46 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Well, he's right and he's wrong.

Just as @Bear Grylls said

58 minutes ago, Procus said:

Do you realize how much money Tucker got from the Qatari's to flip his positions? 🤣

When I suggested such a thing in the past I was told I had "TDS" and "Broken by Tucker and Trump".

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

When I suggested such a thing in the past I was told I had "TDS" and "Broken by Tucker and Trump".

21 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

That is complete BS. Clinton and Obama both attacked other countries and nobody said crap about it.

You keep using that talking point, and you keep being wrong. Obama authorized air strikes after the UN security council passed a resolution. Where is such a resolution in this case?

The Clinton one was arguably a major blunder since it is the primary cause the Russian Federation points to when it cites the beginning of deteriorating relations between them and the US. Clinton's argument was he was justified in that the genocide going on in Kosovo was a violation of international law, and he had NATO backing at least. I don't see any similar circumstances here.

19 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Just as @Bear Grylls said

I'll have to find the post. Wouldn't surprise me he has had some good ones on the issue.

Cruz left this interview in a body bag.

Whoever's idea it was to send Cruz into that room is now fired.

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Not that this whole thing isn't a serious situation and all, but am I the only one who thinks that looks a lot like Dak Prescott?

7 minutes ago, hukdonfoniks said:

Not that this whole thing isn't a serious situation and all, but am I the only one who thinks that looks a lot like Dak Prescott?

Tucker just set traps the entire interview

34 minutes ago, Gannan said:

You keep using that talking point, and you keep being wrong. Obama authorized air strikes after the UN security council passed a resolution. Where is such a resolution in this case?

The Clinton one was arguably a major blunder since it is the primary cause the Russian Federation points to when it cites the beginning of deteriorating relations between them and the US. Clinton's argument was he was justified in that the genocide going on in Kosovo was a violation of international law, and he had NATO backing at least. I don't see any similar circumstances here.

We absolutely needed to intervene in Kosovo. It cost us practically nothing and served to weaken Russias influence.

The Russians can point to all they want, but they’ve been angst ridden jealous troglodytes since they were crushed by the boot of Peter the Great. They were just pissed that someone stood up in what they falsely claim as their "corner of the world”.

12 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

😂 yeah I figured

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

You keep using that talking point, and you keep being wrong. Obama authorized air strikes after the UN security council passed a resolution. Where is such a resolution in this case?

The Clinton one was arguably a major blunder since it is the primary cause the Russian Federation points to when it cites the beginning of deteriorating relations between them and the US. Clinton's argument was he was justified in that the genocide going on in Kosovo was a violation of international law, and he had NATO backing at least. I don't see any similar circumstances here.

Actually I'm not.

First off F the UN. Our presidents should take care of us first and they can get the F out of our country and stop taking our money if they have a problem with that. Obama did nothing wrong.

Second he did not go to Congress which has been my point in the past and was the point of the post I called BS. He didn't need to either. Again, Obama did nothing wrong.

Third Clinton hit Sudan and Afghanistan in 98 without going to the UN or Congress. We talked about Yugoslavia. Clinton did nothing wrong.

IF Trump chooses to hit Iran it's within his powers. Also, he doesn't need to go to the UN because it's a preemptive strike justified under self-defense. If people in the UN have a problem with that they can argue amongst themselves about the grey area of Article 51.

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Actually I'm not.

First off F the UN. Our presidents should take care of us first and they can get the F out of our country and stop taking our money if they have a problem with that. Obama did nothing wrong.

Second he did not go to Congress which has been and is my point in the past and was the point of the post I called BS. He didn't need to either. Again, Obama did nothing wrong.

Third Clinton hit Sudan and Afghanistan in 98 without going to the UN or Congress. We talked about Yugoslavia. Clinton did nothing wrong.

IF Trump chooses to hit Iran it's within his powers.

And Obama was wrong to authorize military intervention without getting authorization from Congress first. And PLENTY of people called him out for it.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And Obama was wrong to authorize military intervention without getting authorization from Congress first. And PLENTY of people called him out for it.

I didn't have defending Obama on my bingo card for the day, but he absolutely wasn't wrong. That is within his power and if people have a problem with it or had a problem with it take it to SCOTUS. Commander in Chief means having the ability to defend and protect our interests. Obama was right. I do not want any president handicapped by having to get permission when they feel they need to act. That's what we vote for.

Also, there is a reason courts have dismissed cases arguing that presidents have violated this in the past under Political Question Doctrine.

17 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Actually I'm not.

First off F the UN. Our presidents should take care of us first and they can get the F out of our country and stop taking our money if they have a problem with that. Obama did nothing wrong.

Second he did not go to Congress which has been my point in the past and was the point of the post I called BS. He didn't need to either. Again, Obama did nothing wrong.

Third Clinton hit Sudan and Afghanistan in 98 without going to the UN or Congress. We talked about Yugoslavia. Clinton did nothing wrong.

IF Trump chooses to hit Iran it's within his powers. Also, he doesn't need to go to the UN because it's a preemptive strike justified under self-defense. If people in the UN have a problem with that they can argue amongst themselves about the grey area of Article 51.

"F the UN" doesn't refute my argument. There is nothing comparable here. There is no genocide (there was genocide in the Sudan too by the way). There is no UN resolution. No agreement from NATO. This would be absolutely unilateral.

Just now, Gannan said:

"F the UN" doesn't refute my argument. There is nothing comparable here. There is no genocide (there was genocide in the Sudan too by the way). There is no UN resolution. No agreement from NATO. This would be absolutely unilateral.

The grey area of Article 51 does. So does the absolute fact that he did not go to Congress. Iran is lobbing missiles at civilian areas of Israel and if Trump feels Iran is a threat to them the globalists can take it up with a resolution. You can get into the whys and whats all you want and try to compare this to that. Doesn't matter. We do not have to go to them. There are ways to work around anything and the UN SC can try to do something against us, but I'm pretty sure we'll veto it.

As far as going to Congress for every attack I summed it up above. Courts have rejected cases arguing WPA violations time and time again for a reason. Political Question Doctrine. They are free to clear up the ambiguity and send another version to his desk for him to veto if they want.

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

I'll have to find the post. Wouldn't surprise me he has had some good ones on the issue.

^Just in case anyone was still wondering whether diehard was an actual real life retarded person.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

^Just in case anyone was still wondering whether diehard was an actual real life retarded person.

Yikes you really are angry and miserable inside. Just radiates from ya.

I've seen a few posts from that guy (or who I thought was that guy) in the last day or so. I was finishing up a round and was going to look for what he was referencing when I got home. It wouldn't shock me if he made a post that I missed that made a good point.

And I've said this to you in the past, but people with Downs are gifts to the world. Using that word shows how low class you are.

32 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

The grey area of Article 51 does. So does the absolute fact that he did not go to Congress. Iran is lobbing missiles at civilian areas of Israel and if Trump feels Iran is a threat to them the globalists can take it up with a resolution. You can get into the whys and whats all you want and try to compare this to that. Doesn't matter. We do not have to go to them. There are ways to work around anything and the UN SC can try to do something against us, but I'm pretty sure we'll veto it.

As far as going to Congress for every attack I summed it up above. Courts have rejected cases arguing WPA violations time and time again for a reason. Political Question Doctrine. They are free to clear up the ambiguity and send another version to his desk for him to veto if they want.

Trumpbots: the president has unlimited powers and answers to no one.

Also Trumpbots: lol why are the liberals and normies having a "No Kings day protest" as if anyone thinks we should have a king

2 hours ago, hukdonfoniks said:

Not that this whole thing isn't a serious situation and all, but am I the only one who thinks that looks a lot like Dak Prescott?

No way

33 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It wouldn't shock me if he made a post that I missed that made a good point.

This is why he's da GOAT

13 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Trumpbots: the president has unlimited powers and answers to no one.

Also Trumpbots: lol why are the liberals and normies having a "No Kings day protest" as if anyone thinks we should have a king

So Obama was acting like a king to defend the country, huh? So was pretty much every president since Reagan. Cool.

Again, courts have dismissed every case for a reason. Pass another WPA with less ambiguity.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This is why he's da GOAT

I got nothing against the guy. Haven't noticed him since this week, though.

2 hours ago, hukdonfoniks said:

Not that this whole thing isn't a serious situation and all, but am I the only one who thinks that looks a lot like Dak Prescott?

That’s his cousin Dhak Preskahat