|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 9, 2017 12:03:59 GMT -5
CNN Producer- "Lets get a Syrian civil war victim on here to show the world how racist & hypocritical President Trump is.... CNN Producer- " !!!"
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 12:48:43 GMT -5
Id happily go to war with Russia, Putin and Assad need a good beating there scumbags. Trump was right to launch a missile strike, a leader with a spine. You do know that Donald Trump informed Putin about the missile strike BEFORE launching it, right? Our president informed the leader of a nation that has been historically hostile toward us (and may or may not have interfered in our elections) and he did not bother informing Congress. Congressional approval is a requirement before launching any kind of military strike, so what he did was super illegal. If you'll recall -- and I'm sure you won't -- Obama wanted to launch an air strike again Assad as well. Do you remember how that played out? He went to Congress like he was supposed to and they voted against it. So to sum everything up: You somehow managed to be wrong three times in two sentences. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 12:51:24 GMT -5
CNN Producer- "Lets get a Syrian civil war victim on here to show the world how racist & hypocritical President Trump is.... CNN Producer- " !!!" And how many times did the republican Congress prevent Obama from doing anything about Syria? You're cherry picking the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Apr 9, 2017 12:56:25 GMT -5
CNN Producer- "Lets get a Syrian civil war victim on here to show the world how racist & hypocritical President Trump is.... CNN Producer- " !!!" Honestly puts in a different perspective for me. Im not very political, as I hate liberal America, this is what people need to see. Trump's refugee ban has flaws, no sh*t, but its in hope a way to make us safer. I'm sure refugees dont want to come here, they want to stay in their own country But they have to for their own safety. This airstrike absolutely correlates with the travel ban.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 9, 2017 13:32:30 GMT -5
CNN Producer- "Lets get a Syrian civil war victim on here to show the world how racist & hypocritical President Trump is.... CNN Producer- " !!!" And how many times did the republican Congress prevent Obama from doing anything about Syria? You're cherry picking the facts. And what did Congress say when Trump asked about bombing Syria? That's right he didnt, he just ing did it. Obama had no problems signing executive orders and wielding his pen when it benefited him. However when it came to a situation where he COULD have done something, he did nothing and everyone placed the blame on the Republicans. I dont agree with everything Trump does but he's showing he's not going into this worried about "a legacy", he wants to make crap right no matter what it takes.
|
|
|
Post by 1992 on Apr 9, 2017 15:01:05 GMT -5
Remember when Alex Jones and other hard right radio/media personalities would accuse Obama of being a "Muslim sleeper cell placed in the White House by the Muslim brotherhood to overthrow the government, trample the constitution, undermine and undercut our police and military forces and invoke Sharia Law in the U.S."?
Remember how everyone (rightfully) thought they were schizophrenic nut jobs for shilling such insane, corny, cartoonish drivel?
Remember how numerous major left wing media personalities are now accusing Trump of being some "Cold War sleeper cell Manchurian candidate strategically placed in the White House buy Putin to undermine and overthrown our government and constitution so the USSR can rise again and fly their flag over the White House?"
Just because the pretty suits with the white teeth are reading one story off a teleprompter on major news channels and big named comedy shows doesn't make it any less insane and contrived as the other being read by the sweaty guy in the tiny recording room pounding his fists on his desk.
If we don't get a grip now, we're eventually going to lose the handle altogether as a country.
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Apr 9, 2017 19:02:43 GMT -5
Well, this thread went exactly the way it was destined to.
Hugging hell...
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 9, 2017 19:13:12 GMT -5
Just for the record, what Trump did was completely legal (by US Laws) and is in no way going to cause a legal crap storm. While Congress are the only ones that can declare war, something that hasnt been done since World War II, the President can authorize any military action through the War Powers Act of 1973 just like Obama did in Libya in 2011 and Clinton did in Balkans but he cant put troops on the ground for longer then 90 days without approval.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 19:37:54 GMT -5
And how many times did the republican Congress prevent Obama from doing anything about Syria? You're cherry picking the facts. And what did Congress say when Trump asked about bombing Syria? That's right he didnt, he just ing did it. Obama had no problems signing executive orders and wielding his pen when it benefited him. However when it came to a situation where he COULD have done something, he did nothing and everyone placed the blame on the Republicans. I dont agree with everything Trump does but he's showing he's not going into this worried about "a legacy", he wants to make crap right no matter what it takes. Not getting authorization from Congress to launch a military attack against another country is illegal. Trump breaking this law has exactly nothing to do with any executive order that Obama signed. This isn't a situation where Obama blamed anything on republicans wrongly. He proposed airstrikes against Assad and the republican majority Congress voted against it. That's what happened. If Hillary were president and illegally attached Syria you'd probably be calling her a murderous, tyrannical dictator and your be calling for her impeachment. But laws only apply to the party you disagree with, right?
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 19:46:09 GMT -5
You do know that Donald Trump informed Putin about the missile strike BEFORE launching it, right? Our president informed the leader of a nation that has been historically hostile toward us (and may or may not have interfered in our elections) and he did not bother informing Congress. Congressional approval is a requirement before launching any kind of military strike, so what he did was super illegal. If you'll recall -- and I'm sure you won't -- Obama wanted to launch an air strike again Assad as well. Do you remember how that played out? He went to Congress like he was supposed to and they voted against it. So to sum everything up: You somehow managed to be wrong three times in two sentences. Congratulations. Spoken like a true ****. Your a wimp and others like you. He took action against a scumbag of the highest order who used chemical atacks on innocent civilains. Tell that to the families you are runing for their lives or that poor man who had to bury his two twin children. Sometimes you need to do what must be done and Trump did that. You an absolute wimp, I despise weaklings like you. And make no doubt about it, you need a good wake up call to whats going on in that country. So many Syrians have been hailing America for finally taking action and a scumbag wimp like yourself wants to sit down and "inform" congress. Yes theres a time for that but this crap has gone on for way too long, time for action. Go run to mummy and daddy or take a standyou wimp. Do you even know how lucky we are to be even having the freedom to sit here and type? Wimps take everything for granted and think these luxuries just avail out of thin air. No, people fought wars for our freedom and it will always be there as long as you want the priviledges that go along with it. You have to fight, whether you like it or not. Get with it you little weakling, you need a good cooling. You sound like a little pampered boy. Oh and another thing, it looks like you were the one that was wrong about it being illegal to launch a military strike without consent from Congress as the previous poster, Nivro has informed. You little arrogant wimp. *Sigh* 1. The fact that attaching Syria was necessary does not change the fact that the way Trump went about it was illegal. 2. We have laws for a reason. You don't get to break them (or support those who do) when it benefits you. That's how civilizations collapse. 3. Where was your enthusiasm for the Syrian people when the republican Congress legally prevented Barack Obama from launching a similar attack several years ago? 4. I never said we shouldn't do anything about Assad. I simply said that what Trump did was illegal. And him informing Putin, who informed Assad, WHO GOT HIS TROOPS OUT BEFORE THE STRIKE WAS LAUNCHED was illegal, treasonous and counter-productive. This was about getting the knuckle draggers to forget about all of Trump's failings and plummeting approval rating. 5. Nirvo didn't do anything. He tried to compare two things that has nothing to do with one another. Nothing he said changed the fact that what 45 did was illegal. Which, again, was my entire point. 6. Are you doing a Hanz and Franz character? Are you here to PUMP my girly arms UP?
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 19:47:30 GMT -5
Just for the record, what Trump did was completely legal (by US Laws) Several republican members of Congress disagree.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 19:50:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 9, 2017 20:09:02 GMT -5
Just for the record, what Trump did was completely legal (by US Laws) Several republican members of Congress disagree. And several Democrat members agreed with the action. Both statements are completely irrelevant. What he did by US Laws was, is and unless ratified, will always be completely legal.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 20:57:41 GMT -5
*Sigh* 1. The fact that attaching Syria was necessary does not change the fact that the way Trump went about it was illegal. 2. We have laws for a reason. You don't get to break them (or support those who do) when it benefits you. That's how civilizations collapse. 3. Where was your enthusiasm for the Syrian people when the republican Congress legally prevented Barack Obama from launching a similar attack several years ago? 4. I never said we shouldn't do anything about Assad. I simply said that what Trump did was illegal. And him informing Putin, who informed Assad, WHO GOT HIS TROOPS OUT BEFORE THE STRIKE WAS LAUNCHED was illegal, treasonous and counter-productive. This was about getting the knuckle draggers to forget about all of Trump's failings and plummeting approval rating. 5. Nirvo didn't do anything. He tried to compare two things that has nothing to do with one another. Nothing he said changed the fact that what 45 did was illegal. Which, again, was my entire point. 6. Are you doing a Hanz and Franz character? Are you here to PUMP my girly arms UP? Get yourself a nice chair at a round table and push you pen, you spinless puppet. Meanwhile, millions of Syrians continue to get killed and displaced. I'm not really sure what pens you think I'm pushing... or what that even means... but, once again, where was your concern for the Syrian people when the republicansin Congress were preventing president Obama from helping them?
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Apr 9, 2017 21:03:43 GMT -5
Several republican members of Congress disagree. And several Democrat members agreed with the action. Both statements are completely irrelevant. What he did by US Laws was, is and unless ratified, will always be completely legal. I stand corrected. He did not break any laws, he violated the Constitution. Here are quotes from Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren from Fox News: "The president needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate," Paul said. "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different." "The Constitution gives the power to authorize the use of military force to the legislative branch,” Warren said. “Expanded military intervention in Syria requires action by Congress. If President Trump expects such an authorization, he owes the American people an explanation of his strategy to bring an end to the violence in Syria. We should not escalate this conflict without clear goals and a plan to achieve them." Fox News continues: The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, long after American troops began fighting in Vietnam, required the president to consult with Congress before sending U.S. armed forces into combat unless there already had been a declaration of war.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Apr 9, 2017 21:17:28 GMT -5
This is "We have indisputable evidence that Iraq has WMDs" all over again
|
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,257
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Apr 9, 2017 21:20:27 GMT -5
Get yourself a nice chair at a round table and push you pen, you spinless puppet. Meanwhile, millions of Syrians continue to get killed and displaced. I'm not really sure what pens you think I'm pushing... or what that even means... but, once again, where was your concern for the Syrian people when the republicansin Congress were preventing president Obama from helping them? Well to begin with not once did I bring up the Republican Congress preventing Obama, it was you that brought that up. My concern has always been with the Syrian people so dont even bother trying to lecture me on that, all the matters is that Trump is taking action against these scumbags and its about time. Putin is responsible by proxy for those chemical attacks, hes a conniving piece of crap that Id love to see get his commupeance.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 9, 2017 21:36:44 GMT -5
And several Democrat members agreed with the action. Both statements are completely irrelevant. What he did by US Laws was, is and unless ratified, will always be completely legal. I stand corrected. He did not break any laws, he violated the Constitution. Here are quotes from Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren from Fox News: "The president needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate," Paul said. "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different." "The Constitution gives the power to authorize the use of military force to the legislative branch,” Warren said. “Expanded military intervention in Syria requires action by Congress. If President Trump expects such an authorization, he owes the American people an explanation of his strategy to bring an end to the violence in Syria. We should not escalate this conflict without clear goals and a plan to achieve them." Fox News continues: The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, long after American troops began fighting in Vietnam, required the president to consult with Congress before sending U.S. armed forces into combat unless there already had been a declaration of war. He didnt violate the Constitution either... Essentially the President can and has numerous times ordered military operations without Congressional approval. What they CAN'T do is declare war and put "boots on the ground" for longer then 90 days without Congressional approval. This is "We have indisputable evidence that Iraq has WMDs" all over again And what do you consider a weapon of mass destruction? Bush said Iraq/Saddam had WMDs, to my knowledge he never said they had Nuclear weapons. By definition WMDs are classified as... a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. Iraq on more then one occasion has used Chemical weapons against targets. And its been proven that during the 2003 invasion of Iraq that US Troops did find chemical weapons in possession of the Iraqi Gov't....Thus, they DID in fact have WMDs.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Apr 9, 2017 22:46:33 GMT -5
This is "We have indisputable evidence that Iraq has WMDs" all over again And what do you consider a weapon of mass destruction? Bush said Iraq/Saddam had WMDs, to my knowledge he never said they had Nuclear weapons. By definition WMDs are classified as... a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. Iraq on more then one occasion has used Chemical weapons against targets. And its been proven that during the 2003 invasion of Iraq that US Troops did find chemical weapons in possession of the Iraqi Gov't....Thus, they DID in fact have WMDs. Is this really where we are, defending the disastrous decision to invade Iraq? There's no defense for that decision. None. I don't know anyone whose opinion is worth taking seriously that doesn't think we were lied to. The invasion of Iraq is the single worst foreign policy decision in the recent history of our country. This situation in Syria is much more unclear at this point. I don't think there's definitive proof that Assad is responsible for this latest attack against innocents, nor do I think we can say for sure that he wasn't responsible. What I know, from my own point of view, is that launching rockets into Syria without concrete proof that it will stop people from dying is a rash decision that was not thought out, and I have no confidence that this President is truly going to make strategic, measured action in such a delicate part of the world. If it was my decision, we would work to find a diplomatic solution. If we are taking any physical action in the area, it should be humanitarian relief. Not bombs and an invasion.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 9, 2017 23:27:30 GMT -5
And what do you consider a weapon of mass destruction? Bush said Iraq/Saddam had WMDs, to my knowledge he never said they had Nuclear weapons. By definition WMDs are classified as... a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. Iraq on more then one occasion has used Chemical weapons against targets. And its been proven that during the 2003 invasion of Iraq that US Troops did find chemical weapons in possession of the Iraqi Gov't....Thus, they DID in fact have WMDs. Is this really where we are, defending the disastrous decision to invade Iraq? There's no defense for that decision. None. I don't know anyone whose opinion is worth taking seriously that doesn't think we were lied to. The invasion of Iraq is the single worst foreign policy decision in the recent history of our country. This situation in Syria is much more unclear at this point. I don't think there's definitive proof that Assad is responsible for this latest attack against innocents, nor do I think we can say for sure that he wasn't responsible. What I know, from my own point of view, is that launching rockets into Syria without concrete proof that it will stop people from dying is a rash decision that was not thought out, and I have no confidence that this President is truly going to make strategic, measured action in such a delicate part of the world. If it was my decision, we would work to find a diplomatic solution. If we are taking any physical action in the area, it should be humanitarian relief. Not bombs and an invasion. Im not defending going into Iraq. I didnt particularly want to go there however the excuse we were given (WMDs) was in fact true and factual. Whether there was an underlying reason to go doesnt really seem relevant. We were told WMDs, we (Gov't) agreed to go and the reasoning was there. With that said, I dont see how you cant see that Assad was behind this an you need "proof". How much proof do you need? There's been 65 instances of Chemical weapons being used in Syria since 2012. All of which I believe were used against the Syrian people who oppose the Assad regime. There's been nearly 1000 civilian deaths from chemical weapons in Syria in just 5 years. Maybe if Assad would wear a red arm band with a swastika people might take his threat more serious.
|
|