Learn2read
Member
LOL, I don't think that's a fight you want to pick...Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/06/perry-adds-anti-tsa-bill-to-special-session/
I'd say this points pretty strongly to Perry entering the race. Nothing like a high profile battle with the Feds to launch a GOP campaign.
I'd say this points pretty strongly to Perry entering the race. Nothing like a high profile battle with the Feds to launch a GOP campaign.
eznark said:
This isn't particularly new; he's been shoveling all the items that didn't pass on the right-wing wishlist into the special session (originally intended to address Texas' massive budget shortfall), a number of which are aimed at sticking a thumb in the federal government's eye.
RustyNails
Member
I like that Huntsman has finally jumped in. He's definitely a challenge to Mitt Romney and to Obama himself. Not a teabag loony or Ron Paul pick-and-choose libertarian.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I hope this divides the GOP base as much as possible.RustyNails said:
RustyNails
Member
No, I hope this gives Obama a real challenge. He doesn't deserve to coast to victory. Bachmanns, Cains and their ilk are just fodder and always have been.TacticalFox88 said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
McCain: Tying Obama's Hands On Libya Will Come Back To Haunt GOP
Susan Crabtree | June 21, 2011, 12:17PM
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pleaded with GOP colleagues Tuesday not to tie President Obama's hands when it comes to U.S. military action in Libya, reminding them it could come back to haunt future Republican presidents.
"We are all entitled to our opinions about Libya policy, but here are the facts: [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time. So I would ask my colleagues: Is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy?" he said in a lengthy statement on the Senate floor. "Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse?"
McCain made the comments after introducing a bill he authored with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) that would authorize the limited use of military force in Libya. House Republicans, with the support of numerous Democrats, are readying a vote for later this week on a bill that would cut off funding for U.S. military intervention in Libya.
From the onset of the Libyan unrest, McCain has urged aggressive, unilateral action from the U.S. against Qaddafi in order to preserve rebel gains and prevent mass slaughtering of opposition forces. Obama has moved slower than McCain wanted, waiting to secure international support from the United Nations before authorizing U.S. military strikes as part of a NATO operation.
Despite his differences with Obama on Libya, McCain said this is no time for Congress to try to limit U.S. military action in the North African country. Doing so, he said, would demonstrate to Qaddafi, his inner circle, U.S. NATO allies, and all the world that "our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim."
The week is setting up to be a tough one for the President on foreign policy. Obama plans to deliver a major speech Wednesday, announcing his plans for a drawdown in Afghanistan and Congress is embroiled in a heated debate over whether the War Powers Act requires Obama to seek Congressional approval for continued military action in Libya.
The law requires Congressional approval when the U.S. military is engaged in "hostilities" for more than 60 days, with a 30-day extension. The U.S. action in Libya has exceeded the three-month time frame, but the Obama administration has said it doesn't believe the airstrikes in Libya amount to hostilities because it does not involve U.S. ground troops and no U.S. servicemen have been killed in the fighting.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) last week said that explanation doesn't past the "straight-face test." While Boehner has supported the President's actions in Afghanistan and robust level of troops remaining there, he has been more critical of Libya, echoing the concerns from more conservative factions of his party. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), along with his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), reflect the more general frustrations of the Tea Party, in opposing both wars and advocating a more isolationist role for U.S. foreign policy.
McCain Tuesday said he agrees with Obama that the actions in Libya do not amount to a full-fledged state of war, but took issue with the administration's explanation that U.S. airstrikes in Libya did not amount to "hostilities," saying he found that explanation "hard to swallow." The implausible explanation, he said, as well as the administration's failure to seek Congress to authorize intervention in Libya months ago, has led to the full-scale House revolt against his Libya policy.
But McCain warned his Congressional colleagues - "especially my Republicans colleagues" - against taking any action that would limit the commander-in-chief's ability to declare and wage war. He reminded Republicans of the condemnation President Bush endured for launching the Iraq war - "the other side of the aisle savaged" Bush, he said.
"We were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves, simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the White House," he said. "Someday, a Republican will again occupy the White House, and the President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
"So if my Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation could come back to haunt a future President when the shoe is on the other foot," he continued.
#############
I feel weird as hell agreeing more with Boehner on this than Obama or McCain. I don't like this feeling and would like it fixed soon! Does anybody else just feel like they don't know what the hell is going on in Libya?
Susan Crabtree | June 21, 2011, 12:17PM
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pleaded with GOP colleagues Tuesday not to tie President Obama's hands when it comes to U.S. military action in Libya, reminding them it could come back to haunt future Republican presidents.
"We are all entitled to our opinions about Libya policy, but here are the facts: [Libyan leader Muammar] Qaddafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time. So I would ask my colleagues: Is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy?" he said in a lengthy statement on the Senate floor. "Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse?"
McCain made the comments after introducing a bill he authored with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) that would authorize the limited use of military force in Libya. House Republicans, with the support of numerous Democrats, are readying a vote for later this week on a bill that would cut off funding for U.S. military intervention in Libya.
From the onset of the Libyan unrest, McCain has urged aggressive, unilateral action from the U.S. against Qaddafi in order to preserve rebel gains and prevent mass slaughtering of opposition forces. Obama has moved slower than McCain wanted, waiting to secure international support from the United Nations before authorizing U.S. military strikes as part of a NATO operation.
Despite his differences with Obama on Libya, McCain said this is no time for Congress to try to limit U.S. military action in the North African country. Doing so, he said, would demonstrate to Qaddafi, his inner circle, U.S. NATO allies, and all the world that "our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim."
The week is setting up to be a tough one for the President on foreign policy. Obama plans to deliver a major speech Wednesday, announcing his plans for a drawdown in Afghanistan and Congress is embroiled in a heated debate over whether the War Powers Act requires Obama to seek Congressional approval for continued military action in Libya.
The law requires Congressional approval when the U.S. military is engaged in "hostilities" for more than 60 days, with a 30-day extension. The U.S. action in Libya has exceeded the three-month time frame, but the Obama administration has said it doesn't believe the airstrikes in Libya amount to hostilities because it does not involve U.S. ground troops and no U.S. servicemen have been killed in the fighting.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) last week said that explanation doesn't past the "straight-face test." While Boehner has supported the President's actions in Afghanistan and robust level of troops remaining there, he has been more critical of Libya, echoing the concerns from more conservative factions of his party. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), along with his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), reflect the more general frustrations of the Tea Party, in opposing both wars and advocating a more isolationist role for U.S. foreign policy.
McCain Tuesday said he agrees with Obama that the actions in Libya do not amount to a full-fledged state of war, but took issue with the administration's explanation that U.S. airstrikes in Libya did not amount to "hostilities," saying he found that explanation "hard to swallow." The implausible explanation, he said, as well as the administration's failure to seek Congress to authorize intervention in Libya months ago, has led to the full-scale House revolt against his Libya policy.
But McCain warned his Congressional colleagues - "especially my Republicans colleagues" - against taking any action that would limit the commander-in-chief's ability to declare and wage war. He reminded Republicans of the condemnation President Bush endured for launching the Iraq war - "the other side of the aisle savaged" Bush, he said.
"We were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves, simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the White House," he said. "Someday, a Republican will again occupy the White House, and the President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
"So if my Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation could come back to haunt a future President when the shoe is on the other foot," he continued.
#############
I feel weird as hell agreeing more with Boehner on this than Obama or McCain. I don't like this feeling and would like it fixed soon! Does anybody else just feel like they don't know what the hell is going on in Libya?
TacticalFox88
Banned
You think him coasting to victory will create an air of arrogance around himself? Or him being challenge make him rethink his priorities and policies?RustyNails said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
McCain would be right about this decision haunting future GOP presidents if democrats weren't the feckless cowards they are; if this was President McCain they'd be scared shittless to say anything.
I ultimately believe we shouldn't be there, and Obama clearly doesn't give a damn what congress or his lawyers think. It would be oddly ironic for him to get impeached over this; it won't happen obviously but still
I ultimately believe we shouldn't be there, and Obama clearly doesn't give a damn what congress or his lawyers think. It would be oddly ironic for him to get impeached over this; it won't happen obviously but still
Having two level headed well qualified candidates running against each other would make for a better campaign and better candidates overall. If the GOP candidate just throws out catch phrases without facts, there is nothing to run against and the campaign dissolves into mudslinging.TacticalFox88 said:
RustyNails
Member
Coasting to victory means taking our votes for granted, which will be easier if the opposition is insane. He needs to earn our votes and understand that he shouldn't take voters for granted. This can happen only if he gets a serious contender from the other side that will challenge him on real issues.TacticalFox88 said:
Huntsman's main site is up now. Has lots of videos of him talking about each subject.
One thing that stands out to me is a speaking quirk he has: As he's explaining something, in every other sentence he'll suddenly and momentarily grin during one word like he's really proud of what he's saying, then it'll instantly disappear into a more serious face. It's kind of odd.
As much as I want to like Huntsman and for him to be level headed, one of the first things he did in this race was back Paul Ryan's Medicare plan after Gingrich's implosion, which tells me he has very little integrity.
One thing that stands out to me is a speaking quirk he has: As he's explaining something, in every other sentence he'll suddenly and momentarily grin during one word like he's really proud of what he's saying, then it'll instantly disappear into a more serious face. It's kind of odd.
Lathentar said:
As much as I want to like Huntsman and for him to be level headed, one of the first things he did in this race was back Paul Ryan's Medicare plan after Gingrich's implosion, which tells me he has very little integrity.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
It's weird watching the same Republican warmongers from 2001-2003 turning into pacifists because a Democrat is in office.
RustyNails
Member
And I agree with Obama and McCain over Boehner, Bachmann and Cantor. I shouldn't make this a political issue, but a mass slaughter in Libya would have worsened Democrats' ability to face tough military issues and haunt Obama in the elections. You can bet your bank account that Boehner, Bachmann and Cantor would have been railing against Obama had he refused to authorize Libyan intervention, resulting in mass killing, rape and genocide.mckmas8808 said:
Also,
Report: Gingrichs Campaign Finance Team Quits
Damn he was so close!
Obama To Announce Plans To Pull 30K Troops From Afghanistan
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/06/21/national/a093614D71.DTL
Damn he was so close!
Obama To Announce Plans To Pull 30K Troops From Afghanistan
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2...fghan_troop_cut_plan_on_wednesday.php?ref=fpb
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Boehner, for one.eznark said:
polyh3dron
Banned
So much for moon bases from the private sector.Loudninja said:
Invisible_Insane
Member
7/10Evlar said:
I agree with Boehner that the Administration's claim that the air strikes don't amount to hostilities is bunk, but in the larger picture I would tend to agree with the Administration (and McCain) that we should see it through, get Qaddafi out of there and let the rebels reform the country. I would like to have seen it happen sooner, but I don't really think it can be much longer that Qaddafi can hold on.mckmas8808 said:
jamesinclair
Banned
eznark said:
I for one welcome a pro-civil liberties democrat in the race.
Dude Abides
Banned
SRG01 said:
Nader 2012!!
Invisible_Insane
Member
Comb yo beard, I don't want to hear that shit.Dude Abides said:
As if we're simply not going to interfere if Qaddafi leaves.eznark said:
Totally. I posted immediately before bed. I meant tomorrow.Clevinger said:
As I noted last week, the Pentagon was rumored to recommend an initial withdrawal of 5,000 troops. If reports are accurate, that will be the case. The remaining 25,000 will be withdrawn by the end of 2012. Thus, as I intimated, the hope for an accelerated withdrawal was misguided.Loudninja said:
It depends on what I am agreeing with him. On principle, Boehner supports the operation in Libya. I ardently, unequivocally disagree with him on that issue. He is primarily perturbed that the Administration ignored Congress and has not sought Congressional authorization in accordance with the WPR. I concur with him on that issue. Does it feel odd? Eh, not really.mckmas8808 said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
Loudninja said:
Good. He's more interested in promoting his products than running for president, and it seems like he's ruining his reputation enough to threaten that too. Again, good.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I don't think the tone is nearly as important as the substance here--like I've said from the beginning, we're going to have a great deal of difficulty extracting ourselves from this situation, and that is one of the many reasons that it was not a good idea to become involved.eznark said:
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
prodystopian said:
Good. Americans are finally wising up.
empty vessel
Member
prodystopian said:
I think that's borne out by my NeoGAF experience, which seems to produce wave after wave of Libertarian juniors long on catch phrases and short on knowledge and intellect. Of course, this article really should be about how effective brainwashing and conditioning is, because that's the root cause of the "shift toward more Libertarian views."
Incidentally, the more effective conditioning is a produce of inequality. With so much resources at the top, more can be directed to brainwashing the masses as a means to defend the wealth transfer. That's basically what Fox News is.
prodystopian
Member
empty vessel said:
What do you think the sources of the 'brainwashing and conditioning' are?
I see your edit. Do you think it is Fox? What about the social issues then? I don't think Fox glosses over them (I may be wrong, I don't watch Fox).
Cyan said:
Good point. I'd like to see a more in depth questionnaire, though it does appear that the social libertarian view is closely tracing the economic view.
I always thought the U.S. invading Iraq in 2003 was such an unbelievably irrational decision, that it was only the result of a 1 in a 1000 chance of us happening to have George W. Bush as President at that moment in time - the only guy in the whole country who for whatever reason, really wanted to go to war with Iraq.
But this whole Libya situation has made me realize that the U.S. populace really has to be proactive to keep ourselves out of wars. I mean yeah, I know the Iraq War and Libya are totally different. I know we don't have boots on the ground and we might be getting rid of a brutal dictator using the bare minimum of effort, but it's still made me realize how easily we can wake up and find ourselves involved in hostilities even with a President we thought to be more dovish than most.
But this whole Libya situation has made me realize that the U.S. populace really has to be proactive to keep ourselves out of wars. I mean yeah, I know the Iraq War and Libya are totally different. I know we don't have boots on the ground and we might be getting rid of a brutal dictator using the bare minimum of effort, but it's still made me realize how easily we can wake up and find ourselves involved in hostilities even with a President we thought to be more dovish than most.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I'd be able to take this a lot more seriously if not for the fact that for the fact that every time surveys are done where respondents are asked about specific policy proposals, they almost always favor liberal positions.prodystopian said:
In general, though, I think a move towards libertarianism is, on the whole, a good thing. I think the degree to which the welfare state can actually recede is fairly limited (and this too is a good thing,) and so hopefully what this libertarianism will come to reflect is a liberalizing on some social policies, and perhaps in 20 or 30 years, the death of God, Guns, and Gays style culture war.
empty vessel
Member
prodystopian said:
I think that conditioning the public is Fox's purpose, but it's just one contributor in a sea of disseminators of Libertarian thought. This is basically where all of the PR money of the wealth goes. It's not limited to just Fox. All media--including "liberal" media like MSNBC--parrot Libertarian tropes. And that's exactly the result a successful PR campaign should have. The result is people like Kosmo. (Sorry for the cheap shot, man, but it's true.)
The purpose of having a drone army chanting Libertarian slogans is not, of course, to actually institute Libertarian ideology, at least not purely. The purpose is to give business interests the flexibility and political room to do whatever in the hell they want.
I wish that question's history had gone back further in time, because it looks like the pre-chart trend was much lower numbers on the economic question (i.e., the chart doesn't capture the actual rise, at least not fully), which is what I would suspect.
speculawyer
Member
Ecotic said:
I can't believe you are even comparing the two. The Libya war started BEFORE we entered the picture. Only after a rebel uprising and rebels seized more than 1/2 the country did we step in. We engaged in Libya only after both the UN and the Arab League gave their approval. And our engagement was a bunch of missile strikes and now nothing but a background role while the UK and France do all the heavy lifting. The two situations are so completely different.
We were more militarily involved in Iraq BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR than we are militarily involved in Libya right now! (Remember the no-fly zone over Iraq?)
Should Congress be involved? Sure. I'd like that. But we are talking about the crazy congress that not even McCain & Graham really can deal with. So I can understand the administration avoiding them because they'd try to put in banning Planned Parenthood or something in Libya resolution.
- Status