Right-wing irrational rage

[spittledip]

is that dave? Not what I expected

You did not expect him to have the ability to smile?

Upon second glance, that is more of a smirk than a smile.

 

[soccerballtux]

You did not expect him to have the ability to smile?

I suppose that too, but I pictured someone thoroughly malnourished and mentally unstable looking, not a normal looking well adjusted American.
This changes my opinion of him. He's clearly trolling and knows better, but gets away with it.

 

[cybrsage]

😵

Originally Posted by cybrsage

I am going to answer anyway. WW2 was the last war we fought.



Why are you guys not sanctioning his posts?

He has been posting some crazy shit since last November.

Looks really bad.

Probably because the last time the United States fought in a declared war was in World War 2. There is a difference in a number of things between declared war and "war" as it's waged without the formal declaration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Yep, every military conflict since the end of WW2 have not been wars. They have been UN Police Actions, NATO Police Actions, etc.

The US has not fought a war since the end of WW2.

 

[Jaskalas]

I suppose that too, but I pictured someone thoroughly malnourished and mentally unstable looking, not a normal looking well adjusted American.
This changes my opinion of him. He's clearly trolling and knows better, but gets away with it.

You judge books by their cover. That is a dangerous trait.

 

[monovillage]

FFS quit being personal with these insults and garbage, i doubt i'm the only one getting tired of it.

 

[spittledip]

FFS quit being personal with these insults and garbage, i doubt i'm the only one getting tired of it.

Just in time for the new rules!

 

[pcgeek11]

is that dave? Not what I expected

Exactly what I envisioned. LOL

 

[werepossum]

Thanks 😀

I've never understood why one needs to say something in 100 words when 10 will suffice. Certainly there are individual styles of posting but at some point the message gets lost in sheer volume. There are times when a more detailed explanation of one's thoughts are appropriate and in fact desirable for clarity sake. When you make a longer post that's what you tend to do. Contrast that to others who seemingly could not make a 50 word response if their life depended on it.

To be fair the premise of rage on the part of some from the right is correct. Certainly there are enough people being paid considerable sums in the media to drum up such sentiments. Some ire is warranted IMO, however there needs to be discernment in such things. Weighing down legitimate criticism with the burden of inane conspiracy claims (Sheriff Joe and his quest to prove Obama's birth certificate is a current example) is ultimately self defeating.

Perversely perhaps the OP has a history of doing the same thing. Fonda is a poor example of misguided rage in any day as has been shown in prior posts. To bring it up today? That's foolish and a tactical error. I consider it that because he and the sputtering right extremists have one thing in common and that is an agenda. The styles are different, where we have a trolling Limbaugh as an example, but he's rather transparent. Subtlety will not earn him fame and fortune.

Then we have the professorial lecture style which is dressed up in the guise of an educator, or so it seems to me. Initially it's controlled until someone dares challenge the post or it's creator. Then we descend to the "idiots and liars" phase.

Recognize both forms of expression for what they are not, specifically an invitation to open and honest debate.

Now I've gone on, eh? 🙂

Many words do not make a wise man.

Good post, as usual.

 

[ElFenix]

Yep, every military conflict since the end of WW2 have not been wars. They have been UN Police Actions, NATO Police Actions, etc.

The US has not fought a war since the end of WW2.

this is the level of discourse of a second grader who has just discovered that technicality. it's bullshit and we all know it's bullshit.

what is difference between a document titled 'delcaration of war' and a document titled 'authorization for use of military force'? the constitution does not specify a format for the use of the power to declare war, and congress has never gotten around to passing a law about it. if a document says 'bomb these guys here' and is passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, there is nothing in the constitution or any statute that says one title makes it a declaration of war and others do not.

 

[Genx87]

Another fail234 thread. I only glanced through the rubbish you posted craig. But a couple of your examples of right wing irrational rage are placed 40 years ago. Why stop there?

 

[monovillage]

this is the level of discourse of a second grader who has just discovered that technicality. it's bullshit and we all know it's bullshit.

what is difference between a document titled 'delcaration of war' and a document titled 'authorization for use of military force'? the constitution does not specify a format for the use of the power to declare war, and congress has never gotten around to passing a law about it. if a document says 'bomb these guys here' and is passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, there is nothing in the constitution or any statute that says one title makes it a declaration of war and others do not.

I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. It's my opinion that a formal declaration of war is different then other formats. This is an interesting site that doesn't say one way or another, but does have pertinent information.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

 

[ElFenix]

I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. It's my opinion that a formal declaration of war is different then other formats. This is an interesting site that doesn't say one way or another, but does have pertinent information.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

how was the authorization to use military force in iraq not formal?

 

[monovillage]

how was the authorization to use military force in iraq not formal?

The Desert Shield/Storm authorization was different then the Iraqi Freedom authorization.

The Desert Storm authorization used the U.N. security council resolution 678. Bush did get a joint resolution passed in the House and Senate, but claimed:
"President Bush said that as Commander-in-chief he did not need Congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq and that his request for a Congressional joint resolution was merely a courtesy to Congress."
This is the main difference between the 2 Iraq wars.

The Iraqi Freedom authorization was a joint resolution passed by Congress.
"United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force
There are laws that require a declared war to take effect, treason is just one of them. It's been charged in one case, but hasn't been tried and hasn't been cleared by the Courts.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-rep-wants-treason-charge-for-document-leaker

My point is that's it's not settled and there is a difference. H.W. Bush contested the need for its authorization, G. Bush didn't, but neither took the full and formal declaration of war path.

 

[ElFenix]

presidents since the beginning have claimed they don't need congressional approval to act. that's particularly been a struggle since the war powers act.

and i'll note that, despite the elder's assertions to the contrary, it was still passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. just like the declarations against the germans and japanese in wwii.

romeo and juliet, II, ii, 1-2.

 

[monovillage]

presidents since the beginning have claimed they don't need congressional approval to act. that's particularly been a struggle since the war powers act.

and i'll note that, despite the elder's assertions to the contrary, it was still passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. just like the declarations against the germans and japanese in wwii.

romeo and juliet, II, ii, 1-2.

I'm not arguing from a practical point of view, but from a legal one, where they pick nits for a living. The fact that wiki and other legal sites differentiate between "declared wars" and police actions etc. shows that it isn't a settled matter.

whew i got the romeo and juliet, II, ii, 1-2 reference correct. off hand!

 

[cybrsage]

this is the level of discourse of a second grader who has just discovered that technicality...

Then I suggest you graduate to a higher level of discourse so you can join the rest of us.

 

[BoberFett]

Speaking of irrational rage, there's another gun thread going.

Oh wait, that's irrational left wing rage. My bad.

 

[blankslate]

I'm what people would consider a lefty by many of my positions.

I like guns. I'd even find shooting fully automatic weapons at the range fun.

However, I don't find reasonable regulations on firearms to be an infringement on my freedoms.

Keep in mind that recently under the Obama Administration gun owners have seen an expansion of gun rights. Now you can carry legal firearms in national parks. If he was really as anti-gun as people like to claim then he would have taken a dogmatic approach to the law that provision was attached to and vetoed it instead of making the concession.

 

[Craig234]

I'm what people would consider a lefty by many of my positions.

I like guns. I'd even find shooting fully automatic weapons at the range fun.

However, I don't find reasonable regulations on firearms to be an infringement on my freedoms.

Keep in mind that recently under the Obama Administration gun owners have seen an expansion of gun rights. Now you can carry legal firearms in national parks. If he was really as anti-gun as people like to claim then he would have taken a dogmatic approach to the law that provision was attached to and vetoed it instead of making the concession.

One more example of the main technique I've said Republicans use to get votes, straw men - 'Obama wants to take all your gun rights away'.

Just as he hates freedom, America, capitalism, religion, white people.

The rage I mentioned makes people fall for that more.

 

[BoberFett]

One more example of the main technique I've said Republicans use to get votes, straw men - 'Obama wants to take all your gun rights away'.

Just as he hates freedom, America, capitalism, religion, white people.

The rage I mentioned makes people fall for that more.

Go tell that to your fellow lefty ragers in that thread talking about how gun owners have wet dreams about shooting people and how the whole country is going to turn into the wild west.

Hyperbole knows no political boundaries, and your side rages with the best of them.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cybrsage]

I'm what people would consider a lefty by many of my positions.

I like guns. I'd even find shooting fully automatic weapons at the range fun.

However, I don't find reasonable regulations on firearms to be an infringement on my freedoms.

I am sure everyone agrees there must be limitations placed on the second amendment. For example, you cannot own nuclear, biological, or chemical arms. You cannot own wmd style arms. Etc.

The fight is over where the line is drawn. Some say the writers of the Constitution were all morons who did not understand what a city was (while writing it in the city of Philadelphia), others say they were morons who intended there to be no limitations on arms. The truth is obviously in the middle.

 

[monovillage]

presidents since the beginning have claimed they don't need congressional approval to act. that's particularly been a struggle since the war powers act.

and i'll note that, despite the elder's assertions to the contrary, it was still passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. just like the declarations against the germans and japanese in wwii.

romeo and juliet, II, ii, 1-2.

It's a recent enough thread that I thought i'd add this article which I think is relevant.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...n-congress-youre-irrelevant-andrew-c-mccarthy

Let me say this about that.

1. Secretary Panetta disingenuously conflates two different principles in dodging Sen. Jeff Sessions’ questions.

Principle I: No one disputes that the president may act without congressional approval when the national security of the United States is truly threatened — I think even Ron Paul agrees that if our nation is attacked or is in imminent danger of being attacked, the president is obliged to use whatever force is necessary to overcome our enemies and protect our interests.

Principle II: No one disputes that, if U.S. interests are so gravely threatened that the use of force is justified, and there is time to assemble a coalition of nations whose interests are similarly threatened, it makes sense to seek the endorsement of relevant international tribunals.

Panetta, however, mashes these two principles together and comes up with something that everyone should dispute: Namely, that anytime a president decides to use force, regardless of whether the national security of the United States is actually threatened, he just needs to get the approval of an international tribunal — with no need for congressional authorization, notwithstanding that Congress (our representatives on our behalf) would be expected to pay for the whole thing (with our money).

 

[FuzzyBee]

Eh?

Are you implying by not responding that Harvey is a far-out extremist?

As I expected, Craig fails to answer when he's called on his own BS.