority of the country, so yea... you are.
Montegriffo wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:11 am
Every president since Washington makes me a partisan hack?
Literally making the point that they are all the same but OK. Merry fucking Christmas to you pair of bitter wankers.
You are talking about a law that didn't exist for the majority of the country, so yea... you are.
Do you need a link to the definition of partisan?
literally making the point that they are all the same
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Montegriffo wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:11 am
Every president since Washington makes me a partisan hack?
Literally making the point that they are all the same but OK. Merry fucking Christmas to you pair of bitter wankers.
You are talking about a law that didn't exist for the majority of the country, so yea... you are.
Do you need a link to the definition of partisan?
literally making the point that they are all the same
Right, so since I have consistently attacked both Corbyn and Boris and voted for neither then partisan doesn't match my position.
My support was for the Lib Dems based on their position on the two issues most important to me personally ie the environment and remaining in the UK.
You are simply equating my distaste for Trump as partisan when in fact it is based on his words, policies and actions not his party.
I have never shown support for Hillary or Trump or their respective parties.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Don't think it went unnoticed that you are only disputing the partisan accusation and not the trolling one. You are still both. This latest attempt may have been simply trolling.
i wouldnt say partisan but monte being ignorant of specific US policies seems accurate in this case. whatevs
war powers act, 1973, intended to limit executive war authority, in practice has given executive even more war authority. especially when they ignore it.
