|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Why do you say that, Danny? Kind of insulting.
Of course I'll answer. I believe that Lobo is referring to allegations by right wing commentators like Laura Ingraham that King and his wife Coretta would have opposed immigration reform today. This is based on a twenty-two year old letter signed by Coretta King. Quote:
Conservative media are turning to a 22-year-old letter signed by Coretta Scott King to accuse immigration reform activists of co-opting the civil rights movement. They deceptively argue that the letter proves Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta would have opposed the modern immigration reform movement. The rather lengthy article then goes on to discuss various analyses of what MLK's vews likely were. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08/30/......r/195680 It concludes with: Quote: Ingraham's shallow commentary on the interconnected history of the civil rights and immigration reform movements is unsurprising. She has contributed little that is useful to understanding either issue, exceling instead in demonizing immigrants and attacking those who support reform to accusing progressives of co-opting civil rights. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 18:49, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: If it helps, recent statements from a White House spokesperson should clarify my asking another question recently. I think if it isn't already apparent, we'll soon see that what Joe Biden (after careful consideration and consultation with top experts) thought was an inpeachable offense in 2008...well, he magically probably doesn't think so in 2013.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
For what it's worth Lobo, and for those who think I'm somehow in lockstep with Obama, I don't believe that an attack on Syria would be constitutional without congressional authorization. For it to be so, the adminstration would have to make the case that the US, its military, or territories, had been attacked or were in imminent danger. There may be an attempt, though, to argue that that includes "US interests."
That would be a difficult case to make, I think. The interesting question is whether or not "congressional authorization" is interpreted to mean that the Congress actually has to hold a full vote. I laughed when I saw George W. Bush give his opinion on the news today. He appears to be all for it- he said he doesn't like Assad very much because he does a lot of "mischief." |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Thanks, Bob...I inferred that, but I appreciate the clarification. I like it when people I'm discussing issues with are explicit about their views.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I wonder if he thinks it is an impeachable offense any longer?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I imagine that he'll make the case that US interests were indeed under imminent threat, thus authorizing action pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
What anyone ACTUALLY believes, though, is the real question. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
"US interests" being under imminent threat wasn't the standard.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 19:09, LobowolfXXX wrote: So on the topic of O'Reilly assuming that conservatives and Republicans were not invited to the MLK celebration, asserting it as factual, and later apologizing you want to say 1. The President wants to add illegal immigrants to the work force, 2. The Vice President may commit an act he said was impeachable in 2008 (I'm guessing you think there will be a declaration of war without the approval of Congress). Lobo, is that really you?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 20:48, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: I believe I was the first one to directly address those topics. Having done so, I moved on to address the issue of views of the speakers and how well they may or may not have matched Dr. King's views, in certain respects - a subtopic that I didn't introduce.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 20:36, LobowolfXXX wrote: I know that, but it's a possible construction they might give it. I'm just thinking, as a hypothetical, how an administration lawyer would interpret the resolution in order to justify a limited missile strike without congressional authorization, and I think I've found a possible loophole. The pertinent part of the Resolution reads: Quote:
(a) Congressional declaration It might possibly be argued that the firing of missiles into Syria from naval vessels in international waters does not constitute an "introduction of United States Armed Forces" into hostilities, since no US Forces would in fact be introduced into Syria. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 20:56, mastermindreader wrote: I wasn't referring to constitutionality, but what Biden claimed constituted an impeachable offense.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 02:08, LobowolfXXX wrote: To follow up, I'd say that "careless" was an understatement.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I know that. I told you I'm just doing a hypothetical. But if the construction I've given above is, in fact, adopted, there would, arguably be no impeachable offense according to Biden's statement, because the Iran situation to which he was referring, would have involved the physical introduction of US troops and pilots into Iranian territory.
Now that I think about it, why wasn't the attemped Iranian hostage rescue during the Carter administration deemed a violation of the War Powers Resolution as it definitely involved the introduction of US armed forces into Iran? They key question in both instances is- What constitutes the "introduction of US Armed Forces" into another country? |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
... even though he declared in writing as a U.S. senator, "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."
I believe that your hypo would still be "a military attack," even without an invasion by forces.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Sorry, I mixed my metaphors...that was actually Obama's statement. You may very well be right about Biden. Arguably.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
The question should be what Biden meant and said. Not what some lawyer 100X smarter than him can twist his words to mean. They should let him speak for himself. It would be HILARIOUS!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Danny-
That's why people need lawyers! Lobo- But what do you think of my hypothetical? I think the argument could be made, and might well be. The actual resolution refers to the physical "introduction of US Armed Forces." If there are no boots on the ground or piloted aircraft in their airspace, it could be argued that a strategic missile strike from offshore warships would not be a violation. Yes, Obama used the word "attack" and that is a bit problematic. But that won't be a deciding factor in deciding if the War Powers Resolution is interpreted the way I suggested. All he'd have to say is that his statement about Iran was in reference to an actual invasion by US troops. But his opponents would be all over it, I'm sure. |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
As well they should be.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
The problem is that Obama put himself between the rock and the hard place when he made his "red line" statement many months ago. Now that it has apparently been conclusively proven that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on its own people in violation of every international accord since the end of World War I, failure to do anything would be something his opponents would mercilessly attack him for. That would be a possible motivation for opposing members of Congress to refuse authorization. even if they believed an attack was justified.
On the other hand, if he acts without authorization, it becomes a legal muddle that the opposition will milk as much as possible. Thus, in retrospect, he never should have given the "red line" ultimatum. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Turns out he can't blame Bush either. That is his go to plan.
Turns out it is tougher to be president than complaining about the guy who is. I hope he does not attack.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » O'Reilly -- Accusation and Apology (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |