[Hoot Gibson]

As I have already pointed out in an earlier post for half of his watch he had to deal with a democratically controlled House and Senate. Further, ALL of the spending legislation came out of the democratically held House of Representatives and was sent for debate and ammendments for ratification up to the Senate which was controlled by the dems for 4 of his 8 years in office. He chose not to fight the spiralling debt which, arguably he should have. At any rate the House controlls spending, that is until now when Harry Reid has tried to assume that role for hmself and the democratic majority in the US Senate.


The national debt as of Jan 20, 2009, (inauguation day) -
10,626,877,048,913.08 but, even if you cheat and use the number you did, 2 trillion is still 20% not 9.

It is amazing to see liberals try to paint Obama as a deficit hawk. Obama is adding to the national debt at a rate of more than $1.5 trillion per year. It should be pretty easy for even liberals (armed with a simple calculator - no need to confuse them with trig functions) to multiply that number by 8 and determine that no president in history even begins to compare to Obama when it comes to spending money that the federal government does not have. He is lucky that Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives to give him a scapegoat when the far left cries that he is not spending enough.

[TheRealThing]

QUOTE=Wildcatk23;1217561]Were have u been the past 3 elections? We had a president redefine America. No funding for 2 wars, countless tax cuts to the rich, lies upon lies and your saying obama destroyed this nation in 2 years? 8 years under bush has brought down this country and u want to blame obama and the democrats for the not being able to float a sinking ship.[/QUOTE]




NO FUNDING FOR 2 WARS Bush went to congress as the law requires under the War Powers Act. Congress authorized the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and voted to appropriate the funding. What else should Bush have done? On the otherhand, we are presently embroiled in a war with Libya, you know, the "few days" war that has been raging since March of this year. Do I even need to point out Mr Obama (in clear violation of US law) didn't feel compelled to comply with the provisions of the War Powers Act and intitiated the conflict on his own authority. He still hasn't asked congress to sanction his actions and we are over 4 months down the road. So if you want to talk about unfunded war we have spent almost a billion so far and cost estimates are being held down due to the fact there is no end in sight to the fighting, much less the ouster of Moummar Al Kaddaffi.

TAX CUTS TO RICH - pointless democratic talking point

LIES UPON LIES - you mean like the one Reid told the whole nation last night on national tv when he said the republicans would't vote on his debt bill when in fact, they had just left the Senate chambers where Mitch McConnell et al were taunting him saying "we're ready to vote now, let's have the vote tonight"


Finally, NEVER have I said that Obama has destroyed this country, but, I will say this right here and now. IMO his POLICIES could and probably will destroy this country especially if we allow Harry Reid to keep circumventing established congressional proceedure and law.

[Benchwarmer]

Sounds like a bunch of idiots from the other side telling lies after lies. Typical. Their Motto "They caused it". Lies Lies. Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs. Lets cut Social Security, Med-care, and Education. They will tell you that's not the plan. But the snake crawling liar that agree with it know it's the truth. But Exxon can take home a 10 billion dollar 3 month profit with tax breaks. How sweet of the other side. Hell they don't like or even agree with each other. Debt ceiling vote postponed; for John Boehner so he could beg his fellow republicans to vote for a bill they didn't agree with. It barely passed. 22 no votes from the GOP.Their excuse, the other sides fault. Great bipartisan bill there Boehne. He knew the bill was really bad and new it would not pass senate. He just wanted the Dems to look bad and that it would be their fault. The Republicans set back and say liar liar pants on fire like they have the mentality of a 5 year old. Nothing is working because the senate is controlled by Democrats is all you here. Who in the hell controls Congress? Stupid people believe the Republican side. Idiots. Lets delay this for a few more months and cut the people that have built this country. You ask where is the senate bill? Sunday. Reid's plan will pass the Senate, which is scheduled to vote on it at 1 am Sunday. I bet he doesn't have to get on his knees (like republicans do with big business or just for fun) to get his bill through. What will the liar from the other side say? You didn't pass ours. So to hell to yours. So childish from the retards from the other side that believes everything from Fox news and any anyone that deals with not helping the working people of the U.S. Poor Republicans. You can video tape them screwing their poor neighbor's wife and all you will here is, I swear to God it wasn't me. it Was a democrat dressed as me."
Stupid morons.

You might be a Republican if...
You'll spend $20 billion guarding a bridge against the possibility of a terrorist attack, but won't spend 20 cents to keep it from falling down on its own.

[TheRealThing]

[quote=Benchwarmer]Do you guys have any brain cells that have said howdy lately?

National debt under Bush went from:
5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2001

to

11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2009

Overall conclusion 6.1 trillion in new debt to date during Bushes watch.[/QUOTE]

Since you really want to hang that 6 trillion dollar albatross around George W's neck let's look at some facts reguarding his time in office and why the debt is out of control.


When Bush was inaugurated on Jan 18, 2001 the national debt was 5.7 trillion. For the sake of argument I will stipulate that the debt doubled during the Bush years.

There was a date that will live forever in infamy alongside the invaision of Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941, that other date is Sept 11, 2001. Two passenger jets were flown through the twin towers of the World Trade Center and everything that was America was changed, at least in some manner, following that day.

As I have pointed out on here before, we (the USA) lost over 3 trillion dollars as a direct result of this viscious attack on our own soil. Now, folks 3 TRILLION DOLLARS is major by any definition. To try to blame this loss on what the liberals like to call, the failed financial policies of the Bush aministration, is a grievous and fraudulent attempt to rewrite history in order for a political party to gain an undeserved advantage in the elections. But, back to the point. If one were to deduct that 3 trillion from Bush's record, his tab would be a scant 3 trillion by comparision. Which, I freely admit is way too much, and I'm not defending his spending record per se.

However, dodging reality by blaming Bush, in light of how money is really spent by government is something I will not do. At any rate, it is a testament to the strength and will of the American people and the resilience of the strongest economy the world has ever known, that we are still standing. Like most others, I have done some things in my life that I wish I hadn't. But, it will be a cold day in hell before I blame a sitting or past president for the atrocity of that day. Such are the attributes of those across the aisle in Congress.

[Hoot Gibson]

Sounds like a bunch of idiots from the other side telling lies after lies. Typical. Their Motto "They caused it". Lies Lies. Democrats give their worn-out clothes to those less fortunate. Republicans wear theirs. Lets cut Social Security, Med-care, and Education. They will tell you that's not the plan. But the snake crawling liar that agree with it know it's the truth. But Exxon can take home a 10 billion dollar 3 month profit with tax breaks. How sweet of the other side. Hell they don't like or even agree with each other. Debt ceiling vote postponed; for John Boehner so he could beg his fellow republicans to vote for a bill they didn't agree with. It barely passed. 22 no votes from the GOP.Their excuse, the other sides fault. Great bipartisan bill there Boehne. He knew the bill was really bad and new it would not pass senate. He just wanted the Dems to look bad and that it would be their fault. The Republicans set back and say liar liar pants on fire like they have the mentality of a 5 year old. Nothing is working because the senate is controlled by Democrats is all you here. Who in the hell controls Congress? Stupid people believe the Republican side. Idiots. Lets delay this for a few more months and cut the people that have built this country. You ask where is the senate bill? Sunday. Reid's plan will pass the Senate, which is scheduled to vote on it at 1 am Sunday. I bet he doesn't have to get on his knees (like republicans do with big business or just for fun) to get his bill through. What will the liar from the other side say? You didn't pass ours. So to hell to yours. So childish from the retards from the other side that believes everything from Fox news and any anyone that deals with not helping the working people of the U.S. Poor Republicans. You can video tape them screwing their poor neighbor's wife and all you will here is, I swear to God it wasn't me. it Was a democrat dressed as me."
Stupid morons.

You might be a Republican if...
You'll spend $20 billion guarding a bridge against the possibility of a terrorist attack, but won't spend 20 cents to keep it from falling down on its own.

You might be a Democrat if you believe in taking other people's money under threat of violence and imprisonment in order to "spread the wealth around." Then again, you might simply be a Marxist, since that was Karl's central tenet.

BTW, studies have shown that Republicans donate more to charitable causes than Democrats. You are a fool for believing that the Chinese and other foreign governments will continue to fund social welfare programs in this country and the bill for their services will never come due.

Let us speak of illegal wars. What is your opinion of Obama's decision to start a war in Libya without Congressional authority and to defy the law that requires him to get Congress's permission within 60 days of the start of hostilities. Do you agree with Obama that launching missiles against the forces of a sovereign government do not constitute hostile actions?

[bball]

If the politicians in Washington would remember they are Americans first and Democrates and Republicans second, and work for those who sent them to serve. We wouldn't have the problems we have now.
I don't care for Oboma, but really he has very little to do about the bills congress passes. If he vetos a bill, congress can over:redboxer:ide his veto and it becomes law. They prey upon the stupidity of the voters like you and me.
The best thing would be term limits and start by voting all of the *&^%$# out of office.:ChairHit:

[Hoot Gibson]

If the politicians in Washington would remember they are Americans first and Democrates and Republicans second, and work for those who sent them to serve. We wouldn't have the problems we have now.
I don't care for Oboma, but really he has very little to do about the bills congress passes. If he vetos a bill, congress can over:redboxer:ide his veto and it becomes law. They prey upon the stupidity of the voters like you and me.
The best thing would be term limits and start by voting all of the *&^%$# out of office.:ChairHit:

Congress very rarely overrides bills that the sitting president vetoes. In cases where one house of Congress is as evenly split as the Senate is at this time, it almost never happens. The Democrats had control of Congress for the first two years of Obama's administration and the were passing his agenda. If I am not mistaken, Obama has not vetoed a single bill, so you are mistaken to believe that he has no responsibility for the current mess. Obamacare alone has cost thousands of jobs already and he deserves all of the blame or credit for that monstrosity of debt, depending on your perspective.

[Benchwarmer]

If the politicians in Washington would remember they are Americans first and Democrates and Republicans second, and work for those who sent them to serve. We wouldn't have the problems we have now.
I don't care for Oboma, but really he has very little to do about the bills congress passes. If he vetos a bill, congress can over:redboxer:ide his veto and it becomes law. They prey upon the stupidity of the voters like you and me.
The best thing would be term limits and start by voting all of the *&^%$# out of office.:ChairHit:

I agree.

:Thumbs:

[Benchwarmer]

[quote=Benchwarmer]Do you guys have any brain cells that have said howdy lately?

National debt under Bush went from:
5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2001

to

11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2009

Overall conclusion 6.1 trillion in new debt to date during Bushes watch.[/QUOTE]

Since you really want to hang that 6 trillion dollar albatross around George W's neck let's look at some facts reguarding his time in office and why the debt is out of control.


When Bush was inaugurated on Jan 18, 2001 the national debt was 5.7 trillion. For the sake of argument I will stipulate that the debt doubled during the Bush years.

There was a date that will live forever in infamy alongside the invaision of Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941, that other date is Sept 11, 2001. Two passenger jets were flown through the twin towers of the World Trade Center and everything that was America was changed, at least in some manner, following that day.

As I have pointed out on here before, we (the USA) lost over 3 trillion dollars as a direct result of this viscious attack on our own soil. Now, folks 3 TRILLION DOLLARS is major by any definition. To try to blame this loss on what the liberals like to call, the failed financial policies of the Bush aministration, is a grievous and fraudulent attempt to rewrite history in order for a political party to gain an undeserved advantage in the elections. But, back to the point. If one were to deduct that 3 trillion from Bush's record, his tab would be a scant 3 trillion by comparision. Which, I freely admit is way too much, and I'm not defending his spending record per se.

However, dodging reality by blaming Bush, in light of how money is really spent by government is something I will not do. At any rate, it is a testament to the strength and will of the American people and the resilience of the strongest economy the world has ever known, that we are still standing. Like most others, I have done some things in my life that I wish I hadn't. But, it will be a cold day in hell before I blame a sitting or past president for the atrocity of that day. Such are the attributes of those across the aisle in Congress.

This is what I'm talking about. I didn't do it mentality. It had to be the other side.

[Benchwarmer]

Congress very rarely overrides bills that the sitting president vetoes. In cases where one house of Congress is as evenly split as the Senate is at this time, it almost never happens. The Democrats had control of Congress for the first two years of Obama's administration and the were passing his agenda. If I am not mistaken, Obama has not vetoed a single bill, so you are mistaken to believe that he has no responsibility for the current mess. Obamacare alone has cost thousands of jobs already and he deserves all of the blame or credit for that monstrosity of debt, depending on your perspective.

Lord that damn Democratic Presidents trying to help the poor get some kind of insurance. The to hell with them mentality is at it again. It had to be democrats that tried to help someone that was not part of the rich that get tax breaks that can afford to get their own insurance. Poor little babies that get cut !8% of their gross income instead of making 10,000,000 a year I'm making 8,200,00 a year after tax cuts. Poor things. While someone that makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week. How dare those working people that make minimum wage and work 40 hours a week take home not 15,080 dollar's but 11,310 dollars after taxes. How dare the government try to help them. it had to be the other side that caused this.

[TheRealThing]

If the politicians in Washington would remember they are Americans first and Democrates and Republicans second, and work for those who sent them to serve. We wouldn't have the problems we have now.
I don't care for Oboma, but really he has very little to do about the bills congress passes. If he vetos a bill, congress can over:redboxer:ide his veto and it becomes law. They prey upon the stupidity of the voters like you and me.
The best thing would be term limits and start by voting all of the *&^%$# out of office.:ChairHit:

I see your point and I agree with you in principle. The problem is that Senate Leader Harry Reid has promised Mr Obama that he will deliver legislation that will stave off any further debt negotiations, following any agreement to increase the present debt ceiling. Normally about every 8 months on average the debt ceiling is reached and a new one is agreed on in congress. Since Mr Obama doesn't want to take any more heat on the debt and spending in general, the leader and the president cooked up a plan to defer any further negotiations until after the next presidential election in November of 2012. Reid's bill extends the next possible debt talks until mid 2013, well past the election date.

Why did Reid table both bills coming out of the House? Two reasons, 1- the above mentioned election concerns and, 2- In the words of former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz, spoken just last evening; "Democrats won't even vote on the Boehner Bill because it includes a balanced budget, if they had to operate under a balanced budget they wouldn't be able to buy votes anymore."

Reid can't remember he's an American first because his boss is standing over him holding him to their agreement. IMO

[Benchwarmer]

I see your point and I agree with you in principle. The problem is that Senate Leader Harry Reid has promised Mr Obama that he will deliver legislation that will stave off any further debt negotiations, following any agreement to increase the present debt ceiling. Normally about every 8 months on average the debt ceiling is reached and a new one is agreed on in congress. Since Mr Obama doesn't want to take any more heat on the debt and spending in general, the leader and the president cooked up a plan to defer any further negotiations until after the next presidential election in November of 2012. Reid's bill extends the next possible debt talks until mid 2013, well past the election date.

Why did Reid table both bills coming out of the House? Two reasons, 1- the above mentioned election concerns and, 2- In the words of former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz, spoken just last evening; "Democrats won't even vote on the Boehner Bill because it includes a balanced budget, if they had to operate under a balanced budget they wouldn't be able to buy votes anymore."

Reid can't remember he's an American first because his boss is standing over him holding him to their agreement. IMO

The other sides fault again? Republicans take no prisoner blame for themselves. It had to be the Far left people that are setting on a porch in China that has caused this mess. Or, was it the far right people that are in Afghanistan that pissed in the creek that caused gas price to go up. it couldn't have been a Republican.

[TheRealThing]

[quote=TheRealThing]

This is what I'm talking about. I didn't do it mentality. It had to be the other side.

Flew right over didn't it?:biggrin:

[Benchwarmer]

[quote=Benchwarmer]

Flew right over didn't it?:biggrin:

Or was it? Flew left over didn't it?

[Hoot Gibson]

Lord that damn Democratic Presidents trying to help the poor get some kind of insurance. The to hell with them mentality is at it again. It had to be democrats that tried to help someone that was not part of the rich that get tax breaks that can afford to get their own insurance. Poor little babies that get cut !8% of their gross income instead of making 10,000,000 a year I'm making 8,200,00 a year after tax cuts. Poor things. While someone that makes minimum wage and works 40 hours a week. How dare those working people that make minimum wage and work 40 hours a week take home not 15,080 dollar's but 11,310 dollars after taxes. How dare the government try to help them. it had to be the other side that caused this.

Typical response by somebody who has no facts to support their position. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you get a lot of your news from MSNBC and a generous portion of your "stats" from emails from Media Matters and/or the DNC.

Liberals like you never slow down from attacking the people who are footing nearly the entire bill for social welfare programs in this country to answer the question of what gives the government the right to "spread the wealth" in the manner that Barack Obama has done? If as a private citizen unable to pay his own medical bills, rob a few wealthy people to pay those bills, should I go to jail? If armed robbery for a good cause is wrong for me, then why is it right when the federal government engages in the same practice? What is the difference morally?

[Benchwarmer]

Typical response by somebody who has no facts to support their position. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you get a lot of your news from MSNBC and a generous portion of your "stats" from emails from Media Matters and/or the DNC.

Liberals like you never slow down from attacking the people who are footing nearly the entire bill for social welfare programs in this country to answer the question of what gives the government the right to "spread the wealth" in the manner that Barack Obama has done? If as a private citizen unable to pay his own medical bills, rob a few wealthy people to pay those bills, should I go to jail? If armed robbery for a good cause is wrong for me, then why is it right when the federal government engages in the same practice? What is the difference morally?

I'm not Liberal. I'm an American with a dream that is having a foot stopping the door by you people that want to hold the working people down. I watch all types of news. Mr. fox news. Now the robbers are at fault for the mess of the country and trying to take from the rich. Lord those poor sweet rich people having to pay the same tax rates as the poor. I guess Democrats are now going to be called Robin Hood. It had to be the poor peoples fault of the short comings of this country now. That's a new one. "It can't be the republicans fault. It has to be the poor and old peoples fault because they need to pay more taxes."

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm not Liberal. I'm an American with a dream that is having a foot stopping the door by you people that want to hold the working people down. I watch all types of news. Mr. fox news. Now the robbers are at fault for the mess of the country and trying to take from the rich. Lord those poor sweet rich people having to pay the same tax rates as the poor. I guess Democrats are now going to be called Robin Hood. It had to be the poor peoples fault of the short comings of this country now. That's a new one. "It can't be the republicans fault. It has to be the poor peoples fault."

If you believe half of what you are posting, then yes, you are a liberal whether you realize it or not. Take a look around the country at the areas that have been controlled by liberal Democrats for decades, in other words nearly every major city in the country. Do you think that it is a coincidence that the plight of the poor living in cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia have not improved despite the near monopoly that Democrats have had in the governments of these cities?

Liberal Democrats are continuing to drive employers and jobs out of states like California, Michigan, and Illinois, and the lion's share of jobs that are not relocated in China, are landing in states where liberal Democrats do not have a stranglehold on political power.

You cannot make a rational argument that people living under the tyranny of liberal politicians are materially better off than they are living with Republicans in charge. However, I would love to see you try to back up some of your liberal Democrat talking points with some cold, hard facts.

People who want to work and who are tired of being taxed to support a large class of moochers are headed to the Red States because that is where the jobs are headed.

[TheRealThing]

The other sides fault again? Republicans take no prisoner blame for themselves. It had to be the Far left people that are setting on a porch in China that has caused this mess. Or, was it the far right people that are in Afghanistan that pissed in the creek that caused gas price to go up. it couldn't have been a Republican.

Why quote me if you're not responding in context? I get it, you hate republicans and conservatives.

[Benchwarmer]

You might be a Democrat if you believe in taking other people's money under threat of violence and imprisonment in order to "spread the wealth around." Then again, you might simply be a Marxist, since that was Karl's central tenet.

BTW, studies have shown that Republicans donate more to charitable causes than Democrats. You are a fool for believing that the Chinese and other foreign governments will continue to fund social welfare programs in this country and the bill for their services will never come due.

Let us speak of illegal wars. What is your opinion of Obama's decision to start a war in Libya without Congressional authority and to defy the law that requires him to get Congress's permission within 60 days of the start of hostilities. Do you agree with Obama that launching missiles against the forces of a sovereign government do not constitute hostile actions?

Here we go again. Cant be the republicans because Dems are saying to the rich you should pay the same rate as to someone that is having trouble making the rent. Sorry about you making 1.9 million a year.Good one. Lord now Obama has declared war on Libya. Damn first President to ever have a a war. I knew he was a democrat. Wait have we really declared war with Libya?Who controls Congress? Republicans and who declares war? Is it constitutionally vested in Congress?Another lie from the near right or should I say out there left. Wait maybe I'm using the wrong foot. With red colors or was it blue you used? Damn those dems. for not knowing the right color now.

[Benchwarmer]

Why quote me if you're not responding in context? I get it, you hate republicans and conservatives.

Dang, I have to be a Democrat because I don't agree with you. It has to be my fault of this country. For your information. I have voted republican . So point left or right and you have a 50 50 chance of getting it right. Wait isn't that !00%. Damn throw some more taxes at me.

[Old School]

Obama and his machine has been blaming Bush and the republicans for everything since day one.

Below is a link to a Paul Shanklin tune, worth listening to.

http://minx.cc/?post=298533

[Benchwarmer]

Obama and his machine has been blaming Bush and the republicans for everything since day one.

Below is a link to a Paul Shanklin tune, worth listening to.

http://minx.cc/?post=298533

Damn those democrat. I hate them. The cant be American citizens like Republicans.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here we go again. Cant be the republicans because Dems are saying to the rich you should pay the same rate as to someone that is having trouble making the rent. Sorry about you making 1.9 million a year.Good one. Lord now Obama has declared war on Libya. Damn first President to ever have a a war. I knew he was a democrat. Wait have we really declared war with Libya?Who controls Congress? Republicans and who declares war? Is it constitutionally vested in Congress?Another lie from the near right or should I say out there left.

You are demonstrated more ignorance with each post. Try Googling "War Powers Act" and then defend Obama for breaking the same law with which Bush complied in the cases of both the Iraq and Afghanistan War. You are like the proverbial knife fighter who signed up for a gunfight. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

[Benchwarmer]

You are demonstrated more ignorance with each post. Try Googling "War Powers Act" and then defend Obama for breaking the same law with which Bush complied in the cases of both the Iraq and Afghanistan War. You are like the proverbial knife fighter who signed up for a gunfight. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

And you with each breath.

[Hoot Gibson]

And you with each breath.

That's funny considering you have yet to post anything but an obviously uninformed opinion. Do you know what the War Powers Act is yet and if so, is Obama in violation of the Act or not? Let's see some facts to support your zealous anti-rich man, wealth-envy laced opinions.

[Benchwarmer]

That's funny considering you have yet to post anything but an obviously uninformed opinion. Do you know what the War Powers Act is yet and if so, is Obama in violation of the Act or not? Let's see some facts to support your zealous anti-rich man, wealth-envy laced opinions.

Which one or are you to ignorant to understand that we have had a few. 1973 or 1941. Maybe 1933. President Bush stated that he would to go to war in Iraq whether Congress approved it or not. Where have I taken up for or have I supported Obama. Will I vote for Obama in the next election? NO. You assume everything and get nothing right. Just like a Republican.

[Hoot Gibson]

Which one or are you to ignorant to understand that we have had a few. 1973 or 1941. Maybe 1933. President Bush stated that he would to go to war in Iraq whether Congress approved it or not. Where have I taken up for or have I supported Obama. Will I vote for Obama in the next election? NO. You assume everything and get nothing right. Just like a Republican.

I see, you are still clueless about what the War Powers Act is and whether Obama violates it every day that he gets out of bed. Bush went to Congress and asked for authorization to go to war with Iraq if necessary, and a large bi-partisan majority granted him that authority. Congress is not violating the War Powers Act - Obama is. Furthermore, Obama is not even taking a principled stand such as claiming that the law is unconstitutional. Instead he claims that our troops are not engaged in hostilities, despite the large number of Libyans dead from American bombs suggesting otherwise.

As for which War Powers Act, there is only one that Obama has been accused of violating and that is the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, which is more commonly referred to as the War Powers Act, which was how I referred to it.

Had you known anything about the dispute between Republicans in Congress and Obama over the Libyan issue, then you would not have needed to ask me to which one I was referring.

At least in Googling the term, you learned something about what is going on in Washington.

[nky]

Here we go again. Cant be the republicans because Dems are saying to the rich you should pay the same rate as to someone that is having trouble making the rent. Sorry about you making 1.9 million a year.Good one. Lord now Obama has declared war on Libya. Damn first President to ever have a a war. I knew he was a democrat. Wait have we really declared war with Libya?Who controls Congress? Republicans and who declares war? Is it constitutionally vested in Congress?Another lie from the near right or should I say out there left. Wait maybe I'm using the wrong foot. With red colors or was it blue you used? Damn those dems. for not knowing the right color now.

when did Congress declare war on Libya?
I know Public Law No: 107-243, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of October 2002
And I know S.J. Res. 23 on September 14, 2001 with a vote of 98-0 authorized use of force in Afganistan.

But I've never seen an authorization to fight in Libya

[LWC]

So what happened to the talk about the deficit? I think we got lost in declaring war, lol. The simple fact is, money is going to pay for soldiers overseas in Libya. Maybe I am missing the boat on this. Are they not getting paid?

Was the Korean War ever actually declared through Congress as a war?

While I understand that laws need to be followed, the same result will happen, right?

[Hoot Gibson]

So what happened to the talk about the deficit? I think we got lost in declaring war, lol. The simple fact is, money is going to pay for soldiers overseas in Libya. Maybe I am missing the boat on this. Are they not getting paid?

Was the Korean War ever actually declared through Congress as a war?

While I understand that laws need to be followed, the same result will happen, right?

I am not sure why the Libyan War was brought up, I mentioned it first - but it is an illustration of the contempt in which Obama holds the US Constitution and duly enacted federal laws. Many Democrats are already urging Obama to act without Congressional authority and to claim that he must raise the debt ceiling because of the 14th Amendment. Doing so would be an impeachable offense but there is no way that Democrats will impeach this would-be dictator.