htownbrown Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/10/obama-s-isis-war-is-illegal.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Of course I would support those presidential powers if and when there is a president worthy of them. And I don't discount the possibility that Obama's advisers might prompt him to do the right thing at some point and then I would not want Congress to slow or halt that decision whatever it may be. As much as I dislike the Obama administration I also feel that the opposition does take the knee-jerk reaction too far sometimes. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I have grown skeptical of having a president worthy of those powers. And there is a lot of wisdom in giving Congress and not the executive branch war making powers. This editorial by Rand Paul is not knee jerk in the least. And where Obama or people in his administration have chosen to insert themselves, especially in the middle east, the results have been disasterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I have grown skeptical of having a president worthy of those powers. And there is a lot of wisdom in giving Congress and not the executive branch war making powers. This editorial by Rand Paul is not knee jerk in the least. And where Obama or people in his administration have chosen to insert themselves, especially in the middle east, the results have been disasterous. If you give congress the powers, nothing will get done. Even on something like this where, judging by the comments from the conservative types where, there was widespread support, nothing has been agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohican Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 The constitution (I know, who follows it) very clearly gives war making power to Congress - and not the President. And the "get's stuff done" or "doesn't get stuff done" is a non sequitor to me. Stuff I want to see done - Repeal of ACA Repeal of 16th and 17th amendments Repeal act that set House representation at 435 members, no matter the size of the population. i could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 The constitution (I know, who follows it) very clearly gives war making power to Congress - and not the President. And the "get's stuff done" or "doesn't get stuff done" is a non sequitor to me. Stuff I want to see done - Repeal of ACA Repeal of 16th and 17th amendments Repeal act that set House representation at 435 members, no matter the size of the population. i could go on... Agreed. 2 more words for ya: TERM. LIMITS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 If you give congress the powers, nothing will get done. Even on something like this where, judging by the comments from the conservative types where, there was widespread support, nothing has been agreed. Dude, your government is ran by a bunch of fuckin blokes who still wear powered wigs and an 89 year old woman in a fucking flower hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Dude, your government is ran by a bunch of fuckin blokes who still wear powered wigs and an 89 year old woman in a fucking flower hat. Well, 1 - they don't wear wigs; 2 - the queen has no input. And still, they get a lot more done than the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Well, 1 - they don't wear wigs; 2 - the queen has no input. And still, they get a lot more done than the US government. Thats debatable. But they should since your country is tiny in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Thats debatable. But they should since your country is tiny in comparison. It is indeed. But then we do have to deal with the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Dude, your government is ran by a bunch of fuckin blokes who still wear powered wigs and an 89 year old woman in a fucking flower hat. Powered wigs... you mean something like this? That'd be pretty cool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterWhite Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 And still, they get a lot more done than the US government. Then why is over 1/4 of London in complete poverty? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-24517391 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.