T1B

Watching him on foxnews talking with willy and barry hussein. Either he has a bad cold or he got fukkin' polluted last night.

rack him if he did.

If he has the same cold that I have, he could use a couple of belts of something stronger than Dr.Pepper.

Well, when you're a closeted homosexual and you've just finished an eight year run as (unelected) Puppet In Chief for the vile AIPAC contagion--facilitating and committing colossal international war crimes in the process--you'd be feeling a bit suicidal as well. What you saw in the Chimp's dazed remarks was a man fleeing the truth as much as he can.

...simper....whimper....squirm....

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, when you're a closeted homosexual...

Nobody cares about your personal life.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:(unelected)

Why do you hate the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida ?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, when you're a closeted homosexual and you've just finished an eight year run as (unelected) Puppet In Chief for the vile AIPAC contagion--facilitating and committing colossal international war crimes in the process--you'd be feeling a bit suicidal as well. What you saw in the Chimp's dazed remarks was a man fleeing the truth as much as he can.

...simper....whimper....squirm....

Lemme ask you a question that will seem irrelevant at this point. I'll connect the dots after you answer.

Are you a supporter of, or are you opposed to globalism?

Lillian Vernon wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, when you're a closeted homosexual and you've just finished an eight year run as (unelected) Puppet In Chief for the vile AIPAC contagion--facilitating and committing colossal international war crimes in the process--you'd be feeling a bit suicidal as well. What you saw in the Chimp's dazed remarks was a man fleeing the truth as much as he can.

...simper....whimper....squirm....

Lemme ask you a question...

Bad idea.

Lillian Vernon wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, when you're a closeted homosexual and you've just finished an eight year run as (unelected) Puppet In Chief for the vile AIPAC contagion--facilitating and committing colossal international war crimes in the process--you'd be feeling a bit suicidal as well. What you saw in the Chimp's dazed remarks was a man fleeing the truth as much as he can.

...simper....whimper....squirm....

Lemme ask you a question that will seem irrelevant at this point. I'll connect the dots after you answer.

Are you a supporter of, or are you opposed to globalism?

Define globalism.

The growing trend toward granting more authority to international organizations.

Eventually, One World Government, the "New World Order."

"Lil," the globalism at the prospect of which of which you properly curl into a fetal position squall is actually that of the consolidated transnational corporate structures. The basic agenda for this concentration of wealth and power comes under the rather Orwellian term, "neo-liberalism." Look it up.

The Chimp and the odious criminals who installed him are desperately hoping they can somehow distract you from their thoroughly legal actions. How about a Permanent War on Terror? How about a foreclosure? :?

So, I'm guessing after wading through that clusterfuck of an answer that you oppose globalism?

Am I correct? The answer is "Yes?"

This is one of the most perplexing positions you left-wing whack jobs have.

You are in hysterics about globalism, yet you declare the war in Iraq was "illegal" when the US Congress gave Bush the authority through a constitutional process to invade Iraq, including Hildebeast and a slew of other Democrats. If you are so against globalism, then why are you so quick to declare that there is a higher authority than the US Constitution?

I don't even believe in the concept of "international law."

Treaties are the way we are supposed to deal with other countries on an individual or group basis. The whole concept of "international law" is total commie crap and is one of the biggest threats we face. The idea that we should have to consult with some international authority before defending ourselves is absurd and should be vigorously rejected. Whether you agreed we were defending ourselves by invading Iraq is irrelevant to the point that our elected leaders decided it was, making this whole left wing talking point of an "illegal war" complete BUNK.

If you want an example of an "illegal war," see the indiscriminate carpet-bombing of Serbian infrastructure and civilians with no approval from Congress.

LV wrote:you declare the war in Iraq was "illegal" when the US Congress gave Bush the authority through a constitutional process to invade Iraq

The president is not constitutionally authorized to declare war.

Congress pussed out and passed a buck they had NO business passing.

If war was to be declared against Iraq, it was Congress who needed to do the declaring.



You're basically right with your concern about "globalism" and the disturbing fact that our elected officials seem pleased to place the nuts of international organizations under our nose.

poptart wrote:If war was to be declared against Iraq, it was Congress who needed to do the declaring.

Ummm... That's essentially what they did by giving him the authority to invade.

Lillian Vernon wrote:So, I'm guessing that you oppose globalism?

Am I correct? The answer is "Yes?"

You are a twit. And, you are officially outed as "J-Mak," aka Weasel.

Okay, weasel, did you look up "Neo-Liberalism"? Obviously not if you're still squirming about "commie plots."

International law applies in all sorts of practical as well as technical situations. Who cares what an idiot like you thinks? The fact that the U.S. congress rolled over and allowed the unelected cabal of Cheney and company to launch a grotesquely illegal and immoral war is in fact very similar to their similar cave-in on repealing the Glass-Steagall act and other legislation regulating reckless banking practices. But while being passively accommodating is bad, it's not as pernicious and degrading as the initial criminals themselves--PNAC, AIPAC, etc.

Your fronting the cowardly fake bluster of some imaginary bellicose American jingoism is a tedious joke as usual.

Lillian Vernon wrote: I don't even believe in the concept of "international law."

Treaties are the way we are supposed to deal with other countries on an individual or group basis. The whole concept of "international law" is total commie crap and is one of the biggest threats we face. The idea that we should have to consult with some international authority before defending ourselves is absurd and should be vigorously rejected. Whether you agreed we were defending ourselves by invading Iraq is irrelevant to the point that our elected leaders decided it was, making this whole left wing talking point of an "illegal war" complete BUNK.

So what you are basically saying (or your talking points [pints?] are saying for you) is that the war in Iraq, which is specifically not okayed by Art 1 is fine by you, but 'international law' which are nothing more than treaties and are specifically okayed by Art 1 are not 'American' but 'Commie crap.' Do I have that about right?

Do you two left-wing whack jobs believe we should sign on to an international criminal court?

Lillian Vernon wrote:Do you two left-wing whack jobs believe we should sign on to an international criminal court?

I think you should turn yourself in to whatever local magistrate will accommodate you. You are obviously in some disgusting state of self-humiliation--perhaps to the point of harming yourself.

Weasel, the idea of impersonating someone else just so you can blather the same tired crap is pretty sad. As to why you're pretending to be female...who cares?

Don't answer my question with a question you stupid skank.

Lillian Vernon wrote:

poptart wrote:If war was to be declared against Iraq, it was Congress who needed to do the declaring.

Ummm... That's essentially what they did by giving him the authority to invade.

By the same token, they also gave him authority not to invade.

The founders set up the Constitution so that in the matter of UTMOST seriousness to the people -- WAR, it would be a decsion made by the people, which is Congress.

Congress (the people) didn't declare war in Iraq.

They said, "You do what you think, Mr. President."

The Constitution wasn't set up so that one dipshit in the oval office could send the country into war if HE said so.

Congress acted entirely irresponsibly, as did the president, who should have said to Congress, "Here is the case for war against Iraq -- vote for it, I urge you."

Congress didn't vote for it.

They voted to pass the buck.

Puss out.

Btw, keep your ridiculous shit troll out of the NFL Forum.

If you've got an issue with Scott, take it up via PM.

Middle Finger was responding to his ridiculous PM.

He rarely posts here since he has no game whatsoever, so I have no choice than to go where he is posting.

There is no mandated form a declaration of war by Congress must take, therefore their vote was a declaration of war. The decision was made by the proper branch. They could have said no, but they said YES.

They didn't say yes.

They said for the president to make up his mind about it ... and either way was fine with them.


Article One, Section Eight says that Congress shall have power to declare war.

Nowhere does it say the president has such power.


I've already been around the block with mvscal about this and I can see that the same thing will happen with you.

See it as you wish.

"Maybe" is not "no," so they didn't stop it.

I see your point that they were pussies about it, but it wasn't "illegal" like Clinton bombing Serbia without even bothering to consult Congress at all. In fact, several Congressmen put together a resolution to try to stop him and were ignored.

I just wonder why the left-wing whackos above were not in such a hysteria about that.

Wait. Clinton had a D after his name, so his deliberate massacre of civilians in Serbia could never be illegal.

Diogenes wrote:

Lillian Vernon wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Well, when you're a closeted homosexual and you've just finished an eight year run as (unelected) Puppet In Chief for the vile AIPAC contagion--facilitating and committing colossal international war crimes in the process--you'd be feeling a bit suicidal as well. What you saw in the Chimp's dazed remarks was a man fleeing the truth as much as he can.

...simper....whimper....squirm....

Lemme ask you a question...

Bad idea.

I told you.

Moving Sale wrote:Don't answer my question with a question you stupid skank.

Why should I bother when it was such a stupid question?

The body of INTERNATIONAL LAW concocted by the United Nations called the "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" defines a TREATY as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law."

International laws may be termed "treaties," but they are not the same thing. It's just another way for this "world council" called the UN to stick their noses in everything. Treaties are more of a contractual agreement between states. International law would be the law that governs those contracts. See the difference, or are you this much of an idiot?

If two states have an agreement with each other, their OWN laws should govern how they handle it, not some panel of foreign bureaucrats. International law is one world government bullshit and if you are so opposed to globalism you should reject the concept as well.

Now answer my question as to whether or not we should sign on to the international criminal court.

Shut up. "J-Mak"--and stop pretending to be a chick.

International law is very necessary institution in a world of narrowing interests. Obviously Cheney and company don't want an international court because they'd be quickly indicted and convicted. Same withe Israeli government. And others. Criminals are like that.

And you think it's a good idea to give a foreign body of third-world tin pot dictators the authority to bring charges against our leaders?

I find that prospect more frightening than any of your tin foil mad hatter conspiracy theories.