or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 152

post #2266 of 3333

Are we really  tallying which party bombed, invaded or destabilised foreign countries? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post
 

 

Countries bombed and/or invaded...

 

... by Bush: 4

... by Obama: 7

 

 

 

 

lmao bombed = invaded

 

You can't even get fingerpointing right.  First graders everywhere would be ashamed

post #2267 of 3333
Ok, I'm convinced. Press coverage depicting Johnson as an ignorant dumbass is definitely evidence of a conspiracy.


post #2268 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Ok, I'm convinced. Press coverage depicting Johnson as an ignorant dumbass is definitely evidence of a conspiracy.

I just saw the HBO series about him and he didn't come off that way. confused.gif
post #2269 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Are we really  tallying which party bombed, invaded or destabilised foreign countries? 



lmao @ bombed = invaded

You can't even get fingerpointing right.  First graders everywhere would be ashamed

It's not like "invasion" is a blanket term either. Absolutely taking over a country (eg, Iraq and Afghanistan) is a bit different than having a handful of special ops forces on the ground.
post #2270 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I just saw the HBO series about him and he didn't come off that way. confused.gif
Fair enough. Amazing, though, how he's managed to keep stories about his racism and philandering on the DL this time around.
post #2271 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Fair enough. Amazing, though, how he's managed to keep stories about his racism and philandering on the DL this time around.

What evil is hidden behind this smirk?

post #2272 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

What evil is hidden behind this smirk?


He's just stoned.
post #2273 of 3333
Thread Starter 
Lucky guy! I wish I was right now. frown.gif
post #2274 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post
 

Are we really  tallying which party bombed, invaded or destabilised foreign countries?

 

Shouldn't you ask that of the person who replied to the "Obama/Clinton legacy" post by saying "it's all Bush's fault"?

post #2275 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post
 

 

Shouldn't you ask that of the person who replied to the "Obama/Clinton legacy" post by saying "it's all Bush's fault"?



Technically I asked everyone which is why my post was structured as such

 


Observation:  "Are we really  tallying which party bombed, invaded or destabilised foreign countries? "


Quote:  "Countries bombed and/or invaded..."
 

Criticism of quote  

post #2276 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

He ordered to bomb some Chemical plant that was thought to be explosives factory , but turned out to be neither. I forgot it was in Iraq I thought it was in Sudan.

Clinton did bombed Sudan aspirin factory claiming it makes chemical weapons and then owner of the factory sued US government in court for damages. So much for arguments that Obama was avoiding some sort of legal precedent instead of shielding Saudi Kings from lawsuits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
post #2277 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

Clinton did bombed Sudan aspirin factory claiming it makes chemical weapons and then owner of the factory sued US government in court for damages. So much for arguments that Obama was avoiding some sort of legal precedent instead of shielding Saudi Kings from lawsuits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

Didn't the factory owner sue the United States in the US court system? That would make your example irrelevant.

They did:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1527197.html

And it was dismissed on political question grounds and thus essentially not permitted in US courts. Its a terrible example unless you're trying to argue it should not be permitted in court.
post #2278 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Didn't the factory owner sue the United States in the US court system? That would make your example irrelevant.

Both of those statements are accurate.
post #2279 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Didn't the factory owner sue the United States in the US court system? That would make your example irrelevant.

They did:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1527197.html

And it was dismissed on political question grounds and thus essentially not permitted in US courts. Its a terrible example unless you're trying to argue it should not be permitted in court.

True it is a bad example. Try to tackle this one. US hedge funds successfully suing Argentinian government in US court to make Argentina pay them .
post #2280 of 3333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medwed View Post

True it is a bad example. Try to tackle this one. US hedge funds successfully suing Argentinian government in US court to make Argentina pay them .

The bondholder case? No, you lose again.
Different legal principles apply when a foreign government deliberately subjects itself to U.S. judicial authority as part of its decision to participate in U.S.-based a commercial marketplace than to a claim of tort liability for actions allegedly performed in its role as sovereign.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS