Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
Yes, House Repubicans are willing to help Gaddafi, if in doing so they can make trouble for Obama.
Would John Boehner and his caucus really help Gaddafi stay in power just for the pleasure of needling Obama?
Apparently. I’d like to hear what the Lockerbie families have to say about this.
Comments are closed.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
So if we’re against illegal Presidential wars, we love Gaddafi? Really?
Many of the Republicans are acting with the motives that Mark ascribes to them. But some are not. And, as Don points out, there is a strong legal (and moral) argument on the side of those who are not.
There are times when it is appropriate to address motives, especially when proponents are making weak arguments. This is not one of them. I agree with Don–Mark is out of line.
It is pretty funny to watch Mark ascribe terrible motives to people he disagrees with, All The Time.
Like the others here, I find this remarkably unfair to Boehner. Unlike the others here, that’s just fine with me. One of the problems with U.S. politics is that Republicans get a free pass for things that Democrats would be vilified for.
Let’s see, we’re fighting and paying for an illegal war to remove Gaddafi.
Has it been successful? What, I have to wait a Friedman Unit?
Oh, I see, I should wait at least 10-20-30 years before passing judgment.
Oh, I think Boehner’s motives are as bad as Mark says they are. I just object to the implication that opposing the war is supporting Gaddafi.
It’s objectively Pro Saddam^H^H^H^H^H^H Gaddafi.
Don is right. Does anyone think that Boehner would care about the War Powers Act if the President were a Republican?
The irony is that, for practical purposes, at least with respect to fighting illegal wars, Obama is a Republican. Boehner’s opposing the war in Libya must pain him not because it might help Gaddafi, but because Boehner, like Obama, likes the U.S. to throw its weight around, make the Arabs hate us, and give taxpayers’ money to defense contractors.
Can’t we heap opprobrium on both sides here? It’s pretty obvious that the Republicans who are oh-so-concerned about the War Powers act are almost all concerned only because the President is a Democrat. Just to take an obvious example, the Iraq War resolution they engineered imposed certain reporting-to-Congress requirements on the Bush administration that were completely ignored. The blatant hypocrisy of these Republicans, however self-evident and reprehensible, doesn’t mean that violation of the War Powers Act would be hunky-dory, and it doesn’t mean that it’s fair to accuse them of being pro-Gaddafi when the truth is that they’re just anti-Obama (and probably Gaddafi-indifferent, like most people). We didn’t like it when their side made similarly offensive and stupid accusations of those who didn’t agree with them, after all, and we were right not to approve of such a rhetorical tactic. Using it also reduces the credibility and moral authority of not only those who do so but even those who don’t but are often identified with them. So, don’t.
Would Mark Kleiman really defend a blatantly illegal war, and toss the rule of law on the trash heap, just because he sees a partisan need to defend Obama? Apparently.
For the very first time, I am in complete and unequivocal agreement with Mr. Brett Bellmore.
Do calm down, Brett. I don’t see Mark defending an illegal war (accepting, arguendo, your conclusive assertion that it is illegal). I see him questioning the good faith of Republicans. And, given their track record on supporting undeclared and possibly illegal wars, Mark is right to do so. If you can show me a Republican who has been consistent on this point (in either direction), he is excluded from the judgement and has my respect for being, if nothing else, consistent. The rest of them? They have long since exhausted any benefit of the doubt, on this and just about every other point.
And the rest of you — sheesh, learn to read. Brett’s status here as a sort of holy fool gives him an excuse. What’s yours?
Two points:
1) Congress has been abdicating its war powers authority for decades. So it’s inevitable that some President eventually drops the charade of consulting with it, and just goes ahead and does what he wants.
2) It’s arguable that we haven’t yet reached that point. The Administration’s position is that they are in compliance, because US forces are no longer doing the shooting: we’re just providing intelligence and equipment to NATO.