Gingrich: I’ll ‘ignore’ any Supreme Court ruling I disagree

[Gigaliel]

Recent history, dude. Who got us into the last bullshit war on trumped up evidence, the Repubs or the Dems? Bush started wars. Obama is actually winding them down. Which is better overall?

Obama is only withdrawing troops in Iraq because negotiations to keep troops in the country failed.

If anything Obama has escalated foreign conflicts with drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia.

[Simon_Jester]

The drone attacks we can walk away from- it is not hard. Keeping a garrison of tens of thousands from an occupied country is one hell of a lot more expensive in blood and treasure.

So yes, I would rate this as progress- though whether it's progress because of or in spite of Obama's natural leanings I do not know.

[Col. Crackpot]

Obama is only withdrawing troops in Iraq because negotiations to keep troops in the country failed.

The negotiations between Bush and Saddam to keep troops out of iraq in 2003failed too. Did you really just say that and mean it? It would be so precious if you did.

[UnderAGreySky]

After the PATRIOT act,

Passed under a Democratic Senate and with a majority of Dem votes in the House.

SOPA

If it passes, it will be under a Democrat president and Senate.

and other abortions (har har) like DOMA and DMCA,

Both signed into law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

I'm not sure the US can afford taking chances.

What chances? The chance that the Oval Office will be occupied by a guy with an (R) next to his name instead of a (D)? It's not like it will make any differences in how the country is run.

Is that ALL you got from my post? That "Democrats are better than Republicans", which is why you decided to prove that "Both Sides Are Bad So Vote For A Psycho"?

My point was - and listen up, I'll use smaller words this time - the US screws itself and other countries enough by having idiots in charge. Put someone who is an idiot AND a psychopath / megalomaniac in charge, and it will be a disaster. And if I had to say something about the Republicans, I'll just point to the very fact that a twice-divorced, thrice-married, serial adulterer led the polls for presidential candidate in the "party of family values" and the "defenders of marriage".

[CaiusWickersham]

It also worked out well for Andrew Jackson and the Indian Relocation a.k.a. "Trail of Tears". There is certainly precedent for the PotUS ignoring the SCotUS when he wants to. Of course, that does not make it OK.

You mean excepting the fact that Jackson didn't ignore the Supreme Court at all since the Supreme Court didn't make Jackson do anything in the first place? I went over this before and I do not know why this board, which is supposed to support reasoned arguments, continues to let this meme endure.

[Dominus Atheos]

Recent history, dude. Who got us into the last bullshit war on trumped up evidence, the Repubs or the Dems? Bush started wars. Obama is actually winding them down. Which is better overall?

Obama is not winding down the wars. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq by December 2011 was negotiated by the Bush administration. Obama fought very hard to get the Iraqi government to allow US troops to stay longer, but gave up when the Iraqis said they would only do so if they could arrest and try soldiers for any crimes they commit against Iraqis.

[Broomstick]

It also worked out well for Andrew Jackson and the Indian Relocation a.k.a. "Trail of Tears". There is certainly precedent for the PotUS ignoring the SCotUS when he wants to. Of course, that does not make it OK.

You mean excepting the fact that Jackson didn't ignore the Supreme Court at all since the Supreme Court didn't make Jackson do anything in the first place? I went over this before and I do not know why this board, which is supposed to support reasoned arguments, continues to let this meme endure.

The SCotUS doesn't have the "power" to do anything, it can only determine if a law is or isn't constitutional. I don't know where you got this notion that the SCotUS has some sort of police powers.

[Broomstick]

Recent history, dude. Who got us into the last bullshit war on trumped up evidence, the Repubs or the Dems? Bush started wars. Obama is actually winding them down. Which is better overall?

Obama is not winding down the wars. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq by December 2011 was negotiated by the Bush administration. Obama fought very hard to get the Iraqi government to allow US troops to stay longer, but gave up when the Iraqis said they would only do so if they could arrest and try soldiers for any crimes they commit against Iraqis.

Yes, Obama IS "winding down" the war in IRAQ (I said nothing either way about Afghanistan). Sure, he asked for US troops to stay longer. When the the conditions for that were deemed unacceptable he did, in fact, withdraw US troops. As opposed to, say, remaining in the country. Wow, a US president actually respecting another country by withdrawing as opposed to staying and saying "fuck you, we'll play by our own rules". But, of course, that's "giving up" rather than "respecting Iraqi wishes" and hey, let's just ignore that yes, US troops ARE going home regardless of what reason(s) given by the politicians.

[Dominus Atheos]

Recent history, dude. Who got us into the last bullshit war on trumped up evidence, the Repubs or the Dems? Bush started wars. Obama is actually winding them down. Which is better overall?

Obama is not winding down the wars. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq by December 2011 was negotiated by the Bush administration. Obama fought very hard to get the Iraqi government to allow US troops to stay longer, but gave up when the Iraqis said they would only do so if they could arrest and try soldiers for any crimes they commit against Iraqis.

Yes, Obama IS "winding down" the war in IRAQ (I said nothing either way about Afghanistan).

You said "wars" plural, so you were talking about Afganistan.

Sure, he asked for US troops to stay longer. When the the conditions for that were deemed unacceptable he did, in fact, withdraw US troops. As opposed to, say, remaining in the country. Wow, a US president actually respecting another country by withdrawing as opposed to staying and saying "fuck you, we'll play by our own rules". But, of course, that's "giving up" rather than "respecting Iraqi wishes" and hey, let's just ignore that yes, US troops ARE going home regardless of what reason(s) given by the politicians.

Are you fucking retarded? Did you actually read my post or did you just skim it so you could kneejerk "Nuh-uh Obama's the best, everything that happens in this country that I like is because of him, tee hee!"

Let me put this in list form so it's easier to read:

1. George W. Bush was the one who agreed to withdraw all US forces by 2012.
2. Obama tried to get around that agreement to let us stay longer, which would be an ESCALATION.
3. Staying would be considered another INVASION. Bush, Gingrich or Romney wouldn't do that, and would be taking the exact same actions as Obama is taking.

[Broomstick]

Obama is not winding down the wars. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq by December 2011 was negotiated by the Bush administration. Obama fought very hard to get the Iraqi government to allow US troops to stay longer, but gave up when the Iraqis said they would only do so if they could arrest and try soldiers for any crimes they commit against Iraqis.

Yes, Obama IS "winding down" the war in IRAQ (I said nothing either way about Afghanistan).

You said "wars" plural, so you were talking about Afganistan.

Yes, I said BUSH STARTED WARS. Obama actually IS withdrawing troops from Iraq. I'm sorry you can not make the cognitive leap.

Sure, he asked for US troops to stay longer. When the the conditions for that were deemed unacceptable he did, in fact, withdraw US troops. As opposed to, say, remaining in the country. Wow, a US president actually respecting another country by withdrawing as opposed to staying and saying "fuck you, we'll play by our own rules". But, of course, that's "giving up" rather than "respecting Iraqi wishes" and hey, let's just ignore that yes, US troops ARE going home regardless of what reason(s) given by the politicians.

Are you fucking retarded? Did you actually read my post or did you just skim it so you could kneejerk "Nuh-uh Obama's the best, everything that happens in this country that I like is because of him, tee hee!"

This bullshit with failing to read WHAT THE FUCK I ACTUALLY WROTE and instead twisting whatever is written to fit some pre-conceived binary conflict is getting more than a little tiresome.

Some ONE thing that MIGHT be construed as a positive is HARDLY becoming a kneejerk cheerleader for Obama. NOWHERE did I state "Obama is the Best" or any other of that happy horseshit you WISH I said so you can engage in verbal fisticuffs.

Let me put this in list form so it's easier to read:

1. George W. Bush was the one who agreed to withdraw all US forces by 2012.

Knowing full well his ass wound be elsewhere, so continuing or not would be someone else's problem. What the prior administration agrees to may or may not be upheld by either the current or subsequent administrations.

[*]Obama tried to get around that agreement to let us stay longer, which would be an ESCALATION.

Yes, but MY point is that when the Iraqis said "no" Obama actually held to the agreement. Yes or no - was that a bad thing or not? Do you have a problem with Obama adhering to a prior agreement of the US government? You see, I can NOT understand why people bitch about what a complete and utter fuck-up Obama is, then turn around and say that he is ALSO a fuck up for respecting the wishes of another sovereign nation and for upholding a prior agreement.

Or are you so obviously biased against the man?

Let me clue you in - there is NOTHING wrong with one party to an agreement suggesting a change in that agreement. What would be wrong is forcing a change against the other party's will - which is clearly NOT happening.

[*]Staying would be considered another INVASION. Bush, Gingrich or Romney wouldn't do that, and would be taking the exact same actions as Obama is taking.[/list]

Bullshit.

BUSH IS THE ONE WHO INVADED IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Or had you forgotten that?

Gingrich or Romney, who the fuck knows? Who the fuck cares? But BUSH STARTED THE IRAQ WAR. Had you forgotten that already? On falsified grounds yet. You can't say "Bush wouldn't do that" BECAUSE HE ALREADY FUCKING DID!

So, fuckwit, admit you're full of shit, proclaiming something in direct contradiction to historical facts.

Seriously, I am no Obama apologist, but this asinine bullshit you are vomiting makes you a BUSH apologist. Why? Do you enjoy displaying ignorance and stupidity?

Once again -

BUSH STARTED THE IRAQ WAR, BASED ON FALSE "EVIDENCE".

OBAMA IS, IN FACT, WITHDRAWING AMERICAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISHES OF THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT. Whether or not Obama asked for either a longer US presence, or increase in the US presence, is relevant only to show that despite what his administration wanted they have acquiesced to the wishes of the Iraq government. Isn't that what so many people WANT? Is it a BAD thing that the US is actually honoring a commitment (even though the US wanted to change it) and withdrawing from the internal affairs of another nation? Or is more important to bash Obama than acknowledge the US holding to a commitment and NOT throwing its weight around?

Which do you want: a world where the US respects the desires of others even when they are not US desires, or a world where the guy in the Oval Office feels free to lie to start wars and/or ignore the law?

Now, you can trot out a LOT of other shit that's bad about the US, about Obama, and about a lot of other things but how about you fucking acknowledge when something is done right?

[Serafina]

Broomstick, the POINT here is that Obama has done the same thing Bush would have done in Iraq (or at least likely would have done). Bush would have withdrawn those troops now as well.
So you can hardly praise him for "winding down wars" in comparison to Bush, especially since he is escalating the military situation in so many other places, and when Obama tried to have them stick around longer.

[Broomstick]

Yes, let's just IGNORE the fact that Bush is the one who STARTED the fucking war in the first place!

Seriously, Dominus Atheos claiming Bush wouldn't start an invasion when he clearly did!

If Obama didn't adhere to that agreement he'd be bashed for it. He is adhering to it, and he's bashed for it. Clearly, Obama can't win with some people (as if that's news ) Pointing out the hypocrisy in the damned if he does, damned if he doesn't attitude is hardly a crime.

No, I don't think it's a given that Bush would have held to that agreement even if he had remained in office. The man fucking lied to start a war and shows no remorse for it. Why the hell would I trust him on anything? Bush might well have asked for an extension of US presence just as Obama did. Whether he'd actually respect the wishes of the Iraqis to NOT change that agreement is anyone's guess.

[Serafina]

No one is bashing Obama for adhering the agreement.

What i AM doing is pointing out that adhering the agreement doesn't earn him any praise either, nor does it make him particularly peaceful. The only reason why he did withdraw the troops were an agreement he didn't make and didn't want to honor (he wanted to change it). The notion that he is particularly peaceful is absurd giving his other actions.

[Broomstick]

Personally, I think there is some merit in adhering to an agreement you don't personally care for, because it's an agreement. It's rather faint praise, to be sure, but given how often in the past US administrations have cheerfully ignored agreements (when they didn't use them for toilet paper) having one actually respect one is a refreshing change.

[Serafina]

Well, to me it's like this:
You loan an item from your neighbors, and agree to return it a month later. Shortly before the month is up, you ask your neighbors if you can keep it for two more weeks. They decline, and because you know that they'd never lend you anything again and that your other neighbors would dislike you, you hand it back.
Sure, it'd be unfair you call you a thief or dishonest for this, but it's hardly commendable behavior.

[Broomstick]

It's commendable to the extent that it is ethical behavior, and behaving ethically IS commendable.

Granted, it's not as commendable as saving a dozen people from a burning building or something like that, but it is still the proper way to behave. As I said, faint praise, but still the right thing.

[Simon_Jester]

It also ties into "Bush would have done that anyway!" Would he? Or would he have said "failing to keep the item for the six weeks would imperil my strategery and embiggen the freedom-hating terrorists" and kept the thing as long as he felt necessary?

I'm not so sure. I get the feeling that Bush negotiated that troop withdrawal deadline partly because it was long after he'd be out of office from term limits, probably with the expectation that a future Republican might delay withdrawal "as long as necessary" (indefinitely). He knew he would never have been called on to honor it, personally.

[SAMAS]

It's commendable to the extent that it is ethical behavior, and behaving ethically IS commendable.

On the other hand, it's sad that we can consider that commendable.

[CaiusWickersham]

It also worked out well for Andrew Jackson and the Indian Relocation a.k.a. "Trail of Tears". There is certainly precedent for the PotUS ignoring the SCotUS when he wants to. Of course, that does not make it OK.

You mean excepting the fact that Jackson didn't ignore the Supreme Court at all since the Supreme Court didn't make Jackson do anything in the first place? I went over this before and I do not know why this board, which is supposed to support reasoned arguments, continues to let this meme endure.

The SCotUS doesn't have the "power" to do anything, it can only determine if a law is or isn't constitutional. I don't know where you got this notion that the SCotUS has some sort of police powers.

Have you considered a career in barbering? Because you really have a knack for splitting hairs. It seemed clear to me what I was getting at: the SCotUS did not order Jackson to do anything in the case bandied around this forum like a worn out chew toy. Jackson wasn't a party to the case!

[UnderAGreySky]

It also ties into "Bush would have done that anyway!" Would he? Or would he have said "failing to keep the item for the six weeks would imperil my strategery and embiggen the freedom-hating terrorists" and kept the thing as long as he felt necessary?

I'm not so sure. I get the feeling that Bush negotiated that troop withdrawal deadline partly because it was long after he'd be out of office from term limits, probably with the expectation that a future Republican might delay withdrawal "as long as necessary" (indefinitely). He knew he would never have been called on to honor it, personally.

It's quite the same as the sunset provisions for the Bush tax repeals - look how that worked out. And some of the foreign policy staff advising Romney is ex-Bush - and he has publicly stated he wouldn't have withdrawn troops.

[Gigaliel]

Obama is only withdrawing troops in Iraq because negotiations to keep troops in the country failed.

The negotiations between Bush and Saddam to keep troops out of iraq in 2003failed too. Did you really just say that and mean it? It would be so precious if you did.

I don't really understand your point here.

Let us examine the events here:

1.) Obama has negotiations with the Iraqi government to keep troops in Iraq.
2.) This fails.
3.) HEY EVERYBODY I'M WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ JUST LIKE I PROMISED!

This isn't dishonest at all.

Also, are you implying that invading Iraq again was an option on the table? Really? Really?

[Simon_Jester]

It's commendable to the extent that it is ethical behavior, and behaving ethically IS commendable.

On the other hand, it's sad that we can consider that commendable.

Given the history of politics around the world, when a politician behaves ethically, I don't think Broomstick's out of line to be pleasantly surprised.

[SCRawl]

Obama is only withdrawing troops in Iraq because negotiations to keep troops in the country failed.

The negotiations between Bush and Saddam to keep troops out of iraq in 2003failed too. Did you really just say that and mean it? It would be so precious if you did.

I don't really understand your point here.

Let us examine the events here:

1.) Obama has negotiations with the Iraqi government to keep troops in Iraq.
2.) This fails.
3.) HEY EVERYBODY I'M WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ JUST LIKE I PROMISED!

This isn't dishonest at all.

Also, are you implying that invading Iraq again was an option on the table? Really? Really?

The implication, if I may, is that Obama did not make a serious attempt to negotiate. I think that this is something like what those on the crazy end of the Right wing think actually happened:

IRAQ REPRESENTATIVE: "Mr. President, we are prepared to negotiate."
POTUS: {puts feet up on desk, opens a communist newspaper} "Yes, so am I."
IR: {pauses} "Mr. President, we have an initial position if you would like to consider it."
POTUS: "Wonderful." {turns page, grinning} "Hold on to it, if you please, I'm busy negotiating."
IR: "That word, it does not mean what you think it means."
POTUS: "Oh yeah it does. I'm in here with you, behind closed doors, negotiating. In twenty..." {looks at watch}"...three minutes I'm going to exit that door, and tell the reporters that despite my best efforts we failed to reach an agreement."
IR: "..."
POTUS: "Perfect. Now please, hold it down, I'm trying to negotiate here."

The more reasonable members of the Right wing just think that he didn't try very hard, and it's possible that he didn't -- probable, even. The president was able to score points with his base by withdrawing all the troops, and it was also a rather cost-effective move in the short term. Of course, if things go sideways there again, it'll be the most expensive move he'll ever make.