Seaoat the bombs are flying lol you were wrong again hahaha

knothead wrote:

Th Dude wrote:

knothead wrote:

Th Dude wrote:There is no imminent... much less immediate threat to us coming from any of the countries obama has bombed.

Without congressional approval therefore there should be no attack by our military on a sovereign nation.  Amiright?

STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

I know your sarcasm is directed at Mr. Oats but with non stop criticism of Obama becoming the norm his actions seem to be legally questionable but the Congress is as quiet as a mouse peeing on cotton, on vacation in fact, where are they?

They didn't approve a military attack on a sovereign nation... therefore without an imminent threat... the answer is no.

I completely agree . . . an imminent threat requires no congressional approval and falls within the realm of the CIC's obligation and authority, this is not an imminent threat but a rather long term engagement involving attacking a sovereign nation.  Like I said it is Congress who has abdicated its obligation to debate and either approve or deny authorization . . .  

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:CNN reported today, Obama is bombing under the 2001 congressional approval.

Most say that authorization does not apply.  The point I make stands . . . . they all bloviate that the power of war resides with Congress, instead, they all slinked out of town and went on vacation thus abdicating to a degree their most serious obligation to take a stand on the most serious of matters our nation faces.
Both sides have their own political fears to not taking a position but the fact remains they are the feckless, dimwits, politicians who want to condemn when things go badly but jump in front of the cameras when things go well.  Knowing Obama's enemies in Congress I would guess they even hope it is a wholesale failure so they can condemn and criticize while they did not have the balls to take a position . . . . that would require leadership!  

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:CNN reported today, Obama is bombing under the 2001 congressional approval.

Most say that authorization does not apply.  The point I make stands . . . . they all bloviate that the power of war resides with Congress, instead, they all slinked out of town and went on vacation thus abdicating to a degree their most serious obligation to take a stand on the most serious of matters our nation faces.
Both sides have their own political fears to not taking a position but the fact remains they are the feckless, dimwits, politicians who want to condemn when things go badly but jump in front of the cameras when things go well.  Knowing Obama's enemies in Congress I would guess they even hope it is a wholesale failure so they can condemn and criticize while they did not have the balls to take a position . . . . that would require leadership!  

Of course they high-tailed it out of town.....politicians number one concern is about getting re-elected, number two is getting rich, number three is perks, number four more money, and way down the line is their voting pool.......and the bottom reason is our country.

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:CNN reported today, Obama is bombing under the 2001 congressional approval.

Most say that authorization does not apply.  The point I make stands . . . . they all bloviate that the power of war resides with Congress, instead, they all slinked out of town and went on vacation thus abdicating to a degree their most serious obligation to take a stand on the most serious of matters our nation faces.
Both sides have their own political fears to not taking a position but the fact remains they are the feckless, dimwits, politicians who want to condemn when things go badly but jump in front of the cameras when things go well.  Knowing Obama's enemies in Congress I would guess they even hope it is a wholesale failure so they can condemn and criticize while they did not have the balls to take a position . . . . that would require leadership!  

Of course they high-tailed it out of town.....politicians number one concern is about getting re-elected, number two is getting rich, number three is perks, number four more money, and way down the line is their voting pool.......and the bottom reason is our country.

Thank you . . . . they have abdicated their responsibility to the country and will sit back and wait . . . . whatever the outcome they will jump on that bandwagon!

Sal wrote:The border between Iraq and Syria has dissolved.

Syria is a failed state at this point, and ISIS is a non-state actor in the region.

I'm not sure whose sovereignty we're violating.

Th Dude wrote:It would simply be too large a strain on liberal sensibilities to place the responsibility upon the person giving the orders.

Th Dude wrote:

knothead wrote:

Th Dude wrote:There is no imminent... much less immediate threat to us coming from any of the countries obama has bombed.

Without congressional approval therefore there should be no attack by our military on a sovereign nation.  Amiright?

STUNNING SUCCESS..!!

I know your sarcasm is directed at Mr. Oats but with non stop criticism of Obama becoming the norm his actions seem to be legally questionable but the Congress is as quiet as a mouse peeing on cotton, on vacation in fact, where are they?

They didn't approve a military attack on a sovereign nation... therefore without an imminent threat... the answer is no.

Joanimaroni wrote:Well we will have to endure gruesome photos sent by ISIS showing our bombs striking innocent civilians. 

I am sure we have SF on the ground using intel to locate targets

Chrissy* wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Well we will have to endure gruesome photos sent by ISIS showing our bombs striking innocent civilians. 

I am sure we have SF on the ground using intel to locate targets

Joanie,
          I'm going to be honest about this. Im a hypocrit on this

I had made my mind up when my son came home from iraq i was ready to just let them kill them selves off over there and not be involved anymore. And I still kind of feel that way.

Then I watch the barbaric horror of a head getting cut off, slowly too, not a fast chop. sawed off with a big knife. and i wanted to bomb those people back to the 7th century.

But i dont want my son to go back. and if I dont want my son to go back, how can i ask others to?

All i can say is there is a evil force at work here. This is all too clever for such a disaster.

2seaoat wrote:You just don't know either.


I had a 958487 done yesterday, but the 8732636 was not right, so I 882726 it all the way to the bank.......you just do not understand anything Chrissy.  I will put my money on insurance man, but he was 420 and you were 69, and here I am stuck looking at a computer screen.

Chrissy* wrote:

ppaca wrote:http://www.apapracticecentral.org/update/2014/04-10/medicare-cut.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/31/for-17th-time-in-11-years-congress-delays-medicare-reimbursement-cuts-as-senate-passes-doc-fix/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/14/medicare-reversed-payment-cuts-and-not-many-are-happy-about-it/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/31/congress-passes-bill-to-stop-cut-in-payments-to-medicare-doctors/

Oh Chrissy, Chrissy, Chrissy look no Medicare cuts.

Now if you receive the checks when claims are filed I would tend to believe it, but if your upper management is telling you this I would tend to disbelieve it. I am fed bs just about everyday where I work and I know it's bs, but still pisses me off that they think I believe it.

So do you receive the reimbursement's or someone else?

sorry there have been medicare cuts.

they were earlier

matter of afact my profession took a 55% cut in 2013 on 88305

then a 30% cut in 88342 in 2014

and many other specialties took large cuts as well

sorry mr insurance man. You just don't know either.