12 votes

Video - Obama's speech on Syria today - Updated w/ Boehner response

Speech starts @ 2 Min mark.

http://youtu.be/DmgQseJmmRM

Highlights -

- 'overwhelming evidence'
- Blamed Assad off the bat
- Citing dead children to appeal to emotion
- These attacks 'Harms our National Security'
- Possibility of 'Assad giving weapons to terrorists'
- United states 'should take military action'
- 'No boots on the ground'
- 'Limited duration and scope'
- The US needs to 'hold Assad Accountable'
- We are prepared to strike 'whenever we choose'
- Not time sensative, but prepared,
- President calls our form of gov't a 'Constitutional Democracy'
- He WILL seek authorization for use of force from congress
- Spoke with the 4 congressional leaders to schedule that 'hearing'
- Comfortable with going forward WITHOUT UN, citing them being 'paralyzed'
- Obama is mad about UK not supporting
- He then cites that he has the 'authority' to start a war without authorization
- A few closing quotes
'We must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing'
'What message would we send if we do nothing while children are being gassed!?'
'I know well we are weary of war... thats why we are only going to pressure Assad regime... After WWII, We built an international order to establish peace, so I ask you congress to take a vote FOR authorization of force ... to keep the peace'.

-------------
Here is the Response from John Boehner, Citing the 'week of September 9th' Is when the house will vote on the resolution.
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/house-gop-leadership-st...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dr Paul is a staunch non-interventionist.

and non aggression believer. Dr Paul would NEVER advocate to get involved in Syria....

haven't seen it yet

Is he still making his really good secret case, or did he actually say what his case is finally?

Powerful Case?

Present a powerful case? Where is it? Why isn't it revealed...security reasons? BS

With my level of trust, all i

With my level of trust, all i hear is, "powerful propaganda"....(whoopsies, wer'nt suppose to say that)

That was close! WW3 delayed

The word "Should" in Should take Military action to me in Lawyer speak means the attack is off as no way in hell will the House pass a resolution to strike with tomahawks and guaranteed this keeps off the headlines all of Obama's scandals for as long as he wants.

“In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Mark Twain

The United States IS a

The United States IS a constitutional democracy. The American constitution is a constraint on democracy. In the UK, Australia and other commonwealth realms, we have constitutional monarchy, to limit monarchical power.

A Republic is any system where the government is public, rather than private. People in the liberty movement confuse this term. I think this comes from Benjamin Franklin's famous "A republic, mam, if you can keep it" line. All he was saying, is that the government is open to the people.

Republic literally means "the public thing". It has got nothing to do with rights and protections.

Okay on republic but not on democracy...

"Republic" is an empty word that simply separates what's public from private. The archetypal Roman republic was almost nothing like the American republic. The Roman republic divided power by class and the American republic is an oligarchy (only one class has power in the US). The Roman republic had no executive office (always two or three consuls) but Americans have a President-King (wonder when Americans will get the privilege of addressing him as a god?).

The Roman republic was a power mash-up of some aristocracy and some democracy. The American republic is completely based on deception by calling itself "democratic" because people "vote" but Aristotle told us that representative government is oligarchy because only the wealthy or those owned by the wealthy can afford to run for office. The electoral process has been so utterly corrupted now to be meaningless. There is the ruling class today and the rest of us...

Real democracy is based on sortition. If there's no sortition, there's no democracy. There are no democracies on the planet and there hasn't been since the time of Aristotle.

"Direct democracy" isn't democracy. The whole concept has been so mangled over the centuries by the powers-that-were-and-are that almost no one now understands it. James Madison attacked a straw man he called "democracy" in Federalist #10 because bringing up sortition would have been to open Pandora's box. The aristocrats didn't want that to happen. He and his buddies wanted power for themselves and got it. The ignorant revolutionaries didn't fight and die for liberty... just new management.

I agree with you on

I agree with you on "republic", in fact I have said the same many times.

Democracy however doesn't necessarily have to be of the Athenian model. All that is required for democracy is that the people are the source of decision making.

This is what Plato tells us: The core of democracy, metaphysically speaking, is "rule by freedom". The idea of human equality comes from the idea of universal human freedom. You can only avoid doing what your better tells you to do, if you are instead their equal.

If I were going to use my own words, and be precise, I would call the United States, in it's beginning, a mixed system. It was designed to mix plutocracy with democracy.

Remember that in the beginning, the United States had property rules as to who could vote.

Nowadays, the government straddles democracy, and tyranny. All democracy eventually devolves into tyranny, so this is not surprising.

I would be interested in seeing some quotes

from the founders that provide any evidence that they would consider a federal republic and a democracy even remotely similar.

Can you provide any examples of the word "democracy" being used positively in any of the founding documents? If the country was founded as a constitutional democracy, why isn't the word democracy used in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution?

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." - John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

When they say democracy

When they say democracy there, they are speaking of direct democracy. That should be clear enough.

You're mistaken actually

We're not a democracy. We're actually a democratic constitutional Republic.

The constitution isn't a restraint on democracy. The republic is that. The constitution is a restrain on the republic.

I'm not wrong, actually, let

I'm not wrong, actually, let me explain.

Democracy is the vote of the people. In a pure democracy, everyone votes on every issue -- and there is nothing they cannot decide. This means there is no constraints on democratic decision making. The constitution on the other hand, introduces measures to separate the decision making process from the voters. Whether that be the repressentative nature of government, the restraints on what that democratically elected government can do, or elitist institutions that were put down originally, such as the electoral college, state government elected senators, racial restrictions, gender restrictions, and property restrictions. Of those only the electoral college remains.

Technically North Korea is a republic, because though it is ruled outright by one party, and indeed one dynasty, there is a degree of legal separation between the property of the state, and the property of the ruling Kim family, and the communist party.

Libertarians have been mixing up this word for a long, long time.

Are you saying we have a direct democracy ...we dont

We have elected morons that make up there own mind on matters before them, after there in office they can do anything constitutional and hope to get re elected. The people cant vote on the decisions but the person representing them.

“In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Mark Twain

Thanks. I should of said for

Thanks. I should of said for clarity: "Of the so called elitist institutions listed, only the electoral college remains."

Hope that clears up my meaning for any readers.

It's funny...

Most of your comment would be correct if you were talking about a republic.

"The constitution on the other hand, introduces measures to separate the decision making process from the voters."

That is a republic.

Word order matters here. You're not exactly wrong... but you're not exactly correct either.

You claim we're a constitutional democracy, which would be a legal limitation to direct voting of the mob.

Again, word order... we're a democratic constitutional republic. We have direct elections of the representatives to the constitutional republic.

Your example or Korea spells out a dynastic republic, not a democratic republic.

Me: "The constitution on the

Me: "The constitution on the other hand, introduces measures to separate the decision making process from the voters."

You: "That is a republic."

It is a republic in as much as it is public. That's what republic means. I keep explaining this to you but it keeps going right over your head. This is about the definition of "republic", not word order -- which is pointless if you don't understand each word you are using. You are wrong.

"democratic constitutional republic" is redundant. Democracy tells us of the vote and so naturally of the public nature of the government, constitutional tells us there are limitations, and republic again tells us of the public nature of the government. "Constitutional democracy" is correct.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle trying to tell libertarians that their favorite buzzword is misplaced, but oh well. Keep on keeping on.

dude... you're just too

dude... you're just too wrong. It's not worth it anymore. Are you one of the presidents former students?

You:
"democratic constitutional republic" is redundant. Democracy tells us of the vote and so naturally of the public nature of the government, constitutional tells us there are limitations, and republic again tells us of the public nature of the government. "Constitutional democracy" is correct."

Me:
Everything you said in that above paragraph is wrong. While it's still not worth it, I'll still try to show you why at the least.

1. "democratic constitutional republic" is redundant.

No, it's descriptive.

2. Democracy tells us of the vote and so naturally of the public nature of the government,

Irrelevant. Your definition of Republic is only it's literal translation from Latin, not it's true meaning as a form of government. It's like you stopped reading wikipedia after the first sentence. (I just read the wiki on republic and so I know that's where you're getting this from... the very first sentence of it's article.)

3. constitutional tells us there are limitations

That's also irrelevant. We're debating what the constitution limits, a republic or a democracy. The fact that the constitution is limiting is not in question by either of us.

4. and republic again tells us of the public nature of the government.

That's not all it tells us. It also tells us that the rule of law is honored (yeah.. I know lol) and it tells us that we have a deliberative body (as in a body that deliberates).

5. "Constitutional democracy" is correct.

No, it's not. Where in your theory does the word 'republic' even enter? Oh, yeah... you think it's implied by using the word democracy. lol

I'm not getting this from

I'm not getting this from Wikipedia at all. I think you might be.

Listen, I never said that the US isn't a republic; it is. It is also a constitutional democracy. These aren't mutually exclusive. Heck, it's also a liberal democracy.

You are completely wrong about what "republic" means, but oh well.

So where did you get this

So where did you get this from?

It is what it is

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Definition+of+...

Because that is what it means. I got it from learning. Now it is yours. Enjoy.

You probably heard someone corrected, or were corrected yourself, by some know nothing libertarian, and decided they were right without knowing for yourself either way.

You are quite welcome to jump all over Obummer, but at least make sure your criticisms are valid.

Thanks for the link... did you read it?

"Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to create a republican government."

"By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government."

So now let us read the definition of Democracy from the same site:

"That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised by the people in a body, as was the practice in some of the states of Ancient Greece; the term representative democracy has been given to a republican government like that of the United States."

One thing you should notice is that the word Democracy can't stand on it's own to describe the American form of government. To use it, you must modify it with 'representative' in order to give it the meaning of Republic, which can stand on it's own. Why? Because we are a republic.

You are so far out of your

You are so far out of your league here. Read it again.

The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.

"By a republic, Madison meant a system in which representatives are chosen by the citizens to exercise the powers of government."

This speaks against your case, not for it. The fact that they clarified what Madison meant when he called a particular system a "republic" speaks volumes. The fact that you think this piece helps your argument also speaks volumes.

Republic is not a synonym for representative democracy.

You don't seem to realize that this conversation is over, and that you were wrong.

bigmikedude's picture

"After WWII, We built an international order to establish peace"

You silly....

"You didn't build that."

Time To

contact congress ... at least so they can't say they didn't hear from the public.

"We're Bringing Obamacare to Syria"

PLain and Simple, With or without congress...so why have the debate?

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

He will require a vote from congress

Somewhat surprising. Also, when did this country become a "Constitutional Democracy"???

lol

Think of all the kids in his constitutional law class that put "constitutional republic" and got marked wrong on the final! They must have been like 'wtf'.

He's going to let the debate

He's going to let the debate happen??

What...

maybe this is his out

Maybe, just maybe, he knows the public and the world is against him? Maybe this is his way of saving face a 2nd time? Get rejected by Congress...so he can appeal to that for the reason why he doesn't do it...even though he claims to still have the authority...

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

Ditto

The American people are fed up with his bullshit. Congress dam well better get the message as well