Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Oct 3 debate in review

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
i suggest you check out snopes where this is listed as a false story about Obama. If you are basing your opposition to him on a conservative lie then you might want to reconsider your position.
That article confirms what he said, it doesn't prove it false. What your link proves false is a piece of satire about his attitudes after the proposal was dropped that was passed around as true. The actual event of attempting to bill their own insurance happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
That's a) not actually illegal and b) was the right thing to do. I suspect that's why no one cared
Same with Iraq, and look at how that one turned out in the press.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
That's a) not actually illegal and b) was the right thing to do. I suspect that's why no one cared
The War Powers Act says President has to get approval of Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. We were bombing them longer than 60 days and he neither got permission nor ceased hostilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html?_r=0When Mr. Obama first announced American military involvement in Libya, he notified Congress within 48 hours, as prescribed by the War Powers Act. This initiated a 60-day period, during which he was required to obtain approval from Congress; if he failed to do so, the act gave him at most 30 days to halt all “hostilities.”

Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama — armed with dubious legal opinions — is refusing to stop America’s military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.


Anti-War people are really just anti-war when there is a Republican as President.

I can't just copy and paste this right off of Snopes for some reason, so I'll have to type it out:

Quote:
The basis of Mr. Semmen's satire was that, in conjunction with meeting with several veteran's groups in March 2009, the Obama administration floated a proposal to save the federal government an estimated $540 million per year by billing veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of their combat injuries and other service-related health problems.
While what I recall from CNN was a misrepresentation (reminding me immediately of "I can see Russia from my house" -Tina Fey) the "true facts" of the matter are still morally wrong.

And the war powers act has been violated by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. It was passed in 1973, which is hardly 75 years of legal tradition even if any president had recognized it as constitutionally valid law, which has not been done either by any sitting president nor the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
And the war powers act has been violated by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. It was passed in 1973, which is hardly 75 years of legal tradition even if any president had recognized it as constitutionally valid law, which has not been done either by any sitting president nor the courts.
I'd like to see some links on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Anti-War people are really just anti-war when there is a Republican as President.
Strikes me they're really just opposed to invasions. They apparently have nothing against bombing. F'rinstance, Clinton ordered many, many bombing strikes in many countries around the world. Not a peep.

Considering bombing achieves nothing except destruction and pissing people off with none of the reconstruction and stabilization efforts afterwards, I find this astonishingly short-sighted.

The true facts are that this was a suggestion made in the early days which he withdrew within 48 hours that had been given to him by a staffer. If you expect absolute perfection from every president then you will be sorely disapointed.
Meanwhile the GOP is cutting $11 billion from VA benefits as you can see here, which is a very real insult to the military, as well as a hardship for veterans.

Silver, you simply casually brushed aside something from a non-biased source (Snopes) saying "people make mistakes" and then link to a political op-ed piece from a website that doesn't even pretend at non-bias. I read through it, including the first four paragraphs and last three paragraphs that were nothing but blatant propaganda. (For those that want to just cut to the chase, skip to the 5th paragraph.)

I honestly don't know enough about the proposal. It sounds to me like Romney proposed replacing VA care with vouchers for private care, which sounds like what they're already doing with housing. Honestly, I could dig that on my end, since my own VA is an hour drive each way, having a private option would allow me to get health care more locally. But, I would have to find more about it.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us