09-20-2013 05:13 PM
368 ... 910111213 ...
tools
  1. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Bush did that too.

    I'll reiterate: when you call the president of the United states a dictator, you lose credibility.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Never said bush didn't...we aren't talking about bush. Even though I'm sure Obama will blame him somehow. I wasn't s bush fan either. Credibility. ...ok...lol. Tell me something he has passed that hasn't been rammed down our throats. Sidestepping congress or execuitive order. He has broken the law twice just reguarding obamacare. Once law is passed, changes have to be made through congress. Twice he's changed things with enforcement aspects of the bill. HE...this is what he's doing...call him what you will.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    qxr and Live2ride883 like this.
    09-05-2013 01:56 AM
  2. JHBThree's Avatar
    Excuse me? Educate myself?
    When we bomb another country, we commit the act of war. Would we not consider it an act of war if someone were to bomb us?
    Maybe you should educate yourself on the difference of meanings in the word shall and should. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
    If no declaration of war is issued, there are no constitutional issues. That is precisely what the war powers act says. (In addition to requiring the president to seek congressional approval within a set amount of time)

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Fairclough likes this.
    09-05-2013 05:09 PM
  3. JHBThree's Avatar
    Never said bush didn't...we aren't talking about bush. Even though I'm sure Obama will blame him somehow. I wasn't s bush fan either. Credibility. ...ok...lol. Tell me something he has passed that hasn't been rammed down our throats. Sidestepping congress or execuitive order. He has broken the law twice just reguarding obamacare. Once law is passed, changes have to be made through congress. Twice he's changed things with enforcement aspects of the bill. HE...this is what he's doing...call him what you will.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Words mean something. Calling him a dictator is very different than calling his an Imperial Presidency. (Which is the accurate term)

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Fairclough likes this.
    09-05-2013 05:10 PM
  4. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    If no declaration of war is issued, there are no constitutional issues. That is precisely what the war powers act says. (In addition to requiring the president to seek congressional approval within a set amount of time)

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Its a good thing we didn't consider the Japanese bombing if Pearl Harbor an act of war. They didn't put boots on the ground either.

    I don't care what any ex lawyer politician says. Anytime we attack a country, it is an act of war. Period. That is why it takes the power of Congress so no one man may have the power.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    09-05-2013 05:51 PM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Words mean something. Calling him a dictator is very different than calling his an Imperial Presidency. (Which is the accurate term)

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    Semantics...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-05-2013 06:11 PM
  6. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    FULL DEFINITIONS OF: dictator1

    1. a ruler who is unconstrained by law

    Synonyms Examples:show 6 examples...Types:show 4 types...Type of:ruler,*swayera person who rules or commands

    2. a person who behaves in a tyrannical manner

    my boss is a*dictator*who makes everyone work overtimeSynonyms:authoritarianTypes:Big Brotheran authoritarian leader and invader of privacydisciplinarian,*martinet,*moralistsomeone who demands exact conformity to rules and formssticklersomeone who insists on somethingType of oppressora person of authority who subjects others to undue pressures

    3. a speaker who dictates to a secretary or a recording machine

    Type of speaker,*talker,*utterer,*verbaliser,*verbalizersomeone who expresses in language; someone who talks (especially someone who delivers a public speech or someone especially garrulous)



    I'd say cmjlt369 is pretty close. Definitely 2. Some could even argue 1 with no accountability toward Benghazi, NSA spying, or IRS debacle.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369, qxr and Live2ride883 like this.
    09-05-2013 06:13 PM
  7. JHBThree's Avatar
    FULL DEFINITIONS OF: dictator1

    1. a ruler who is unconstrained by law

    Synonyms Examples:show 6 examples...Types:show 4 types...Type of:ruler,*swayera person who rules or commands

    2. a person who behaves in a tyrannical manner

    my boss is a*dictator*who makes everyone work overtimeSynonyms:authoritarianTypes:Big Brotheran authoritarian leader and invader of privacydisciplinarian,*martinet,*moralistsomeone who demands exact conformity to rules and formssticklersomeone who insists on somethingType of oppressora person of authority who subjects others to undue pressures

    3. a speaker who dictates to a secretary or a recording machine

    Type of speaker,*talker,*utterer,*verbaliser,*verbalizersomeone who expresses in language; someone who talks (especially someone who delivers a public speech or someone especially garrulous)



    I'd say cmjlt369 is pretty close. Definitely 2. Some could even argue 1 with no accountability toward Benghazi, NSA spying, or IRS debacle.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Not remotely. If he wasn't constrained by law, people like you and cmjlt would have been locked up for speaking ill of him. He would have rigged the election and killed his opponents.

    While you obviously disagree, words in the English language have a meaning. He is not a dictator.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood, Fairclough and jdbii like this.
    09-05-2013 07:01 PM
  8. JHBThree's Avatar
    Semantics...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Only if you're so blinded by your hate of the man that you can't see the truth sitting right in front of your face.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-05-2013 07:02 PM
  9. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Not remotely. If he wasn't constrained by law, people like you and cmjlt would have been locked up for speaking ill of him. He would have rigged the election and killed his opponents.

    While you obviously disagree, words in the English language have a meaning. He is not a dictator.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    No, im just labeled a racist for speaking out against him. This perpetual love affair to him baffles me. Had he been any other President, he'd been impeached and rightly so.

    I love being an independent. Not having to eat the crap your political party tries to feed you is really quite liberating.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369, qxr and Live2ride883 like this.
    09-05-2013 07:06 PM
  10. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Only if you're so blinded by your hate of the man that you can't see the truth sitting right in front of your face.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    So now you know how I feel? That's nice. First off, I don't hate anyone. I don't have time or the energy for that. I disagree with his policies. So you don't know me. So just because I disagree with his policies, I am a hate monger? That sounds a lot like something that would come from the whitehouse press secretary. I notice no one made comment about the president criminally changing aspects of implementation of obamacare. No comments on giving the stand down order for benghazi to be allowed to happen. Illegal...more of that I can do what I want attitude.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    09-05-2013 07:17 PM
  11. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    No, im just labeled a racist for speaking out against him. This perpetual love affair to him baffles me. Had he been any other President, he'd been impeached and rightly so.

    I love being an independent. Not having to eat the crap your political party tries to feed you is really quite liberating.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    That's why I consider myself party unaffiliated. And you are right, this president has been given passes on so many things other presidents would have and could have been impeached for. Watergate and NSA scandal....nixon impeached, obama nothing. I don't understand why he gets a pass on everything. But he does.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-05-2013 07:23 PM
  12. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Not remotely. If he wasn't constrained by law, people like you and cmjlt would have been locked up for speaking ill of him. He would have rigged the election and killed his opponents.

    While you obviously disagree, words in the English language have a meaning. He is not a dictator.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    You do realize that peaceful anti syria protests and government oversight rallies have been dispersed by government agencies under the label of unconstitutional gatherings...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-05-2013 07:29 PM
  13. qxr's Avatar
    Almost a year and we still do not have an answer to the stand down order, which can only come from him.
    How is the reset with Russia working out for us? Thought ya'll were so much better than GW...hmmm?

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-05-2013 07:41 PM
  14. Wiley_11's Avatar
    09-05-2013 07:53 PM
  15. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    This is so totally not the point. Embassies get attacked, it happens. The upsetting part is giving a stand down order which allowed embassy personnel to be murdered. And as usual...lets point to bush. As I've said in other posts. I don't care for bush either. Since Kennedy, every president has gotten progressively worse than the previous one.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-05-2013 08:30 PM
  16. SteveISU's Avatar
    Its a good thing we didn't consider the Japanese bombing if Pearl Harbor an act of war. They didn't put boots on the ground either.

    I don't care what any ex lawyer politician says. Anytime we attack a country, it is an act of war. Period. That is why it takes the power of Congress so no one man may have the power.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    In fairness, the law is the law, and until they change the War Powers Act any president is within their right to launch a military strike within a certain set of parameters. If you have a rogue president that starts bombing random targets around the world for some unknown reason, that's what impeachment is for.
    msndrstood and Fairclough like this.
    09-06-2013 09:34 AM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    The decision to go to congress is believed to be based as he was voted in as someone who isn't Bush and his trying to show he some what respects others opinions, however, his paid to make the tough choices which often others won't make and sometimes he might have to play the cards his allowed. I know he doesn't, just because he exercises his powers which the people enabled him to have in no way makes him a dictator.

    First, They are also developing nations, Secondly they aren't always as financially well backed as first world super-nations, thirdly, the arab league has expressed support already if you read my posts. Fourthly, Gang problems in Chicago isn't gassing citizens.


    I am replying based on the current plans, I presume no one wants an Iraq - but you have to admit yourself there needs to be an intervention.

    You do know your not the only country which has lost lives in war's before, yes you topped it for Iraq, but per capita in the major world wars, we had a significantly larger percentile of our population lost. If you would like to look above, that's some of their graves for taking on a force which was 10x larger in numbers. So I dare you, to walk up to one of their family members and say they Cheerlead, because at the end of their day their soldiers too who also have families.


    Senseless killing, The states had senseless killing in its civil war. Not to mention, it wasn't that long ago you guys also had the KKK and lynching.... where they tried african american's limbs to horses, let the horse run and tare them apart. Now in retrospect thats completely wrong, so you can't say the states in history is much better. You do know Muslims believe in the Torah and Christian Bible right? Some countries just aren't as far in their development of equality yet, yes some females can drive if they have a doctorate. I doubt it is just to block the States, I think they might want a fair and due process too. If Georgia gassed its own citizens, I bet there would be international action and maybe the state of georgia wouldn't want Russia in. As far as the North Korea issue been, they have been rather helpful as they have been the ones talking down NK.
    You give him way too much credit if you think he went to Congress because he's a stand up president. He went for nothing more than political cover. If there was a sense of urgency and we remotely cared about another Syrian getting killed we would have been in the game 8 months ago and wouldn't be dragging our feet like we currently are. We also wouldn't give Assad enough time to tuck every desirable target into a civilian location for protection. At this point any attack we conduct will have ZERO purpose to save lives. It will be to save face in the eyes of the international community.

    Bush got approval from Congress. Clinton on the other hand, a "great man" in the eyes of many liberals, made a habit to circumvent congress.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-06-2013 11:16 AM
  18. SteveISU's Avatar
    Syria talks start today in the g20

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighborsand that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
    ~ Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq (2 October 2002)

    Ironic isn't it? Syria is no different then Iraq.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-06-2013 11:34 AM
  19. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Here is what is going to happen:

    US performs military action in the form of air strikes with no intentions of boots on the ground or staying longer than 60-90 days.

    When this happens, other countries will jump in on both sides.

    **** will hit the fan.

    Foot soldiers and much more will be required from the US to "fix" the situation and then rebuild the area(best case scenario)

    Lives, time, and money will be shoved down the drain in massive quantities.

    Some variation of this will happen I guarantee it.


    Edit for opinion: It will all happen because we have stupid Republicans that love to try and fix other countries with military action and brain dead Democrats that would praise Obama for his genius if he told them that cutting off their own feet and eating them would make them run faster.
    Wiley_11 and cdmjlt369 like this.
    09-06-2013 01:01 PM
  20. SteveISU's Avatar
    1.) Assad kills 100,000 people and what weapon he killed the last 1400 with makes a difference?
    2.) Who really gives a crap. It's people we hate killing more people we hate. We should arm both sides with poison gas and help them eradicate each other.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-06-2013 02:47 PM
  21. llamabreath's Avatar
    1.) Assad kills 100,000 people and what weapon he killed the last 1400 with makes a difference?
    2.) Who really gives a crap. It's people we hate killing more people we hate. We should arm both sides with poison gas and help them eradicate each other.
    That's what's driving me crazy (besides my wonderful family). I said it in my first post in this thread: Why all the dismay now? Slaughter of innocent people is slaughter of innocent people. Obama's only doing this because he's trying to save himself from ridicule, but too late for that.

    cdmjlt369 and Live2ride883 like this.
    09-06-2013 03:20 PM
  22. Wiley_11's Avatar
    Here is what is going to happen:

    US performs military action in the form of air strikes with no intentions of boots on the ground or staying longer than 60-90 days.

    When this happens, other countries will jump in on both sides.

    **** will hit the fan.

    Foot soldiers and much more will be required from the US to "fix" the situation and then rebuild the area(best case scenario)

    Lives, time, and money will be shoved down the drain in massive quantities.

    Some variation of this will happen I guarantee it.


    Edit for opinion: It will all happen because we have stupid Republicans that love to try and fix other countries with military action and brain dead Democrats that would praise Obama for his genius if he told them that cutting off their own feet and eating them would make them run faster.
    I don't know how you can say that about our politicians, they may not be much but they are the best that money can buy!............
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    09-06-2013 03:27 PM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    I don't know how you can say that about our politicians, they may not be much but they are the best that money can buy!............
    THAT'S a good one, lol lol lol :beer:

    09-06-2013 03:35 PM
  24. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    This makes you wonder that much more what gives the US the right to do anything in Syria. Also , as was said earlier, killing by chemical weapons or by execution or whatever means the victims are still dead.

    http://www.policymic.com/mobile/arti...-to-talk-about

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-06-2013 04:22 PM
  25. Patrick Schroedl's Avatar
    A friendly reminder to keep things civil and constructive. Debate is good; productive debate is great.
    msndrstood and Wiley_11 like this.
    09-06-2013 04:59 PM
368 ... 910111213 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD