Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: An Army Bro Is Suing Barack Obama For Going To War With ISIS

  1. #11
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    This clown sounds like another potential Private Bergdahl or Manning waiting to happen . He should probably be snatched out of his tent at Camp Arifjan, in the middle of the night, with a burlap sack over his head and cargo strapped to the floor of a waiting C-130 for transport to Gtmo, were he can be waterboarded and force fed indefinitely or until he decides to get with the program (whichever comes first)
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 05-05-2016 at 03:57 PM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    So it sounds like he has no issues fighting Daesh (aka ISIS) but he just feels that the resolution used to authorize fighting them is not valid. That they need to have Congress sign a new resolution to authorize force. Which is something the SECDEF has asked for and the President has sent a new resolution for use of force specifically against this group.

    It doesn't sound like he's trying to get out of a fight. He just feels that it's an "illegal" use of forces.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    This clown sounds like another potential Private Bergdahl or Manning waiting to happen . He should probably be snatched out of his tent at Camp Arifjan, in the middle of the night, with a burlap sack over his head and cargo strapped to the floor of a waiting C-130 for transport to Gtmo, were he can be waterboarded and force fed indefinitely or until he decides to get with the program (whichever comes first)
    I don't think he's on that level of idiocy. He says in Army Times article he has no issue with going after them. He just thinks the resolution is outdated and not applicable to the current conflict.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sparks82 View Post
    I don't think he's on that level of idiocy. He says in Army Times article he has no issue with going after them. He just thinks the resolution is outdated and not applicable to the current conflict.
    I don't disagree with his premise. But, it's not a CGO's cross to bear.... He don't make policy, he executes policy.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    I have no problem with people taking a stand against the system. Believe me, I'm the last person who would. What I DO have a problem with is the method in question - i.e., people knowing fully well what the official interpretation of the system is, but acting in accordance with their own interpretation and thinking that they can't or shouldn't be touched. I take good pleasure in watching people like that get put down.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    http://brobible.com/life/article/arm...ue-obama-isis/



    Yeah... gotta love it when people interpret the law their own way, and think that shit's gonna fly.

    That dude just ended his career. If he was enlisted, he'd be in jail right now.
    So His interpretation of the law is wrong and should get him canned for doing what HE sees as right under his oath. BUT obama's massive stretch of the rules to interpret it the way he did, is ok??

    Quote Originally Posted by sparks82 View Post
    So it sounds like he has no issues fighting Daesh (aka ISIS) but he just feels that the resolution used to authorize fighting them is not valid. That they need to have Congress sign a new resolution to authorize force. Which is something the SECDEF has asked for and the President has sent a new resolution for use of force specifically against this group.

    It doesn't sound like he's trying to get out of a fight. He just feels that it's an "illegal" use of forces.
    That's how i read it too.. He just wants what they are doing to be above board, not an illegal use of force.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    So His interpretation of the law is wrong and should get him canned for doing what HE sees as right under his oath. BUT obama's massive stretch of the rules to interpret it the way he did, is ok??
    Yup.

    He knew what the official interpretation of the law was. And, unless you're a supreme court justice in the applicable jurisdiction, it's not your place to act out of accordance with the official interpretation. You don't have that right. Obama may violate YOUR interpretation, but if he violated the official interpretation, then SCOTUS steps in.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  8. #18
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Yup.

    He knew what the official interpretation of the law was. And, unless you're a supreme court justice in the applicable jurisdiction, it's not your place to act out of accordance with the official interpretation. You don't have that right. Obama may violate YOUR interpretation, but if he violated the official interpretation, then SCOTUS steps in.
    Only if someone sues. SCOTUS doesn't just take up cases with no previous litigation put forward.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  9. #19
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Only if someone sues. SCOTUS doesn't just take up cases with no previous litigation put forward.
    With a Republican controlled Congress that has been trying to take Obama down from day one, there's no way that this wouldn't happen if they truly believed that he was violating the law in this case.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  10. #20
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    With a Republican controlled Congress that has been trying to take Obama down from day one, there's no way that this wouldn't happen if they truly believed that he was violating the law in this case.
    Right, but still, someone would have to sue before the SCOTUS heard the case.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •