G W BUSH "bad intelligence"

[jimnyc]

And of course once again, about 15 "quotes" of the past that aren't actually quoted. Gotta love when someone makes up their own past!

When some in the past said shit like "blacks should be able to do as they please as they were marginalized" and perhaps others intimated things like "it's white folks that brought us to here" or "riots and destroying things" is a civil right". Or that "black lives in Chicago mean nothing" to some because it doesn't fit the agenda". Or good times on the board when folks state things like "muslims should have more rights than catholics".

Folks wouldn't care much, right, as since no one quoted, none will be any wiser. I mean, WHO are they going to think actually made any such statements? So I can toss out any generalization I care to - but just surround it with quotations and all is good, SOMEONE must have said it in the past, and since I quoted it, that confirms it. But are those the "exact" words you actually wrote? Only I know for sure. But about right of course.

[jimnyc]

can't imagine why he does that.

I do.

[jimnyc]

Also FACTUAL:

-WMD's WERE found, both found, and watched moving.
-Again, old non-weaponized found. But "some" know better and think the age did them in, even though inspectors state otherwise. "Some here" know better. LOL
-Bush did NOT lie
- The war in Iraq was legit
- the 12 years of failed resolutions brought it about, even if they had no weapons. That's what full unfettered inspections are for

-and it's STILL funny watching "some" of the frothers out there!

[jimnyc]

This is exactly how "some" of the folks actually look when they disagree with anything and everything government:

[Black Diamond]

This is exactly how "some" of the folks actually look when they disagree with anything and everything government:

[jimnyc]

can't imagine why he does that.

Do yourself a favor - go to advanced search here on the board, do a search on "Obama" with the username "revelarts", tell it to search titles only - open and check out these whole 27 threads in 6 pages of results, from how many years? Mind you, NOT ALL of them are even negative of Obama. Now do a search the same, but instead of Obama, place in "Trump".

Odd that he's created 38 threads about Trump in 1/4 of the time. And sure, both have issues, both had issues. I would love to hear "well, Obama just wasn't as bad".

[jimnyc]

-the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval.

-The law’s text frames it as a means of guaranteeing that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply” whenever the American armed forces are deployed overseas. - easy to defeat the latest whinefest about Syria as Trump didn't deploy troops into Syria.

- To that end, it requires the President to consult with the legislature “in every possible instance” before committing troops to war. - which he and others did via the intelligence committees. Not to mention, to those whining, there was no committing troops to a war.

-the responsibility to notify Congress within 48 hours whenever military forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” - was reported and completed.

-the law stipulates that Presidents are required to end foreign military actions after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue. - as has been told to the whiners many times, the Prez has 60 days to continue as is, and then must seek further congressional approval. Was completed in Iraq, and not necessary with Syria.

- The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force

Of course "some" will see things that don't exist, find fault with everything but Obama, declare laws broken when none were, will state "the usa regularly breaks the law and constitution when a republican is in office" and even some others will state "it's always been about oil and nothing more than oil" and will even proclaim "to have heard with their own ears that this is the case".

And yet the facts are CRYSTAL CLEAR. But folks have stated that "the resolution doesn't matter at all" and that "I know it's unconstitutional from day one, and even overheard some say that". "some" will say that Obama was the only righteous one, even if lead wrong by others at times, but at least followed the law and constitution. Truth!!

[revelarts]

Yup, that about wraps up the entire past, present, and likely endless future. Things can only be explained factually so many ways and times. If it isn't fully understood by then, it most likely never will be
Personally, I find the act to be crystal clear, and apparently our presidents and congress mostly think so as well.
It's like teaching someone advanced calculus. If they are taught 50x, by various teachers, and the folks that designed the use of, then perhaps time for the student to drop said class and move onto another course.

maybe... sure sometimes it is the student's fault , but sometimes it's just poor teachers.

Funny thing is, I asked 4 simply questions to specifically clarify the "calculus" to me, but no one has replied directly.
Does that mean the teachers don't have any good answers? Or that maybe it shows the teachers are wrong?
who knows. But If it's so clear to you guys , folks would think someone could provide a clear reply to the questions.

Swearing over and over endlessly does nothing at all to advance your debate.

I haven't swore have i?

Posting the same things via youtube videos makes no difference. The arguments are soft, but you outright believe ANYONE who agrees with your position.

I replied to reasonably replies here.
But one called me stupid. you implied it here as well, would you call those less than soft "debate" points?
but hey if that's the best some folks can do as far as arguments go, oh well.

But IS funny that you have always leaped from Bush and now to Trump, and pretty much never outright went after, or go after Obama. Pretty much only when someone calls you on it as I do now. And then we'll get the obligatory "Well yeah, he was no better" and that's about the end of that.

Tried to provided apples to apples as best i could. Russ couldn't even see the comparison between Bush and Trump.
Obama and Trump ON THIS ISSUE is a longer stretch.
Bush accused Saddam of WMDs and attacked.
Trump Accused Assad of WMDs and Attacked.
Obama Accused Assad of WMDs and DID NOT attack.
So it's a more of stretch to Use Obama here. Even his unconstitutional actions against Libya (which i condemned often at the time) were based on slightly different premises. And were carried out in a slightly different way. Not DIRECT missle strikes or open use of troops.

But hey, If there's a next time I'll use Obama 1st if that make you feel better.
It is odd that folks really have a very hard time seeing past partisan politics. And paste POVs on folks based on SILENCE.

[revelarts]

can't imagine why he does that.

well frankly, You should ask me directly.
I'm not shy with my opinions am I BD?

And we all know what assuming does for us.

[jimnyc]

maybe... sure sometimes it is the student's fault , but sometimes it's just poor teachers.

Funny thing is, I asked 4 simply questions to specifically clarify the "calculus" to me, but no one has replied directly.
Does that mean the teachers don't have any good answers? Or that maybe it shows the teachers are wrong?
who knows. But If it's so clear to you guys , folks would think someone could provide a clear reply to the questions.

Because sometimes even teachers get tired of repeating themselves over and over and wasting time on students that ask over and over and fail to comprehend. Why spend repetitive time with them. Students as such get sent to remedial school.

If not, then soldier on without, I couldn't care less.

[jimnyc]

well frankly, You should ask me directly.
I'm not shy with my opinions am I BD?

And we all know what assuming does for us.

Well, there ya go then BD! Ask him why so many threads on Trump, and especially in comparison to Obama. And why Obama, who the entire nation thinks wiped his ass with the constitution.... and Rev is supposed to be ALL ABOUT the constitution - seemingly gave the man a pass but when truly pressed. Odd them apples!

[revelarts]

-the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval.

-The law’s text frames it as a means of guaranteeing that “the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply” whenever the American armed forces are deployed overseas. - easy to defeat the latest whinefest about Syria as Trump didn't deploy troops into Syria.

- To that end, it requires the President to consult with the legislature “in every possible instance” before committing troops to war. - which he and others did via the intelligence committees. Not to mention, to those whining, there was no committing troops to a war.

-the responsibility to notify Congress within 48 hours whenever military forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” - was reported and completed.

-the law stipulates that Presidents are required to end foreign military actions after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue. - as has been told to the whiners many times, the Prez has 60 days to continue as is, and then must seek further congressional approval. Was completed in Iraq, and not necessary with Syria.

- The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force

...

OK Jim,

I got it, I've read that before . the problem I have is that you don't sight ALL of the Act.
You quote those potions in isolation. What about the other limits? why don't you mention those?

You are concerned about the president following ALL of the law right not just the PART you mention here correct?
In calculus you have to use all of the portions in the equation to get the correct answer right?

[Black Diamond]

well frankly, You should ask me directly.
I'm not shy with my opinions am I BD?

And we all know what assuming does for us.

First of all, I'll ask Jim anything I want to ask him until he says "I don't feel like answering" or something of that nature. Certainly isn't your prerogative to say what I can and can't ask him.

And I already knew the answer to my question, and was pretty sure Jim knew as well. And the answer doesn't involve your vote in 2008 or 2012.

[jimnyc]

OK Jim,

I got it, I've read that before . the problem I have is that you don't sight ALL of the Act.
You quote those potions in isolation. What about the other limits? why don't you mention those?

You are concerned about the president following ALL of the law right not just the PART you mention here correct?
In calculus you have to use all of the portions in the equation to get the correct answer right?

It's "cite" not sight, tired of seeing that "typo". Sorry, pet peeve of mine, sue me.

The entire thing has been written and rewritten on this website many times for you. I quoted the portions necessary to make the point. There is NOTHING in the entire resolution that remotely overrides the ability of the president to let congress know, then take matters into his executive power for 60 days, and then would need to return to them in 60 days if any plans of going further. There is nothing, nada, zilch in this resolution that will change that.

Please don't try and act all educated because I purposely spelled out things for you that you FAIL to comprehend, no matter how many times the resolution is shown to you, no matter how many people and no matter how explained.

You can micro-quote until your head explodes, pick away til your head explodes, declare that so many presidents have been wrong til your head explodes and how certain individuals side with you un... you get the point.

MY only point is making it clear once again, not to debate with you. The debate has done many a times and many a folks debated you and schooled you. You just keep coming back thinking you know better. You don't.

[jimnyc]

Do yourself a favor - go to advanced search here on the board, do a search on "Obama" with the username "revelarts", tell it to search titles only - open and check out these whole 27 threads in 6 pages of results, from how many years? Mind you, NOT ALL of them are even negative of Obama. Now do a search the same, but instead of Obama, place in "Trump".

Odd that he's created 38 threads about Trump in 1/4 of the time. And sure, both have issues, both had issues. I would love to hear "well, Obama just wasn't as bad".

Troof!! I should be very very fraid I suppose.