Since many cons claim Obama is destroying our economy by the conflict in Libya, will they give him credit if oil prices fall as a result of this?
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/finho...n&asset=&ccode=
Printable View
Since many cons claim Obama is destroying our economy by the conflict in Libya, will they give him credit if oil prices fall as a result of this?
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/finho...n&asset=&ccode=
Oil prices have already fallen. $80 a barrel should mean what... $1.50 a gallon of gas?
And price per barrel should already include demand requests from China, etc, so what is going on?
Above and beyond the cost of President Obama's Libyan adventure, President Obama should be impeached for violating his oath of office by declaring war on Libya by executive order without even seeking the consent of Congress. That won't happen though with Democrats controlling the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitej72
An important sentence in your article: "Oil has fallen recently along with stocks because of concerns about the global economy." Considering his role in the world economy, perhaps the President should get some credit for his role in the slippage of oil prices.
Not quite. A barrel of oil measures 42 gallons. At $80, the cost of unrefined oil is $1.90/gallon. If that is light crude oil, the cost to get it it to the refinery, refine it and get it to you is about 70c-$1.00/gallon. If the oil is heavier, that cost is a bit higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by East Detroit
Well, either way Michelle Bachman is probably still putting together a multi-point strike plan on all of OPEC in order to fulfill her hollow promise to the American people of cheap gas.
They will say anything to get elected.
There will be no major drop. If you want to know how investors are going to respond to news start listening to business news programs rather than the main stream media. They've become worse than useless; they've become misleading. Oil is up 1.1% so far today. As they say, money talks and bullshit walks. Just like how the main stream media went against the business news in predicting that a credit rating drop would spike interest rates.
I'm as curious to hear Bachman's magic plan for $2 gas as I am to hear Obama's magic plan to reduce the deficit by increasing spending and decreasing taxes. Buy into the market a few days after the President gives his speech and Congress comes up with equally ridiculous opposition ideas.
I guess Obama is just another President getting us involved in another war for oil. God knows Bush was never able to do as much for BP stock as Obama has been able to do since he put his boot on their throats. Its obviously better for your wallet if the President is trying to harm you rather than help you.
still running with that old saw? Treaties, my friend, render the strikes on libya legalQuote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Which treaty is this?
Don't you get it, rb336? Invade Iraq = "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!"Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
But dropping bombs on Libya as part of NATO action, led by Britain and France, and in which no American casualties are suffered = "illegal war". It's the same shit these assholes trotted out in the late 1990s when we were involved in Kosovo [[another action in which ZERO American casualties were suffered). Almost makes you wonder which of the two political parties genuinely respects and supports our troops.
Fuck you, hypocrites.
Oh, I think Oladub and I have pretty well opposed the start of all the ongoing illegal wars since their beginnings. Since I also opposed continuing them under the new President, I thought Obama winning the election would be a good thing rather than an expansion of one war and the start of yet another.
Mr. President, if you want to do something about the "Bush wars" you "inherited" and the "Bush tax cuts" you "inherited" and the debt issues it caused you to "inherit", quit fucking expanding them you whiney little bitch!
Last I checked, all combat troops had left Iraq and a drawdown and withdrawal in Afghanistan has been planned.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
Good question. Which treaty supersedes the Constitution. What are the exact words in that treaty? I thought that treaties had to be consistent with the Constitution which specifies that Conress, not the President sans Congress, is designated with the power to declare war.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
gp, Have you totally lost it? I opposed, and still oppose, the actions in Kosovo and Iraq too. You are sputtering vile nonsense. at least rb is making a civil statement about some treaty he will shortly spell out for us.
Last I checked, I didn't put any shoes on your feet. If it fits, though, you're perfectly welcome to wear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
Its the War Powers act of 1973Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...strategy_n.htm
While I don't like war either Obama saw a possible correlation between Libya and Rwanda and he was not going to let history repeat itself on his watch.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...libya-rwanda/1
Now Oladub before you go all unconstitutional on me, presidents have been doing this for decades mostly Repubs by the way. True Obama pushed the envelope on this act as the article states but I don't see anyway he can or will be impeached.
War Powers Act is an "ACT" of Congress. It has ACT in the title. You said there was some sort of treaty between us and Libya which gives us the power to attack the country with which we have a supposed treaty. The War Powers Act does not give the President the ability to go to war whenever he wants. Quite the opposite. It was passed after Nixon escalated our involvement in Vietnam to limit Presidential power.
By the way, I now understand what old news story you are talking about. As discussed in the article, it was pointed out that the Libyan action also violates the time period in the War Powers Act. The Whitehouse basically responded with an argument that American troops must be actively involved in armed conflicts for the act to come into effect. Not even the Whitehouse was absurd enough to say that the act created the power to do it; they only said the act didn't forbid it. Oladub is saying that the U.S. Consitution forbids it.
When I was a little kid and one of our teenage neighbors was asked why he did something uncharacteristically wrong and stupid, he said "I thought we wouldn't get caught." I remember my neighbor's mom telling him that whether you get caught or not isn't the point. Just because Obama can't be impeached for it, and just because someone else did it, it doesn't make it right for him to do it. Didn't your parents ever teach you that?Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
You're getting into semantics with me. Maybe rb 336 misspoke, I know I do. The point of his argument is that the president can wage limited warfare thru executive mandate.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
Oladub and I went back and forth on this and it seems that over time congress ceeded certain powers to the executive branch. Well one of those powers was to wage war. Granted it is on a limited basis but it is there, presidents have been doing it for years and Obama was no exception.
If you read the articles if we avoided a Rwanda type situation where approx 1 million people were killed stabilized the region, without a single American life lost then you should take that into account as well.
That proves that Obama wanted to get involved. It doesn't prove that he had the authority to get involved. The Constitution of the United States of America requires an Act of Congress to get involved. Obama could have asked Congress to approve the war. Congress acted in mere hours in declaring war on Japan and bailing out banks so they could have acted in time for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
While an ends justify the means is always insane to me, even that argument doesn't address whether the U.S. Constitution gives the President of the United States the ability to go to war without Congressional approval.
If you believe that no war is justified then you would be right. Obama doesn't believe that and he stated that in the past and he acted on that in Libya.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
No. The ends can not justify the means. Thats how we ended up with big brother surveillance and Bush torturing people. We are better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
I don't want to go back over old ground check the thread where oladub and I go back and forth on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjs
There is a reality that you constitutionist don't want to face
So we should have done what Clinton did....NOTHINGQuote:
Originally Posted by mjs
That logic doesn't make sense. I believe that no unconstitutional war is justified. The President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, not see how much he can get away with. Its an argument that Congress has the power to get us involved in war rather than the President.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
I could very well be lead to believe the war was justified so Congress should have allowed it. While the farthest from Constitutional, it certainly was the most justified of the three we were involved in. But, it was a question for CONGRESS.
Don't you see that what he did now makes it easier for a future President you far more oppose to get involved in a war that you feel is far less justified. The founding fathers gave that power to Congress because they wanted going to war to be a thought out process where a wide variety of leaders representing a wide variety of interests get a say and have to take on its responsibility, not just some dictatorial power grab. Every act of tyranny begins as an act in the name of the greater good. The means of achieveing that good are critical to long term character.
If thats what Congress decided, Yes. If thats not what Congress decided, then No.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
That's my whole point. You keep arguing the justification for a small war in a small period of time when I'm arguing about the balance of power in the lifetime of a nation.