Libya

[King Street Loon]

That boy looks like a prick, sounds like a prick and smells like a prick. I reckon, by sound logic and deductivissitudinalism, that he's a prick.

Jerry would call him a f**king c**t.

[King Street Loon]

And he would be right. A gay prick of a c**t at that.

Jimmy Saville should be set upon him.

 

Now then, now then!

[Jocky Balboa]

What we have to remember about Rand Paul are the following facts...

 

1. He represents Kentucky.

2. He's a Republican

 

Anything coming out of that c**t's gob has to be framed in that context.

 

Only a fool would completely dismiss an argument purely on the basis of WHO or WHAT the source is. Good intellectual debaters do not attack the individual, but look at the merits (or lack thereof) of the argument put forward.

 

...and just to clarify, Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son. Both are in fact Libertarians, NOT dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. They merely ran on a Republican ticket (as opposed to the Libertarian Party) because of the cancerous nature of the USA's political system that permits the two-party duopoly to prevail. I do not agree with everything either of them says by a LONG shot, but I do agree at least in part with the sentiments both have expressed with regards to this conflict.

[Jocky Balboa]

Your argument re who v. content is incontestable normally but the "credibility of the witness" is most definitely a valid consideration when discussing the presentation of a version of events as likely to be true or not.

 

Not that it applies in this instance thereby rendering my first line unnecessary and a waste of time.

 

He's just saying it how it is. Obama is a bam, a puppet front for a corrupt regime. End of story. Incontestable.

 

On the boy, is there not some major hypocrisy going down here? Unless he was agitating for Bush's impeachment, why is this republican suddenly applying the rule of law to the democrat president?

 

He may well have been for all I know but he's a dullard prick nevertheless. Needs a good shag and a blow out if you ask me. And it is well known that debating integrity is reduced with hair like that and a monotone delivery. God bless the North East.

 

Although he only took office in Jan 2011 and therefore had no say in the matter, Paul is on record as stating quite unequivocally that he opposed the war in Iraq and that it "creates more terrorists than it kills".

[BrianFaePerth]

Interesting thread this...

 

Meh tuppenceworth... Eh tend tae agree wi Kelt, especially as there are so many "unusual" aspects to 11 Sep, like Condoleeza Rice telling thon ambassador boy tae avoid NY on 11 Sep, the conveniently placed passports, etc etc.

 

Since then there's been the frequent terror alerts that have always resulted in some ethnic gentlemen going tae the cop shop only tae be quietly released a few days later. The latest coincided with the chairman of BA saying security at airports was largely a waste of time. Strange that.

 

As for thon liquids rule, it does of course completely prevent any inside job. We can all sleep easier knowing that

 

All in all eh feel we're jist we pawns in a large game of chess, expendable at any time should the need be.

[diamondsr4ever]

It's too late for the US. The neocons resort to the industrial war machine as a last stand but the truth is outing and has outed. Bush and Obama may be on the opposite of the political divide but they are one and the same, fronting a morally and financially bankrupt nation and lacking the power, integrity and ability to make any slight difference whatsoever. The Pauls speaking truthfully may be encouraging if there was any hope left for them but there isn't. For the record, Iraq wasn't about "killing terrorists", that was the line they reserved for Afghanastan. Dr. Kelly was killed by the corruption of the British government (directly or indirectly) and opposition to the war in Iraq was widespread even at the time. For this guy to say he opposed the war now is of zero consequence. It has since been proven to be a gross miscarriage of justice but until Bush, Cheney, Bliar et al get hung for crimes against humanity, this little hick boy isn't going to matter too much. He has the personality of a slug and is as similarly unqualified for high human office as a slug.

 

Isnt he at least trying to show this in his video-clip?

[Jonty]

Now you're complaining because you expect EVERYONE to take an absolute position, despite none of us being qualified to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

 

It's too late for the US. The neocons resort to the industrial war machine as a last stand but the truth is outing and has outed. Bush and Obama may be on the opposite of the political divide but they are one and the same, fronting a morally and financially bankrupt nation and lacking the power, integrity and ability to make any slight difference whatsoever.

 

[Jonty]

You lost your LA privileges. You stay gone.

 

Taking stuff out of context now? Pathetic. The truth about 9/11 is one thing. The US foreign policy, and their bankruptcy, another.

 

Instead of being a fud, disagree or debate with a specific point.

 

Bring out the gimp.

[diamondsr4ever]

Read again. I was talking about Bush and Obama.

 

I was refering to and making comment on below.

 

 

this little hick boy isn't going to matter too much. He has the personality of a slug and is as similarly unqualified for high human office as a slug.

[Ke1t]

Only a fool would completely dismiss an argument purely on the basis of WHO or WHAT the source is. Good intellectual debaters do not attack the individual, but look at the merits (or lack thereof) of the argument put forward.

 

Okay, well, maybe you need to learn to read for content before commenting on the intellect and debating skills of other posters, or calling others 'fool'.

 

I'll say it a different way, because I guess crystal clear isn't clear enough.

 

Rand Paul is a Republican. The President is a Democrat. American politics are about division and hypocritical personal attack. Ergo Republican attacks Democrat based upon political affiliation.

 

Rand Paul represents Kentucky. Kentucky was one of the Jim Crow states, and racial segregation dies hard. I've had the misfortune of living in Kentucky for the better part of a year, Lexington in fact, and can attest that when Rand Paul attacks a black guy he's playing to the crowd.

 

Now, even bearing this in mind, what I said was "anything coming out of this c**t's gob has to be framed in this context.

 

I didn't say, "He's talking complete pish." or "Ignore everything this twat says."

 

In FACT I go so far as to agree with the guy regarding Obama. I've checked my post and it's right there... my agreement with him.

 

...and just to clarify, Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son. Both are in fact Libertarians, NOT dyed-in-the-wool Republicans.

 

I know what Ron Paul and Rand Paul are, and they're 'Libertarians' only so far as Americans understand the term. I don't need anyone to tell me what Ron Paul or Rand Paul are.

 

In Britain they'd be firmly right of centre. But to an American anyone who isn't right wing, and obviously so, is a 'Libertarian'.

 

You ask gays, blacks and women looking for abortions how 'libertarian' Ron Paul is. Then you'll understand why the Paul's chose a Republican ticket.

[Jocky Balboa]

Okay, well, maybe you need to learn to read for content before commenting on the intellect and debating skills of other posters, or calling others 'fool'.

 

I'll say it a different way, because I guess crystal clear isn't clear enough.

 

I didn't call you a fool. I merely stated that it is the tactic of a fool to dismiss things completely, based purely on the identity or allegiances of the source.

 

Rand Paul is a Republican. The President is a Democrat. American politics are about division and hypocritical personal attack. Ergo Republican attacks Democrat based upon political affiliation.

 

Agreed.

 

Rand Paul represents Kentucky. Kentucky was one of the Jim Crow states, and racial segregation dies hard. I've had the misfortune of living in Kentucky for the better part of a year, Lexington in fact, and can attest that when Rand Paul attacks a black guy he's playing to the crowd.

 

Aw shucks, pardner. Ah didn't kno' dat, boyyyy! Well, ya sees, it's like dis: Dem Pauls you bin talkin' bout? Dey both says on TV fairly recent dat if dey waz back in dem good ol' days of da 60's an' all, dey be sayin' YEE-HAW (i.e. "yes") to Civil Rights Movement. Y'know, equal and stuff for them Blacks an' all!

 

I know what Ron Paul and Rand Paul are, and they're 'Libertarians' only so far as Americans understand the term. I don't need anyone to tell me what Ron Paul or Rand Paul are.

 

In Britain they'd be firmly right of centre. But to an American anyone who isn't right wing, and obviously so, is a 'Libertarian'.

 

You ask gays, blacks and women looking for abortions how 'libertarian' Ron Paul is. Then you'll understand why the Paul's chose a Republican ticket.

 

As I CLEARLY stated above and on more than one occasion, I do not agree with all they stand for, not by a LONG shot. In fact, check previous posts by me, when I clearly state that I am dead against their stance on Abortion (they oppose it, even in cases of rape and incest!) and other issues, like where Jnr. states that he is pro-Israel (although his Father is against them). I do however agree with them both ON THIS ISSUE, which is why the links I have provided were more than relevant to the debate.

 

You see? That's all this is. Critical thinking. Agree with some people on some things, disagree on others. NEVER accept anything unquestioningly. Take it or leave it.

[Ke1t]

I didn't call you a fool. I merely stated that it is the tactic of a fool to dismiss things completely, based purely on the identity or allegiances of the source.

 

Given you were responding to my post, and neither singled out nor alluded to any other specific party, the inference would be that you felt that I was a fool. Although granted your comments didn't pertain to anything I had argued, so i suppose you could have been referring to some undisclosed party. Whatever, you say you weren't referring to me, so that's all cool.

 

 

Aw shucks, pardner. Ah didn't kno' dat, boyyyy! Well, ya sees, it's like dis: Dem Pauls you bin talkin' bout? Dey both says on TV fairly recent dat if dey waz back in dem good ol' days of da 60's an' all, dey be sayin' YEE-HAW (i.e. "yes") to Civil Rights Movement. Y'know, equal and stuff for them Blacks an' all!

 

I think you're saying that the Paul Boys have publicly stated they like niggras. Imagine if politicians had the ability to lie for expediency.

 

 

 

As I CLEARLY stated above and on more than one occasion, I do not agree with all they stand for, not by a LONG shot. In fact, check previous posts by me, when I clearly state that I am dead against their stance on Abortion (they oppose it, even in cases of rape and incest!) and other issues, like where Jnr. states that he is pro-Israel (although his Father is against them). I do however agree with them both ON THIS ISSUE, which is why the links I have provided were more than relevant to the debate.

 

You certainly did say that clearly, which is why you didn't see me argue that point. I'm not sure, in that case, why you're reiterating the point as though I had. Unless, as previously, you're either arguing the point with some undetermined third party who took issue with you, or you just felt like reiterating the point. However, I've learned that you're not necessarily arguing the point with me, so once again it's all cool.

 

 

You see? That's all this is. Critical thinking. Agree with some people on some things, disagree on others. NEVER accept anything unquestioningly. Take it or leave it.

 

If you've read any of my posts in the past you'll probably find that that's generally how I view the world. I'm not sure if you've read any of my posts in the past, or if you're giving that (sound) advice to an as yet undisclosed third party

[TheG_L_A]

All them rebels

 

Driving about in Fiestas and Metros

 

It's pretty funny like.

[madjockmcferson]

There's a time limit on how long Obama can perpetrate acts of war without congressional approval. So he has something like a 3 month limit in which to retrospectively gain congressional approval for his actions. Ultimately he needs congressional support for what is, by the time the bullets start flying, a fait accompli.

 

Seems kind of odd for a Republican to be whining about a limited military action when we've just came out of a decade of a Republican president starting three wars at the last count and was ramping up for a fourth.

 

Obama's a prick who needs to be impeached along with Bush, given his tacit support for torture, murder and unprovoked invasion of foreign states. But that won't happen, to either of them.

 

What we have to remember about Rand Paul are the following facts...

 

1. He represents Kentucky.

2. He's a Republican

 

Anything coming out of that c**t's gob has to be framed in that context.

 

 

This thread describes pretty well who Rand Paul and Ron Paul are. If you scroll down a little you will see a post by someone called 'andrewclunn' - the guy is a libertarian but gives a good view on them both.

 

Ron / Rand Paul

 

With regards to bombing Libya and the 'need' for Congressional approval.

 

The important thing here is the separation of powers in the US system. Presidents have sole authority to negotiate treaties with foreign countries and international organisations and they are the commander in chief. This means what it says : presidents have sole authority.

 

When international treaties are negotiated by the president they are then passed to Congress (just the Senate I think?) for approval....checks and balances dominate the US political system.

 

Anyhows, Obama authorised the use of US missiles in accordance with various treaties and in accordance with a resolution of the UN.....Congress approved these treaties so therefore he does not need Congressional approval.

 

Besides, he has kept a dialogue with Congress and the Republicans about this.....

 

Decent article here...

 

My link

[madjockmcferson]

Thanks for that mjm.

 

Very decent article here, dealing with the substance rather than the process.

 

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110329_obama.htm

 

The heading is "Obama Raises American Hypocrisy To A Higher Level".

 

It finishes with - "How does a person as totally absurd as Obama expect to be taken seriously?"

 

Well, thats what I'd expect from a right wing nut-job. Not you...the author

[Ke1t]

This thread describes pretty well who Rand Paul and Ron Paul are. If you scroll down a little you will see a post by someone called 'andrewclunn' - the guy is a libertarian but gives a good view on them both.

 

Ron / Rand Paul

 

With regards to bombing Libya and the 'need' for Congressional approval.

 

The important thing here is the separation of powers in the US system. Presidents have sole authority to negotiate treaties with foreign countries and international organisations and they are the commander in chief. This means what it says : presidents have sole authority.

 

When international treaties are negotiated by the president they are then passed to Congress (just the Senate I think?) for approval....checks and balances dominate the US political system.

 

Anyhows, Obama authorised the use of US missiles in accordance with various treaties and in accordance with a resolution of the UN.....Congress approved these treaties so therefore he does not need Congressional approval.

 

Besides, he has kept a dialogue with Congress and the Republicans about this.....

 

Decent article here...

 

My link

 

I think it all depends on interpretation of various powers and limitations, scattered over a number of documents such as the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

 

Some think it's legal... usually the government... some think it's illegal, in this instance a number of lawmakers.

 

I doubt we can settle this matter here, given even the US Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches can't decide amongst themselves whether or not it's legal.

 

From what I understand, a President can initiate an act of war so long as he informs congress. But if he wants to continue that war beyond something in the region of 90 days then he has to have congressional approval. That might be one reason Obama was desperate to pass the 'leadership' of the attack on Libya to someone else, given that Congress is dominated by hostile Republicans.

 

And if Obama can't gain approval for the initial attack, assuming he retrospectively requires approval, I wonder what the implications might then be in terms of accountability.

 

On the other hand, if Bush can get away with ratifying torture, the circumventing of constitutional rights, illegal eavesdropping, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, deceptively dragging the country into one, probably two, possibly three, and an anticipated fourth war, then what real basis is there to impeach Obama for bombing Libya?

[madjockmcferson]

I think it all depends on interpretation of various powers and limitations, scattered over a number of documents such as the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

 

Some think it's legal... usually the government... some think it's illegal, in this instance a number of lawmakers.

 

I doubt we can settle this matter here, given even the US Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches can't decide amongst themselves whether or not it's legal.

 

From what I understand, a President can initiate an act of war so long as he informs congress. But if he wants to continue that war beyond something in the region of 90 days then he has to have congressional approval. That might be one reason Obama was desperate to pass the 'leadership' of the attack on Libya to someone else, given that Congress is dominated by hostile Republicans.

 

And if Obama can't gain approval for the initial attack, assuming he retrospectively requires approval, I wonder what the implications might then be in terms of accountability.

 

On the other hand, if Bush can get away with ratifying torture, the circumventing of constitutional rights, illegal eavesdropping, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, deceptively dragging the country into one, probably two, possibly three, and an anticipated fourth war, then what real basis is there to impeach Obama for bombing Libya?

 

The point is the US isn't going to war. They are responding to an obligation under an international treaty, backed by a UN resolution. A treaty which followed proper procedure by being negotiated by a former president and ratified by Congress.

 

If he were to commit the US to a long-term on the ground assault then he would be wise to get Congressional approval.

[madjockmcferson]

That's unfair. He worked for Reagan but no way he's right wing and no way he's a nutjob.

 

If you read what he writes, and there is plenty of it, I challenge you to back up that opinion. He speaketh the truth and I'm surprised the CIA haven't killed him by now.

 

A cursory glance at the opinion pieces led me to that conclusion. Perhaps right wing nut job is going a little far...however, I wouldn't rely on this as being a reliable resource when you are trying to make a point. Also, just cos he worked for Reagan doesn't make him a reliable or true source. The intellectual core of the Republican party began to disintegrate during the Reagan era.....and it hasn't recovered.

 

However, while politics don

[Ke1t]

The point is the US isn't going to war.

 

Well, they've dropped bombs on a sovereign state, killed military (possibly civilian) personnel, and destroyed Libyan military infrastructure. I would argue that simply because Libya has a very limited capacity to hit back, the act of picking a side, supporting the rebels, and bombing the sh*te out of a country IS an act of war.

 

The US didn't declare war on Iraq, but you would have to say what happened with the invasion and all was kind of a war.

 

Just looking at this from the other side of the coin... imagine the UN ratifies a US request for the outlaw of gingers. Surely Scotland would consider the subsequent carpet bombing of everything north of Peebles to be an act of war, whether the wording of the resolution specifically mentions war or not?

 

They are responding to an obligation under an international treaty, backed by a UN resolution. A treaty which followed proper procedure by being negotiated by a former president and ratified by Congress.

 

Does a UN treaty negate Constitutional law, though? I would be pretty surprised if UN Law was held to be above that of American Law. That is to say, even though a UN resolution allows for military action, does that necessarily mean that American law can be ignored if the UN resolution contradicts or conflicts with American law?

 

I'd be pretty suspicious if someone were to insist that to be the case without presenting some kind of correlating document.

 

 

If he were to commit the US to a long-term on the ground assault then he would be wise to get Congressional approval.

 

I'd agree, but recent history shows US Presidents to be in possession of pretty much dictatorial powers when it comes to doing whatever they want and getting away with it.

[madjockmcferson]

Why not? You admit to only a cursory glance. How about reading what he says before pontificating far less concluding?

 

I agree that the fact he worked for Reagan does not, per se, make him "a reliable or true source". Neither did I say this. Only a retard would.

 

The ONLY reason I mentioned it is because he, unlike many commentators, he has experience of how governments operate.

 

He has written voluminously on the US situation in global affairs and on the mismanagement of the economy. I challenge you thus: -

 

Instead of making a cursory dismissal, invest 15, 20, 30 minutes reading any one of his articles at random. If he says anything that makes you suspicious, that doesn't smell like the truth to you, come back and highlight it. I swear that you will struggle.

 

If, on the other hand, you have a mind that is open and can digest the well-articulated critical thinking of others, you might admire his courage and learn something.

 

f**k, f**k f**k. wrote a nice long email then my internet froze.

 

I'll take back what i wrote about him being a right wing nut-job. He is clearly an articulate guy, as you would expect of a former government official and a journalist. Much as I don't agree with his political agenda even i can concede he is on the moderately right wing, not the raving right wing. I did somewhat jump to a conclusion : so hard not to when discussing the American right.

 

However, his political bias shines through on his views of constitutionality. This is a guy who would bend the constitution any way he wants just to make a political point vs Barack 'Hussein' Obama (writing Barack 'Hussein' Obama emphasis Omaba's supposed non-Americanism). Thats why i don't think we should take his constitutional views seriously. His political views are a good representation of a certain breed of concerned citizen and I think we can all agree that he taps the nerves of many paranoid WASPs but after looking through his blogs (and those of other writers on his site) there is a clear bias and inference about the un-Americanism of Obama.

 

My bad....he isn't the worst....but in a sea of racist, paranoid right wing commentary that ain't sayin much.

[madjockmcferson]

Well, they've dropped bombs on a sovereign state, killed military (possibly civilian) personnel, and destroyed Libyan military infrastructure. I would argue that simply because Libya has a very limited capacity to hit back, the act of picking a side, supporting the rebels, and bombing the sh*te out of a country IS an act of war.

 

The US didn't declare war on Iraq, but you would have to say what happened with the invasion and all was kind of a war.

 

Just looking at this from the other side of the coin... imagine the UN ratifies a US request for the outlaw of gingers. Surely Scotland would consider the subsequent carpet bombing of everything north of Peebles to be an act of war, whether the wording of the resolution specifically mentions war or not?

 

 

 

Does a UN treaty negate Constitutional law, though? I would be pretty surprised if UN Law was held to be above that of American Law. That is to say, even though a UN resolution allows for military action, does that necessarily mean that American law can be ignored if the UN resolution contradicts or conflicts with American law?

 

I'd be pretty suspicious if someone were to insist that to be the case without presenting some kind of correlating document.

 

 

 

 

I'd agree, but recent history shows US Presidents to be in possession of pretty much dictatorial powers when it comes to doing whatever they want and getting away with it.

 

International treaties rank below domestic federal statutes in American law. Signing an international treaty doesn't bind American federal law until Congress passes the necessary domestic legislation.

 

A president doesn't have dictatorial powers. Congress has the power to withdraw 'army' funding every two years. The constitution allows presidents as commander in chief to use his powers in the interests of american self defence and to maintain its foreign policy objectives - the president controls both of these functions and as such has the power to act without Congressional approval.

 

There is the issue of the 1973(?) War Powers Act, which seeks to limit presidential powers in this respect, but it is considered anti-constitutional by presidents as it restricts their constitutional powers and eats into the separation of powers - it is read by them as a Congressional power grab.

 

Anyhows, Obama has kept Congress informed and has consulted with House leaders.

 

Infact the Senate approved action.

 

Senate approves Libya Military action

[madjockmcferson]

mjm, respect. You made yer point. Please allow me to make mine.

 

Actually, you don't have a f**king choice given the dynamics of a fitba messageboard so let me re-phrase...

 

Paul Craig Roberts has been commentating for years. All his posts are visible. He criticised Bush more than any other human on the planet (to my knowledge) so I'm afraid party politics doesn't wash in this instance. He is a frightfully honest man, so brutal and direct that - as I said - I am amazed the CIA haven't topped him.

 

Get beyond your cursory glance. There is ZERO political bias in his scribations. Then we can talk.

 

In no way am I trying to close down debate. I don't know where that comes from. I couldn't even if I wanted to.....which I don't.

 

Yup, there are many writers on the site and they are just as anti-Bush as they are anti-Obama. Infact Bush is derided by many conservatives (T-party, religious right) as haven been too liberal....esp. re his desire to instigate an immigration amnesty. That doesn't make the site less biased and more legitimate ... that makes it more paranoid.

 

My objection to this website and especially to its owner, Peter Brimelow, is based on his anti-immigration scare-mongering. There is a debate to be had re immigration levels and their impact on society but Brimelow takes a paranoid, highly selective view of immigrants and their impact.

 

People like George Will are thoughtful conservatives and a pretty good read. I can appreciate his concerns more than the at times paranoid concerns of VDARE.com.

 

George Will - Wash Post

 

Paul Krugman isn't bad either.

 

My link

[Jocky Balboa]

Paul Craig Roberts has been commentating for years. All his posts are visible. He criticised Bush more than any other human on the planet (to my knowledge) so I'm afraid party politics doesn't wash in this instance. He is a frightfully honest man, so brutal and direct that - as I said - I am amazed the CIA haven't topped him.

 

I doubt they will, either. They've allowed even more controversial people like David Duke to survive this long, even if they peddle shyte, so I doubt PCR is in any imminent danger.

[Ke1t]

International treaties rank below domestic federal statutes in American law. Signing an international treaty doesn't bind American federal law until Congress passes the necessary domestic legislation.

 

Assuming they'll do so.

 

A president doesn't have dictatorial powers. Congress has the power to withdraw 'army' funding every two years. The constitution allows presidents as commander in chief to use his powers in the interests of american self defence and to maintain its foreign policy objectives - the president controls both of these functions and as such has the power to act without Congressional approval.

 

Officially, no. However the previous president ignored the checks and balances intended to prevent abuse of power, and he hasn't been impeached or even received a slap on the wrist. So while there's no official 'Do what you want, when you want, to whom you want' documentation, that's exactly what Bush did. So officially a President doesn't have dictatorial powers, but in practice, without repercussion, there is little a President can't do while justifying those actions as in the interests of national security.

 

 

There is the issue of the 1973(?) War Powers Act, which seeks to limit presidential powers in this respect, but it is considered anti-constitutional by presidents as it restricts their constitutional powers and eats into the separation of powers - it is read by them as a Congressional power grab.

 

Technically presidents don't make the law. That would be for the Legislative branch to determine, not the Executive. In practice... well, let's go back to Bush, who pretty much did what he wanted regardless of what the law and the Constitution said he could and couldn't do.

 

Anyhows, Obama has kept Congress informed and has consulted with House leaders.

 

I can't say what he has and hasn't said to Congress, but I'm sure they're aware of the attack on Libya. I don't recall a vote to say "G'an yerself, wee man." however. I wonder if he's even going to bother with something as bothersome as getting the support of the representatives of the people he's allegedly leading.

 

Infact the Senate approved action.

 

Senate approves Libya Military action

 

Yah, but he requires a congressional vote (or at least he will in a little over two months), not a cheerleading pamphlet from the Senate alone.

 

I'm not sure what the actual political value of that Senatorial document might be, other than an indicator that he might get support from both houses.

[Jocky Balboa]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/guest-slams-cnn-host-youre-just-carrying-the-water-for-mr-obama/

 

Interesting rhetoric from an ex-CIA Analyst, someone who is obviously well-placed to comment on Middle East policy.

[Jocky Balboa]

This thread describes pretty well who Rand Paul and Ron Paul are. If you scroll down a little you will see a post by someone called 'andrewclunn' - the guy is a libertarian but gives a good view on them both.

 

Ron / Rand Paul

 

Sorry Madjock, the link says you have to be a registered member to read that. Any chance of a copy/paste of the article and the Andrew Clunn response? Thanks!

[The Boofon]

Looks like Gaddafi is tatties now. Rebels into his compound. He'll be away in his tunnel a long time ago.

[granite sheep]

[Coopy100]

 

The US didn't declare war on Iraq, but you would have to say what happened with the invasion and all was kind of a war.

 

There is a difference between a real war and a perceived war is there not?

[Ke1t]

There is a difference between a real war and a perceived war is there not?

 

Well, yeah... little bit.