"The law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers"- Senator Obama

[guido911]

G & G are attempting to form a dutch rudder.  One posts, the other is outraged at the information in that post so the other posts something the other is outraged at.  The rudder keepsa movin..

Not really. I just love how the same 3-4 people are always coming to one another's defense. It's like clockwork. As for the thread, I could care less about it. I have always felt the WPA was unconstitutional. But rather than take that approach, Obama ignores is own legal team and laughably alleges that there are no hostilities of the sort that would require him to get Congressional approval. Here a story.

WASHINGTON – Republicans and Democrats on Thursday derided President Barack Obama's claim that U.S. air attacks against Libya do not constitute hostilities and demanded that the commander in chief seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old military operation.

In an escalating constitutional fight, House Speaker John Boehner threatened to withhold money for the mission, pitting a Congress eager to exercise its power of the purse against a dug-in White House. The Ohio Republican signaled that the House could take action as early as next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110617/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_libya

I think I read yesterday 9 innocent people were killed over in Libya, two of whom were TODDLERS, in this non-hostile action.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Gaspar's turn to post, keep the rudder going guys..

[guido911]

Gaspar's turn to post, keep the rudder going guys..

What you are doing right now is the same as the 3-4 spooners. Why?

[RecycleMichael]

I have always felt the WPA was unconstitutional.

Way to go. A real opinion and a relevant thought.

Please explain how the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. I really do care to discuss this.

[Cats Cats Cats]

What you are doing right now is the same as the 3-4 spooners. Why?

You are starting to lose momentum.

[Gaspar]

. . . gaspar just wants to argue with anybody and anything that can be said about Obama.

I admit, I do enjoy the debate.  It makes me think, and helps me to understand the thought processes of others, when a process exists.

Most of the time it is you, we vs us, and Hoss's posts that I admire the most because they employ some reason and critical thought.  I typically disagree with the basic foundations but I enjoy learning how you come to your conclusions, and every now and then I find agreement.

I believe, that the best and worst qualities of a person become visible in political discussion.  Motivations become naked, and influences are uncovered.  I think that's what we all enjoy about political discourse and that is also why it is a bad idea at Thanksgiving.

This thread is an excellent example of the psychology of political discussion.  The initial post was an invitation to discussion on a policy that the current president is engaged in that violates his own political philosophy, and the philosophy of many of his constituency.

The bait was my second post.  It offered those unwilling to engage the first an out by diverting focus from the subject (anyone with a 2 year old knows this tactic).  The primary posters took advantage of this opportunity, leaving the subject unaddressed.   This opens the door for weaker posters to shout from the peanut gallery and for reasonable posters such as yourself to either attack the subject or attack the poster.  You did a little of both.

I am sorry that sometimes I enjoy a good game of chess when a simple conversation would suffice.

. . .and it's President Obama.  You really should respect the office.  

[Townsend]

The bait was my second post.  It offered those unwilling to engage the first an out by diverting focus from the subject (anyone with a 2 year old knows this tactic).  The primary posters took advantage of this opportunity, leaving the subject unaddressed.   This opens the door for weaker posters to shout from the peanut gallery and for reasonable posters such as yourself to either attack the subject or attack the poster.  You did a little of both.

Nice try.  You just don't have the ability to have a genuine political conversation.  So you post something asinine like "reach around".

Go ahead and answer "Exactly".  You know you want to.  I figure your hands are trembling since you haven't been able to yet.

[Hoss]

I admit, I do enjoy the debate.  It makes me think, and helps me to understand the thought processes of others, when a process exists.

Most of the time it is you, we vs us, and Hoss's posts that I admire the most because they employ some reason and critical thought.  I typically disagree with the basic foundations but I enjoy learning how you come to your conclusions, and every now and then I find agreement.

I believe, that the best and worst qualities of a person become visible in political discussion.  Motivations become naked, and influences are uncovered.  I think that's what we all enjoy about political discourse and that is also why it is a bad idea at Thanksgiving.

This thread is an excellent example of the psychology of political discussion.  The initial post was an invitation to discussion on a policy that the current president is engaged in that violates his own political philosophy, and the philosophy of many of his constituency.

The bait was my second post.  It offered those unwilling to engage the first an out by diverting focus from the subject (anyone with a 2 year old knows this tactic).  The primary posters took advantage of this opportunity, leaving the subject unaddressed.   This opens the door for weaker posters to shout from the peanut gallery and for reasonable posters such as yourself to either attack the subject or attack the poster.  You did a little of both.

I am sorry that sometimes I enjoy a good game of chess when a simple conversation would suffice.

. . .and it's President Obama.  You really should respect the office.  

Watch it..if you start saying you admire my posts, then you might fall out of favor with Gweed, as he only likes to throw ad-hominems my way..

Well, I'm not the only target, but with others, he'll actually address them directly and by name/screen-name.  He somehow thinks that leaving my name out of the equation makes me less valid.

Reminds me of a feud that two news channel hosts were having over the past few years.  One, the liberal, usually called out the conservative (who told people he was an independent but most knew that was bunk) on propoganda and spin.

The conservative, who thought the liberal was beneath him, wouldn't directly use the liberal's name, but attacked those close to him or those who employed him.

[we vs us]

Not really. I just love how the same 3-4 people are always coming to one another's defense. It's like clockwork.

Well duh.  How many people post here in total?  About 8 or 9 regs.  How many conservatives and how many libs?  We're about evenly split, give or take.  If you remember some of your basic math, half of 8 is 4, which is the amount of folks generally agreeing with one another on a given issue. 

[Conan71]

Well duh.  How many people post here in total?  About 8 or 9 regs.  How many conservatives and how many libs?  We're about evenly split, give or take.  If you remember some of your basic math, half of 8 is 4, which is the amount of folks generally agreeing with one another on a given issue. 

Yeah, and you four are the half wits.







I keed, I keed!

[Gaspar]

Well duh.  How many people post here in total?  About 8 or 9 regs.  How many conservatives and how many libs?  We're about evenly split, give or take.  If you remember some of your basic math, half of 8 is 4, which is the amount of folks generally agreeing with one another on a given issue. 

It's a pretty good mix.  There is the fringe and the serial posters, but I think there is an even balance on the issues.

It's interesting to watch the fluctuations in civility as elections approach and the retreat afterwords.  I think for the most part everyone here is far more civil than I've seen on other forums.  

[Gaspar]

. . .I've seen on other forums.  

My bad. . .there are no other forums, TNF is the only one.  I would never betray that relationship 

[Conan71]

It's a pretty good mix.  There is the fringe and the serial posters, but I think there is an even balance on the issues.

It's interesting to watch the fluctuations in civility as elections approach and the retreat afterwords.  I think for the most part everyone here is far more civil than I've seen on other forums.  

Then there's the cereal posters like Sauerkraut.

[nathanm]

So are we bombing anything in Libya right now, or are we just refueling the French and providing AWACS support?

[guido911]

Well duh.  How many people post here in total?  About 8 or 9 regs.  How many conservatives and how many libs?  We're about evenly split, give or take.  If you remember some of your basic math, half of 8 is 4, which is the amount of folks generally agreeing with one another on a given issue.  

It's not about agreeing with one another, it's about the big ol' bandaids that your side's regulars use to nurse the wounds after one of you gets attacked. If I ding RM on something, he's a big enough guy to take care of himself. Still, that won't stop T from jumping to his defense as if he is RM's older brother. That's precisely what happened here, AGAIN. I bet a majority of our flame wars would end quickly if we would jest leave the squabblers alone. And before anyone goes all Rodney King and suggest we should all just get along, ain't going to happen.