Ted Kennedy, Still an embarresment to the country even in death

Onceler said:
That's your justification?

Do you have any moral compass? At all?
Click to expand...

Me? I wasn't even born. What is your point? Did you want to discuss history or each other's personal feelings? I don't know what you expect people to do when their civilians are getting bombed other than reciprocate. Do you have any other ideas as to how the Brits could have stopped the Germans from bombing them?
 
Onceler said:
Semantics...really? So, you think the characterization, "resolution to invade," is apt?

You think when the Congressmen & women went to the floor that day, they said, "if we vote yes, we're voting to invade"?
Click to expand...

unless they were total idiots, yes.....I grant you, some of them were Democrats, so that may have happened.......
 
bravo said:
Or that something is not permitted if its not explicitly mentioned.....either way....
Thats seems to be the big arguement......exactly.....
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 didn't explicitly mention that the US shouldn't rape, vandalize, loot, kill civilians for thrills, and take body parts as souvenirs, so that means they're permitted. :rolleyes:
 
christiefan915 said:
Oh, I see. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and the Iraq War Resolution of 2002 didn't explicitly mention that the US shouldn't rape, vandalize, loot, kill civilians for thrills, and take body parts as souvenirs, so that means they're permitted. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course, your post is facetious,.... there are laws, rules and regulations that can't be ignored in any situation, having not served, you might not be familiar with the UCMJ and various other publications referring to conduct in the military..................

but generally, that seems to be the big disagreement I have onecell........hes under the impression that if something not explicitly mentioned then its not

permitted.....

Thats why he insists the Iraq War Resolution didn't give Bush congressional permission to invade.....because "invasion" wasn't explicitly mentioned. I'm

certainly glad you see how ridiculous his perspective is.......and I'm equally surprised you didn't take his side in the matter......though I believe you thought

you were........I think you wanted to take his side and really didn't understood what each of us was saying.....

The Iraq War Resolution, passed by a bi-partisan vote in Congress, gave Bush the authority to do whatever he thought was necessary to do about Saddam,

including invasion. case closed
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Of course, your post is facetious,.... there are laws, rules and regulations that can't be ignored in any situation,...............

but generally, that seems to be the big disagreement I have onecell........hes under the impression that if something not explicitly mentioned then its not

permitted.....

Thats why he insists the Iraq War Resolution didn't give Bush congressional permission to invade.....because "invasion" wasn't explicitly mentioned. I'm

certainly glad you see how ridiculous his perspective is.......and I'm equally surprised you didn't take his side in the matter......though I believe you thought you

were........I think you wanted to take his side and really didn't understood what each of us was saying.....

The Iraq War Resolution gave Bush the authority to do whatever he thought was necessary to do about Saddam, including invasion. case closed
Click to expand...

Where did I say "invasion isn't permitted?"

You are dopey as hell.
 
Onceler said:
Well, Dick Armey - no Democrat, he - has argued the same thing I'm arguing.

But, you're the clever one. Really.
Click to expand...

Is Dick Armey your new authority on issues ?

I don't really give a shit what Dick Armey, Dick Tracy, or even Dick Clark have to say about the matter....its irrelevant...

Did you ever hear the legal term "de facto", and do you have an understanding of what
the term means ?

De facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact."

In our discussion.....the wording of Iraq War Resolution gave Bush, de facto permission to do
anything he decided was necessary to attain the goals set.....

Congress, Democrats and Republicans, voted and gave permission for Bush to use harsh words,
sanctions, bombing attack, missile attack, and anything in between or beyond these actions to
achieve the desired aims....including invasion.....THAT IS WHAT THEY VOTED FOR

IF you learn to read, comprehend, and understand the words, you won't have
these problems with mis-representing and mis-stating history....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Is Dick Armey your new authority on issues ?

I don't really give a shit what Dick Armey, Dick Tracy, or even Dick Clark have to say about the matter....its irrelevant...

Did you ever hear the legal term "de facto", and do you have an understanding of what
the term means ?

De facto designates action of what happens in practice. It is analogous and similar to the expressions "for all intents and purposes" or "in fact."

In our discussion.....the wording of Iraq War Resolution gave Bush, de facto permission to do
anything he decided was necessary to attain the goals set.....

Congress, Democrats and Republicans, voted and gave permission for Bush to use harsh words,
sanctions, bombing attack, missile attack, and anything in between or beyond these actions to
achieve the desired aims....

IF you learn to read, comprehend, and understand the words, you won't have
these problems with mis-representing and mis-stating history....
Click to expand...


Only because "he lied".
 
The righties are such liars.

I'm tellin' ya - in 10 years or so, we'll be arguing with them about the "fact" that Bush fought like hell not to go to war, but was pushed by Congressional Dems....
 
Onceler said:
Well, Dick Armey - no Democrat, he - has argued the same thing I'm arguing.

But, you're the clever one. Really.
Click to expand...

Dick Armey argues that the folks voting for the authorization of use of force in Iraq didn't contemplate an invasion at the time?......I doubt he argued it, and if he did, I doubt it's true.....I supposed it might be supported, if you assume that not a single Democrat was aware of what had been going on at the UN leading up to the authorization.....but if your defense of the Democrats who voted for the resolution is that they were oblivious to current events, it will not turn out well for you......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top