ABC News.com: Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Is Launching Investigation

[Teller]

Excuse me, but in the US of A and under our Constitution, only Congress can declare war, which they never really did. The just authorized the use of force, like in a policing action like Korea. If we are subjecting our troops and money to kill people, then I think that is war. Calling it something else just shows the spinelessness of Congress and they ceded their Constitutional authority. The Constitution imbuded war powers to Congress for a reason, so that only 1 person could not commit the US of A to war, like a king or emperor.

I agree with you there, and I've stated so on this very board in the past. As a matter of fact, it's one of the few things Larry and I consistently agree on. However, I'm not sure how you declare war on Al Qaeda, since they're gutless, non-uniform-wearing, civilian slaughterers, and they're spread across the globe; including here in the United States. When the Constitution was written, armies lined up on open fields, in uniforms, and traded volleys until one side had had enough. With all due respect to the wisdom of our founders, I don't think they envisioned terrorist networks and tactics.

I'm asking a serious question here, not trying to be sarcastic or to instigate. But how should the Al Qaeda threat have been handled? Declare war on Al Qaeda? Knowing that they have operatives here. Declare war on Afghanistan? Even though many of the people there don't support or condone Al Qaeda's actions? I guess my question is, in your opinion, what would have made prosecuting Al Qaeda legal?

Further, I apologize for calling your statement ridiculous. I misunderstood the angle you were pursuing in that regard. And even if I hadn't, I shouldn't have phrased it that way.

[Hubbs]

Nevertheless, H_H didn't appear to want to talk about the facts of the Solyndra situation, he wanted to talk about how the Solyndra situation was a mirror reflecting the incompetence or even dishonesty of the Obama administration. Which, of course, gets emotional responses about the Bush Administration, which had a ton of similar failings (and to be honest, so has every administration since George Washington's).

How dare you, sir. The wise and steady leadership of William Henry Harrison marked the finest age this land has ever seen. Only fools would dare sully his good name with such a wrongheaded accusation. I fart in your general direction!

[mossomo]

conservative blogs screaming that dealerships were being closed based on the political affiliation of the dealers

Dont know anything about that.

But I do know that the gov't arbritarily closed dem and repub dealerships screwing taxpayers both the business owners and the little man - the employees who lost their job because of gov't edict during a recession.

[Henry]

Excuse me, but in the US of A and under our Constitution, only Congress can declare war, which they never really did. The just authorized the use of force, like in a policing action like Korea. If we are subjecting our troops and money to kill people, then I think that is war. Calling it something else just shows the spinelessness of Congress and they ceded their Constitutional authority. The Constitution imbuded war powers to Congress for a reason, so that only 1 person could not commit the US of A to war, like a king or emperor.

I'll have to look it up but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court determined that Congressional 'authorization of the use of force' is tantamount to a declaration of war, and therefore constitutionally valid.

[skinfan133]

And you all really think that the Republicans, whose policies for years has gotten us into this mess (rolling back financial regulations that WERE working and not to mention Clinton, President Republican Lite), are going to do any better? Really? You expect over 30 years of legislation that allowed outsourcing of American jobs, that rolled back all financial protections and the bailouts that bailed out Wall Street but has left the rest of us in very reduced circumstances and prospects for the future and that legislation was driven by BOTH parties to fix everything in 3 years? Yeah, that's totally realistic. <sarcasm off>

If you honestly believe any one party is less responsible than the other for the mess this country is in then you are delusional. We haven't had a good President since Eisenhower and Congress hasn't done its proper job since at least the 1920's.

---------- Post added September-15th-2011 at 09:36 PM ----------

I'll have to look it up but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court determined that Congressional 'authorization of the use of force' is tantamount to a declaration of war, and therefore constitutionally valid.

And the SCOTUS has been illegally declaring things "unconstitutional" or "constitutional" since 1801. Just because a bunch of old folks in robes say plain words mean something completely different than written doesn't make it necessarily so. I'm inclined to agree with Lady here; Congress should declare war.

[Henry]

And the SCOTUS has been illegally declaring things "unconstitutional" or "constitutional" since 1801. Just because a bunch of old folks in robes say plain words mean something completely different than written doesn't make it necessarily so. I'm inclined to agree with Lady here; Congress should declare war.

So one arm of our government hasn't worked properly since the 1950s, another since the 1920s and another since 1801?

[skinfan133]

So one arm of our government hasn't worked properly since the 1950s, another since the 1920s and another since 1801?

yes.

[mossomo]

If we are subjecting our troops and money to kill people, then I think that is war. Calling it something else just shows the spinelessness of Congress

Interesting. I can go on and say for the last five thousand milleniums marriage has been between man and woman and you would most likely debate me on that. Yet here you are keeping a very strict definition of war. Just an observation for what it is, as I dont want to side track this thread.

[skinfan133]

Interesting. I can go on and say for the last five thousand milleniums marriage has been between man and woman and you would most likely debate me on that. Yet here you are keeping a very strict definition of war. Just an observation for what it is. Dont want to side track this.

No, actually you're wrong about marriage (and the implied modern definition of family too). Polygamy is by and far the most common form of "marriage" in human history. What's the second? Polyandry believe it or not as it was widely practiced in many cultures in South Asia. Other than that, sexual relationships with no legal or religious endorsement constitute the majority of historic relationships. Marriage was mostly used a political tool in history. Our modern conception of "One man, one woman" stems from Renaissance Europe.

[Henry]

yes.

Just my opinion, but when everyone else seems to be the problem ... it's probably not everyone else.

---------- Post added September-15th-2011 at 09:58 PM ----------

No, actually you're wrong about marriage (and the implied modern definition of family too). Polygamy is by and far the most common form of "marriage" in human history. What's the second? Polyandry believe it or not as it was widely practiced in many cultures in South Asia. Other than that, sexual relationships with no legal or religious endorsement constitute the majority of historic relationships. Marriage was mostly used a political tool in history. Our modern conception of "One man, one woman" stems from Renaissance Europe.

I had to look up 'polandry.' Didn't realize there was a separate word for that.

[skinfan133]

Just my opinion, but when everyone else seems to be the problem ... it's probably not everyone else

Yup, I'm the problem with the government

[mossomo]

You're right. If John Boehner continues to block the President's jobs bill, there is a much greater chance that we head back into recession.

Bro man - OUR GOVERMENT is so PLAYSKOOL that there was NEVER a JOBS BILL. Obama's American Jobs Act didn't freakin exist to pass it. Obama said pass it for me. LMAO. Schoolhouse Rocks: How a Bill Becomes a Law. Um the Constitution please. It's amateur hour.

Reid said at a recent Twitter Town Hall that he won’t immediately take up Obama’s plan because the Senate must tackle other issues first. He didn’t specify which bills would receive priority over Obama’s economic solution.

^^^^^ "If John Boehner continues to block the President's jobs bill" ^^^^^

and there was NO job's bill for Boehner to block.

It's funny, no Dems made a move to advance any bill and Obama didn't have one so some Repub in the House submitted an American Jobs Act a few long days later.

[Henry]

Yup, I'm the problem with the government

That's not exactly my point.

But I would at least say advocating a form of government that's never actually existed except in one's own mind is not part of any realistic solution.

[skinfan133]

That's not exactly my point.

But I would at least say advocating a form of government that's never actually existed except in one's own mind is not part of any realistic solution.

fair enough. At least I'm engaged and educated in the process. That's more than idk, probably 85% of Americans

[mossomo]

No, actually you're wrong about marriage

Funny my girlfriend was raised Mormon and jokes about Polyandry. But okay, I'll fix it for you: between mEn and womEn. There. Cool.

Political tool - dad's paired their daughters up with men for thousands of years, or in the polgomy/polyandry situations, it was man and two wives or wife with two husbands. My point still stands. Father's never married their sons off to another family's son, daughters weren't married to other daughters. Was that not the norm for thousands of years. Context please.

---------- Post added September-15th-2011 at 08:05 PM ----------

fair enough. At least I'm engaged and educated in the process. That's more than idk, probably 85% of Americans

I'd say 51%... ~51% of people in this country don't pay income taxes***. Representation without Taxation. They have little skin in the game. No wonder about 48% of citizens support higher taxes.

***I'm sure the recession had something to do with that stat but you know what I mean.

[sacase]

Excuse me, but in the US of A and under our Constitution, only Congress can declare war, which they never really did. The just authorized the use of force, like in a policing action like Korea. If we are subjecting our troops and money to kill people, then I think that is war. Calling it something else just shows the spinelessness of Congress and they ceded their Constitutional authority. The Constitution imbuded war powers to Congress for a reason, so that only 1 person could not commit the US of A to war, like a king or emperor.

Might want to check your facts. Korea is not a policing action, Korea is an active war, an Armistice was signed, but we are still technically at war.

[mossomo]

opps - finger hit the touchpad and the pointer jumped and a post happened... so i'll fudge it and comment on above

Might want to check your facts. Korea is not a policing action, Korea is an active war, an Armistice was signed, but we are still technically at war.

Correct.

[LadySkinsFan]

Might want to check your facts. Korea is not a policing action, Korea is an active war, an Armistice was signed, but we are still technically at war.

Since I was born in 1951, during the Korean police action, I think that I know a little bit more about it than do you, since that's what it was called back then and during my school years. I graduated HS in '69.

h_h, we are good. I don't take too much personally in here, we've had our disagreements before and I think we just agree to disagree on a bunch of stuff.

As far as having a rigid definition of marriage (to continue on a slight derail), I PERSONALLY don't believe in marriage at all. It derives from contract law to transfer property and wealth between families and doesn't really have any basis in love, as we define it today. I personally think that there should not be over 1000 automatic legal benefits such as tax, inheritance, immigration etc. attached to marriage and that people could form contracts for these things with anyone they wish.

Here's my radical tax proposal: no deductions except for people's salaries and Social Security/Medicare so there is not double taxation. For any taxable entity, individual or corporation. No allowances, no expenses, no home mortgage and so on. Then we'd lower the tax rate, everyone pays the same rate. Think of the governmental savings in abolishing the IRS. I mean, the Tea Party wants to abolish the EPA and Dept. of Education, why not the IRS? Make things easier for everyone. Pretty rad, right? And it would work. No one could complain about paying more than their fair share.

[skinfan133]

Funny my girlfriend was raised Mormon and jokes about Polyandry. But okay, I'll fix it for you: between mEn and womEn. There. Cool.

Political tool - dad's paired their daughters up with men for thousands of years, or in the polgomy/polyandry situations, it was man and two wives or wife with two husbands. My point still stands. Father's never married their sons off to another family's son, daughters weren't married to other daughters. Was that not the norm for thousands of years. Context please.

Someone doesn't know their ancient history apparently. Marriage is irrelevant. Dudes boned each other in ancient times frequently. Women = babies, men = funtime (to put it rather crudely). The whole marriage point is moot anyways as I think what you're insinuating is that homosexuality is unnatural or a choice. Wrong again.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 12:10 AM ----------

Since I was born in 1951, during the Korean police action, I think that I know a little bit more about it than do you, since that's what it was called back then and during my school years. I graduated HS in '69.

logical fallacy. I have a great-grandfather who fought in the Spanish-American War, I'm obviously more knowledgeable about it than say someone who may have read books on the subject. This isn't to say I don't nominally agree with what you are saying: The Korean War was in fact a police action so to speak and an undeclared war. And yes, it is also an ongoing conflict technically but between North and South Korea, not the United States per se. Argue facts, not false appeals to authority.

[LadySkinsFan]

The fact remains that Congress did not declare war on Korea, yet we sent men and women, arms, and money to support the South Koreans. We just didn't call it "war" so Congress didn't have to declare another war so soon after WWII the Big One.

[NoVaO]

Yep, would hate for anyone to get in the way of a Vice Presidential appearance at a ground breaking wouldn't we? Let's get this bill approved!! YeeeeHawww

I'm not sure if it is sad or funny that you are making an argument for another presidential spending spree to fix the economy in this thread.

Solyndra is an embarrassment for the administration and will be used relentlessly by his critics, but it also represents like 2% of the $38 billion loan program.

As for more spending, it's absolutely needed. And I think 80% of mainstream economists agree with that thinking. Austerity does not work in such weak economies. Some proof from the IMF...

In a new paper for the International Monetary Fund, Laurence Ball, Daniel Leigh and Prakash Loungani look at 173 episodes of fiscal austerity over the past 30 years—with the average deficit cut amounting to 1 percent of GDP. Their verdict? Austerity “lowers incomes in the short term, with wage-earners taking more of a hit than others; it also raises unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.”

Same advice from the CBO.

You can increase spending in the short term while bringing down deficits in the medium and long term. Those two things are not contradictory. One bad loan does not change the fact that this economy needs some serious short term help. Even the jobs package -- if everything in that bill was passed -- is not big enough to fill that output gap that exists right now. It's another short term remedy, but it's worth passing if we can stay out of a double dip recession.

[sacase]

Since I was born in 1951, during the Korean police action, I think that I know a little bit more about it than do you, since that's what it was called back then and during my school years. I graduated HS in '69.

h_h, we are good. I don't take too much personally in here, we've had our disagreements before and I think we just agree to disagree on a bunch of stuff.

As far as having a rigid definition of marriage (to continue on a slight derail), I PERSONALLY don't believe in marriage at all. It derives from contract law to transfer property and wealth between families and doesn't really have any basis in love, as we define it today. I personally think that there should not be over 1000 automatic legal benefits such as tax, inheritance, immigration etc. attached to marriage and that people could form contracts for these things with anyone they wish.

Here's my radical tax proposal: no deductions except for people's salaries and Social Security/Medicare so there is not double taxation. For any taxable entity, individual or corporation. No allowances, no expenses, no home mortgage and so on. Then we'd lower the tax rate, everyone pays the same rate. Think of the governmental savings in abolishing the IRS. I mean, the Tea Party wants to abolish the EPA and Dept. of Education, why not the IRS? Make things easier for everyone. Pretty rad, right? And it would work. No one could complain about paying more than their fair share.

My grandfather fought in the Korean war and is a proud Korean war vet. Please tell him that he did not fight in a war, but a police action. So while you were sucking your thumb my grandfather was bleeding for his country. I think he knows a little more.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 12:41 AM ----------

The fact remains that Congress did not declare war on Korea, yet we sent men and women, arms, and money to support the South Koreans. We just didn't call it "war" so Congress didn't have to declare another war so soon after WWII the Big One.

How many times has congress authorized military action prior to WWII without a formal declaration of war. If I recall We participated in the Korean war under the UN banner, so congress authorized it, committed us, and paid for it and continues to pay for it. This whole formal declaration of war is nonsense. If congress pays for it, then they declare it, plane and simple.

[LadySkinsFan]

They called it a war but legally it was a police action. Per Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Etymology

In the United States, the war was initially described by President Harry S. Truman as a "police action" as it was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.[32] Colloquially, it has been referred to in the United States as The Forgotten War or The Unknown War. The issues concerned were much less clear than in previous and subsequent conflicts, such as World War II and the Vietnam War.[33][34] To a significant degree, the war has been "historically overshadowed by World War II and Vietnam".[35]

In South Korea the war is usually referred to as "625" or the 6–2–5 Upheaval (yug-i-o dongnan), reflecting the date of its commencement on 25 June.[36] In North Korea the war is officially referred to as the Fatherland Liberation War (Choguk haebang chǒnjaeng). Alternatively, it is called the Chosǒn chǒnjaeng ("Chosǒn war", Chosǒn being what North Koreans call Korea).[37] In the People's Republic of China the war is called the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea (traditional Chinese: 抗美援朝戰爭; simplified Chinese: 抗美援朝战争; pinyin: Kàngměiyuáncháo zhànzhēng).[38][39] The "Korean War" (朝鮮戰爭/朝鲜战争; pinyin: Cháoxiǎn zhànzhēng) is more commonly used today. Cháoxiǎn is the Chinese pronunciation of the Korean name "Chosǒn".

There's more of course. I didn't read anywhere though that Congress formally declared war. Congress also didn't declare war in Vietnam either, yet we lost over 55,0000 men and women over there, not to mention the wounded and maimed.

So semantics aside, the fact remains that Congress did not declare war in Korea. And I heartily disagree that we have to commit our men, women and treasure at the drop of the UN hat in place of our own Constitutional mechanisms to engage in armed conflict. I think the Founding Fathers would tend to agree with my position, otherwise they wouldn't have written it into the Constitution and I don't recall an amendment that cedes this responsibility to any other entity.

[sacase]

There's more of course. I didn't read anywhere though that Congress formally declared war. Congress also didn't declare war in Vietnam either, yet we lost over 55,0000 men and women over there, not to mention the wounded and maimed.

So semantics aside, the fact remains that Congress did not declare war in Korea. And I heartily disagree that we have to commit our men, women and treasure at the drop of the UN hat in place of our own Constitutional mechanisms to engage in armed conflict. I think the Founding Fathers would tend to agree with my position, otherwise they wouldn't have written it into the Constitution and I don't recall an amendment that cedes this responsibility to any other entity.

Actually the founding father whole heartedly disagreed with your position. The first barbary war...Guess who was president. One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson. No war was "formally declared" by congress. So the founding fathers would conduct war without having congress formally declare war. Same as vietnam, same as the gulf, same as afghanistan, same as Iraq II. Only thing that is different with Korea is that it was apart of the newly formed UN. Fact of the matter remains even the founding fathers conducted war without a formal declaration of war.

[mossomo]

Sorry for derail....

Someone doesn't know their ancient history apparently

My friend - I am well rounded and very much brushed up in history.

Dudes boned each other in ancient times frequently.

Tis really besides the point. Guys giving each other anal has nothing to do with marriage, the tradition of marriage or the whole idea of marriage going back thousands and thousands of years is that of a male and female parental unit; keep you fantasies to yourself. Hahahahaha.

"I think what you're insinuating is that homosexuality is unnatural or a choice"

You know that's not fair and I never said a such thing. Don't attack my character unless you can back it. And there's nothing out there to back it. I know of homo bee studies and gay ass zoo penguins. Call me an ass and I'll give you that. But you insult me with your above quoted characterization of me as it is totally unfounded libel, a bit alinsky and totally diarrhea of the mouth. Be as gay as you want, I could give two ****s.

Another still got to be made point:

1828. Noah Webster. The word is being redefined from what was social-typical.