Dennis Kucinich=RACIST!!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:19 am

How dare he threaten our Fried Chickenhawk Pres__ent with impeachment for ordering an illegal military strike against a sovereign nation?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

One "Constitutional scholar" summarized it best in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Anyone disagree?

ADAM · Post by **ADAM** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:59 am

all you had to type was "www.politico.com" as your source.....

That can explain everything..........

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:00 am

He's obviously racist.

And probably extremely poorly educated.

I'd recommend Dennis go away and cling to his Bible or gun -----> and leave the thinking to those who can.

ADAM · Post by **ADAM** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:08 am

poptart wrote:He's obviously racist.

And probably extremely poorly educated.

I'd recommend Dennis go away and cling to his Bible or gun -----> and leave the thinking to those who can.

Because we all know life would be a disasterous failure if isn't for the saving virtues of the (socialists) progessives........

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:11 am

poptart wrote:He's obviously racist.

And probably extremely poorly educated.

I'd recommend Dennis go away and cling to his Bible or gun -----> and leave the thinking to those who can.

At least mv used Kucinich as a clever ironic foil in taking a jab at Obama.

You? Not as clever.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:20 am

"Consulting with Congress has sufficed in the past" and it will suffice now. This is a non-issue. Kucinich is a dipshit, as is mvscal.

Free Republic

Democrats catching impeachment fever? Obama's actions in Libya Unconstitutional.

If nothing else, Dennis Kucinich is consistent. He wanted to push articles of impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the Iraq war, which his own party’s leadership squelched in the summer of 2008 — when Bush’s term had all but expired anyway. Kucinich and John Conyers instead had to settle for “impugnment hearings,” which one witness called “slightly demented.”

Now we have another military action from another president, this one without the cover of a Congressional authorization to use military force, and Kucinich wants to crank up the impeachment process, pun most certainly intended:

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

Technically, of course, Kucinich and other progressives are correct in that the Constitution doesn’t allow for Presidents to initiate military action without the involvement of Congress unless an immediate threat to American national security arises, the “clear and present danger” exception. One Constitutional scholar put it best in 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

We’d get a clarification from this source to determine whether this applies to the current situation, but he’s traveling through South America at the moment and isn’t terribly engaged on this issue.

Traditionally, though, consultations with Congress have sufficed in the past. For instance, Congress didn’t specifically authorize Ronald Reagan to attack Libya in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, a retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany at a nightclub. Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition. Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea. According to the report and Kucinich’s own objection, Obama did consult Congress before engaging in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

It’s certainly amusing in a small manner to see Obama get hoist with his own petard, but Kucinich is just as silly as ever in suggesting that impeachment proceedings should start over that action. Now, if we want to ask whether Obama should get called to Congress to account for his absence from the White House as he sent the American military into hostile action against Libya, that might be worth highlighting.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:26 am

Democrat hypocrisy?

Why, I find that hard to believe.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:30 am

Martyred wrote:Democrat hypocrisy?

Why, I find that hard to believe.

You could include Republicans too.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:31 am

Mace wrote:This is a non-issue

Good sheep!

They count on idiots like you.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:49 am

poptart wrote:
Mace wrote:This is a non-issue
Good sheep!

They count on idiots like you.

Yep, idiots like me who live in the real world and not some fantasy land.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:00 am

I'm not the one pissing on our constitution ... because it's been sufficient to do so in the past. lol

What a joke of a take.

It's the only law we have.

YOU are the one making up fantasy laws.

But way to stand up in support of anarchy, champ.

Now that is bravery.

Poke yourself and wake up, maybe?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:13 am

Mace wrote:"Consulting with Congress has sufficed in the past" and it will suffice now.

No, it won't. The law and the Constitution are quite specific on the matter. Neither the letter or the spirit permit one off, 60 day military adventures on the whim of a single individual. In fact, the Constitution was structured to prevent such adventuring. The military is not a toy or a dick substitute to be employed to bolster an ego or sagging poll numbers.

Reagan's bombing of Tripoli was legitimate under the War Powers Resolution as a threat response to an attack on US servicemen. Grenada was dodgy. The House passed a resolution which passed 403-23 (after the fact) but the Senate never took up the resolution in conference. That doesn't cut it. Bottom line, Reagan played fast and loose with law and should have been flushed like a turd for doing so. Committing armed forces into hostlities is the most serious action a president can take and it needs to be above board.

Being the commander in chief doesn't mean that the president can do whatever the fuck he wants to with the military. If that were the case, then unit commanders could likewise do whatever they wanted with their commands.

When you people marvel at the spectacle of this shitskinned monkey sitting there wiping his ass with the Constitution and wonder how it all came to this, you might want to remember that he wasn't the first. Our responsibility is to make sure that he is the last.

The bullshit has gone on far too long and the shit has gotten way too out of hand. It's time give the leash a tug and shut it down.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:26 am

Yeah, we should just assassinate them, right? :roll:

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:30 am

Mace wrote:Yeah, we should just assassinate them, right? :roll:

Your attempt to pop smoke and cover a disorderly withdrawal noted.

Back on point:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

True or false.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:32 am

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:Yeah, we should just assassinate them, right? :roll:
Your attempt to pop smoke and cover a disorderly withdrawal noted.

Back on point:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
True or false.

True.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:35 am

Obama must of come in on a UFO...anyone have his birth certificate?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:41 am

Y2K wrote:Obama must of come in on a UFO...anyone have his birth certificate?

Poptart was a passenger on the same UFO and probably stole it. :wink:

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:47 am

KC Scott wrote:the self proclaimed "tard slapper" has been an expat quite a while now.

Does he really deserve an opinion?

No, and he'll need a green card to come back. :)

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:59 am

KC Scott wrote:
mvscal wrote: Reagan's bombing of Tripoli was legitimate under the War Powers Resolution as a threat response to an attack on US servicemen. Grenada was dodgy. The House passed a resolution which passed 403-23 (after the fact) but the Senate never took up the resolution in conference. That doesn't cut it. Bottom line, Reagan played fast and loose with law and should have been flushed like a turd for doing so. Committing armed forces into hostlities is the most serious action a president can take and it needs to be above board.
Bosnia much?

Yes, of course. As I have said many times before, Monica was the best thing that ever happened to Billigula. Illegal wars...illegal campaign contributions...illegal transfers of defense technology and WAIT! LOOK OVER HERE!! HE JUST SHOT A LOAD ON A FAT PIG!! GET HIM!!!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:07 am

Mace wrote:
mvscal wrote:Back on point:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
True or false.
True.

OK then. Explain why Kucinich is a tard for wanting to impeach Ojugears for abusing his position to launch an unsanctioned military operation? That seems to be a rather serious charge, wouldn't you say?

Obviously, Ohypocrite thought so too when he said:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

...back in 2007. Yet fours years later here he is doing it and doing it with a phone call while he is out of the country on vacation no less.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:28 am

mvscal wrote:OK then. Explain why Kucinich is a tard for wanting to impeach Ojugears for abusing his position to launch an unsanctioned military operation? That seems to be a rather serious charge, wouldn't you say?

The precedent was set long ago and it continues today, right or wrong. Calling for impeachment is an over the top political maneuver to appease his voters, because he knows it will never happen...just as when he was screaming for impeachment of Bush.

Obviously, Ohypocrite thought so too when he said:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
...back in 2007. Yet fours years later here he is doing it and doing it with a phone call while he is out of the country on vacation no less.

Was Obama calling for Bush's impeachment? While our laws may call for the authorization of Congress, the mere consulting with Congress has been good enough over the last few decades....at least for the type of action we're taking in Libya.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:36 am

Scott wrote:the self proclaimed "tard slapper" has been an expat quite a while now.

Does he really deserve an opinion?

My citizenship (not to mention my tax liability) say ---> YES.

But I'll be in America later this week, if it'll help to at least raise my relevance level to that of say, Marty.

At least give me that much, for a few days?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:40 am

Mace wrote:The precedent was set long ago and it continues today, right or wrong.

So what you're saying then is that our laws and Constitution are meaningless and we need only comply with them when it is convenient to do so. Well, anarchy it is then. Just don't come crying to me when the bullets start flying.

Or, you know, maybe...just maybe these so called precedents which are based on blatant violations of the law really aren't the precedents we want guiding our actions. That's the thing about precedents. You can always set new ones. Just a thought.

Mace wrote:Calling for impeachment is an over the top political maneuver to appease his voters, because he knows it will never happen...just as when he was screaming for impeachment of Bush.

While I seldom if ever agree with anything Kookcinich says or does, I will grant that he sincerely means what he says and isn't just posturing.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:16 pm

Not sure why mvscal has a problem with anybody being racist.

You'd think he might want to invite him over to share some rants and a bottle of Chardonnay.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:30 pm

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:20 pm

mvscal wrote:So what you're saying then is that our laws and Constitution are meaningless and we need only comply with them when it is convenient to do so. Well, anarchy it is then. Just don't come crying to me when the bullets start flying.

No, I didn't say that, so don't put words into my mouth. I said that's the way it has been and continues to be, and I won't come crying to you, asshole, I'll be the one putting a red dot on your chest.

Or, you know, maybe...just maybe these so called precedents which are based on blatant violations of the law really aren't the precedents we want guiding our actions. That's the thing about precedents. You can always set new ones. Just a thought.

Agreed. Maybe it's past time to set some new precedents and actually follow the Constitution.

While I seldom if ever agree with anything Kookcinich says or does, I will grant that he sincerely means what he says and isn't just posturing.

He's a fucking wingnut....but even wingnuts get it right once in a great while, although he's a fucking idiot for calling for impeachment of Obama. Ain't gonna happen....at least not over the attack on Libya, and he knows it isn't going to happen, so, yeah, he's definitely posturing and playing to his base.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question. Was Obama calling for impeachment of Bush?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:23 pm

Mikey wrote:Not sure why mvscal has a problem with anybody being racist.

You'd think he might want to invite him over to share some rants and a bottle of Chardonnay.

Yeah, you'd think that any dumbass who, at the very least, plays the part of a racist on a messageboard would embrace anyone who he perceives as also being a racist. Hell, they could car pool to Klan meetings or something.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:39 pm

Mace wrote:Was Obama calling for impeachment of Bush?

Did BHO try to accomplish anything as a Senator other than to vote "present"?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:21 pm

first off, rack the hell outta fried chicken hawk. don't know if that's yours, but, rack it anyhoo.

secondly, rack dennis kookcinich. i pretty much disagree with every single one of his positions, but, you gotta hand it to him for having principles and not being a phoney party lemming.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:41 pm

mvscal wrote: Back on point:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
True or false.

I don't know what's in the water, but Avi has apparently gone all the way around the bend

I mean...the seething racist is calling out lil' Dennis--my personal hero in the house--as a racist? okay, sure, that's an attempt at bitter humor.

But in condemning Barry for dropping the hammer on an actual demented sociopathic mass-murdering drag queen camel jockey because it appears some violation of the Founding Fathers' clear intent...?

Where was this vitriolic gut-busting laff riot when we rolled in on Iraq with nothing more than a two-year campaign of steady lies, omissions, and gross distortions of faked intelligence?

What were those actual or imminent threats to America? Firing at drones? Starving in public?

Basically, it appears that the Tea Bagger--and that's Avi up and down--is programmed to be anti-Barry no matter what, period. Okay, yer a pissy little robot. Noted.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:52 pm

poptart wrote:
Mace wrote:This is a non-issue
Good sheep!

They count on idiots like you.

Marty, give pops his password back

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:03 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Where was this vitriolic gut-busting laff riot when we rolled in on Iraq with nothing more than a two-year campaign of steady lies, omissions, and gross distortions of faked intelligence?

We rolled into Iraq with specific statutory authority, felchie, namely H. J. RES. 114. You can disagree with the rationale but what you cannot do is claim that it was illegal.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:10 pm

Mace wrote:Was Obama calling for impeachment of Bush?

It's a very stupid question.

If someone were to be impeached over Iraq it would be the representatives who voted yes on the Iraq Resolution.

Those pussies punted their authority (to call for war) over to the president.

This Libya situation is not the same thing.

What we have now is a president who has decided to assume authority which was not legally given to him.

If I'm a senior military officer and I get the call from the president that we are to begin bombing in Libya, I'm thinking to myself, "Well, yes, sure ... I'll follow the chain of command, but by WHAT fucking authority are you giving me this order?"

The president works for the PEOPLE.

He is OUR servant.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:29 pm

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Where was this vitriolic gut-busting laff riot when we rolled in on Iraq with nothing more than a two-year campaign of steady lies, omissions, and gross distortions of faked intelligence?
We rolled into Iraq with specific statutory authority, felchie, namely H. J. RES. 114. You can disagree with the rationale but what you cannot do is claim that it was illegal.

Well, sure they got a U.N. hall pass, but it's how they got it that's grossly illegal and immoral. It was through lies, period. The rationale was actually fairly logical--a beast of a dictator, etc. But a concerted campaign of lies and distortions, and fear mongering is vile--and as it turned out, catastrophic.

This time it's pretty clear--and winnable!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:51 pm

poptart wrote:Those pussies punted their authority (to call for war) over to the president.

No, they didn't. They specifically authorized the President to use military force in Iraq. That is the way it is supposed to work.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:54 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: It was through lies, period.

It was through bad intelligence, period. And the reason we didn't know what he was up to was because he was in violation of the cease fire agreement he negotiated to save his ass. He was non-compliant so it was logical to assume he was hiding something he wasn't supposed to have.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:04 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:--and winnable!

Oh, sure. Taking out Mo will be a snap. The fun doesn't get started till after the war though, remember?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:40 am

poptart wrote: It's a very stupid question.

There's no such thing as a stupid question, dumbfuck, only stupid answers....which you seem to be supplying with every shit post.

If someone were to be impeached over Iraq it would be the representatives who voted yes on the Iraq Resolution.

Those pussies punted their authority (to call for war) over to the president.

I see, you want to impeach Obama for not complying with the Constitution but also want to impeach Congress when they do comply. Brilliant, you Bible thumping tard, just brilliant. You should stick to Bible verses and trying to comprehend the NFL rulebook. :roll:

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:20 am

Mace wrote:I see, you want to impeach Obama for not complying with the Constitution but also want to impeach Congress when they do comply.

You're a serious mess, dude.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution gives Congress power to declare war.

Did Congress declare war in Iraq?

That'd be a negative, 'tard.

They passed a resolution telling GW to do what he thinks is best in Iraq - and start war if he thinks it is necessary.

But NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that war is a call that the president is to make.
Congress punted.

If war is to be declared, it is CONGRESS who is to do the declaring - article 1, section 8.

Hey, at least Bush made his case before Congress.
And they kinda sorta made it look like they were following the law.

The current dipshit just sent the bombs flying and then went on vacation.

What a fucking joke.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:19 pm

Well, at least you're in good company, dumbfuck.....you, LTS TRN2, mvscal, and Dennis Kucinich. Now that's quite a quartet of wingnuts. :roll: Funny that Congress (aside from a couple of wingnuts), the press, and the American people (aside from a quartet of wingnuts) aren't screaming about Obama's actions. Yeah, you're in good company, poptard.