Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://conquerclub.com/forum/
Those were compliments...saxitoxin wrote:whatev'Phatscotty wrote:maybe baiting isn't really baiting.
I always enjoy sifting through your posts to see if they are true or not. Your sense of humor is setting new highs as well.
It is the right of peace loving people everywhere to institute a revolutionary regime for popular change and to protect the people's property through creation of vanguard forces and to appeal for international cooperation from like-minded nations in ideological solidarity, such as - in the case of Grenada - Cuba. Today the Movement for the Three-Revolution Red Banner is the hope and ideal of all members of the working class and all of the world's working families.jefjef wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Well, from a perspective of international law, technically the US attack on Grenada was an intervention requested by the Governor-General of Grenada who had stated that, as the sole recognized government of Grenada he was dispossessed of police powers owing to his imprisonment and was using his government authority to welcome foreign troops to reposses his police powers. And, from a perspective of US law the intervention did not last more than 90 days so I don't believe it was a violation of the War Powers Act.Juan_Bottom wrote:Oh yeah,
How could I forget,
Reagan also invaded Grenada illegally and without Congress's approval. Under the Constitution, that is an impeachable offense.
What was that legal theory that began with Nixon and propagated under Reagan's Administration? Unitary Executive Power? or something like that. The idea that the Executive branch is it's own entity, and nothing that Congress says or does can impose upon the President's prerogative to govern the nation and the Military. The president has the right to operate in total secrecy and/or wave/ignore laws that limit or control that power. The only thing Congress can do is vote on what to budget the President when they adjourn next.
Reagan was also a believe in a President's inherit power.
& Bush II used this precedent to the max.
However, while there may not be a legal argument against Grenada, certainly there is a moral argument. The people of Grenada, in solidarity with Cuban allies, exercised their sovereign right to embrace the socialist reality of Marxism-Leninism and had empowered a communist vanguard party through popular acclaim to institute a revolutionary regime that would destroy the corrupt foundations of paternalism, capitalism and racism. This was the sacred right of the Grenadan people to liberate themselves from the imperialists and monarchists who had subjugated their country under the corrupt UK colony-making regime of ERII --- OH, NOW I'M DOING IT AGAIN.
VALUED MODS, PLEASE CREATE A NEW FORUM AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OL' SAX GETS BAITED.
It is the United States right and DUTY to protect U.S. citizens and interests.
The invasion was as illegal as it is for saxi to wear short shorts and juan to stare at him while he is.
saxitoxin wrote:It is the right of peace loving people everywhere to institute a revolutionary regime for popular change and to protect the people's property through creation of vanguard forces and to appeal for international cooperation from like-minded nations in ideological solidarity, such as - in the case of Grenada - Cuba. Today the Movement for the Three-Revolution Red Banner is the hope and ideal of all members of the working class and all of the world's working families.jefjef wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Well, from a perspective of international law, technically the US attack on Grenada was an intervention requested by the Governor-General of Grenada who had stated that, as the sole recognized government of Grenada he was dispossessed of police powers owing to his imprisonment and was using his government authority to welcome foreign troops to reposses his police powers. And, from a perspective of US law the intervention did not last more than 90 days so I don't believe it was a violation of the War Powers Act.Juan_Bottom wrote:Oh yeah,
How could I forget,
Reagan also invaded Grenada illegally and without Congress's approval. Under the Constitution, that is an impeachable offense.
What was that legal theory that began with Nixon and propagated under Reagan's Administration? Unitary Executive Power? or something like that. The idea that the Executive branch is it's own entity, and nothing that Congress says or does can impose upon the President's prerogative to govern the nation and the Military. The president has the right to operate in total secrecy and/or wave/ignore laws that limit or control that power. The only thing Congress can do is vote on what to budget the President when they adjourn next.
Reagan was also a believe in a President's inherit power.
& Bush II used this precedent to the max.
However, while there may not be a legal argument against Grenada, certainly there is a moral argument. The people of Grenada, in solidarity with Cuban allies, exercised their sovereign right to embrace the socialist reality of Marxism-Leninism and had empowered a communist vanguard party through popular acclaim to institute a revolutionary regime that would destroy the corrupt foundations of paternalism, capitalism and racism. This was the sacred right of the Grenadan people to liberate themselves from the imperialists and monarchists who had subjugated their country under the corrupt UK colony-making regime of ERII --- OH, NOW I'M DOING IT AGAIN.
VALUED MODS, PLEASE CREATE A NEW FORUM AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OL' SAX GETS BAITED.
It is the United States right and DUTY to protect U.S. citizens and interests.
The invasion was as illegal as it is for saxi to wear short shorts and juan to stare at him while he is.
AND, further, I will wear short shorts wherever, and in front of whomever, I like because they make me feel confident about who I am and make me feel secure about my body. I am a sexual being and I have a right to showcase my sexuality to the world. Ol' Saxi may not be a Miley Cyrus or an Angela Lansbury but ol' Sax is still a human and all human-beings are beautiful.
US medical students in Grenada were not being "held hostage." They were guests under protective detention. Owing to the aftermath of the popular revolution the situation in Grenada was tenuous and it would have been unsafe for them to saunter about the countryside either in short-shorts or America's beloved blue-jean pants. Ergo, they were being held for their safety and comfort as guests of the New Jewel Movement aided by the Cuban People's Revolutionary Army.jefjef wrote:
Perhaps I typed to fast for ole saxi to keep up and understand.
It is your right to go short short. Is is Juan's right to stare and drool at you.
It was the United States right and duty to rescue AMERICAN citizens being held hostage by peace loving revolutionaries.
I can't remember off hand who, but Reagan did have short letter exchange with a former Supreme Court Justice who had declared that the invasion was likely unconstitutional, yet that should be overlooked because Reagan's heart was in the right place.jefjef wrote: It is the United States right and DUTY to protect U.S. citizens and interests.
The invasion was as illegal as it is for saxi to wear short shorts and juan to stare at him while he is.
That's it in a nutshell. Reagan lied, and didn't follow the War Power's Act, also called the War Power's Resolution.In October 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had ordered a pre-dawn invasion of Grenada by nearly 1,900 Marines and armed airborne troops under the code name “Urgent Fury.” The fighting was heavier than expected and by the end of the month, the United States military presence had reached more than 5,600 troops. After a few days of heavy fighting and a number of deaths, the shooting ended.
The invasion and occupation constituted, within the meaning of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a war against the people of Grenada. The President, however, at no time sought the required congressional approval. He justified the invasion by claiming falsely that the lives of U.S. medical students were in danger. The same pretext was given to justify the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965.
Within a few weeks of the invasion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Congressman John Conyers and 10 other members of Congress, challenging the invasion as a violation of the War Powers Clause. The suit requested a judgment that the invasion had taken place in violation of the U.S. Constitution and that all U.S. forces should therefore leave Grenada. The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that members of Congress are not permitted to bring such suits as they have adequate remedies within Congress. The government also argued that the case was moot because there were only 300 U.S. troops remaining in Grenada.
The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the congressional plaintiffs had other remedies. The plaintiffs appealed and the federal appeals court ruled that the case was moot since most U.S. troops had been withdrawn from Grenada.
Juan_Bottom wrote:I can't remember off hand who, but Reagan did have short letter exchange with a former Supreme Court Justice who had declared that the invasion was likely unconstitutional, yet that should be overlooked because Reagan's heart was in the right place.jefjef wrote: It is the United States right and DUTY to protect U.S. citizens and interests.
The invasion was as illegal as it is for saxi to wear short shorts and juan to stare at him while he is.
I don't know why it took me so long to remember the name of this suit:
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cas ... -v.-reagan
Conyers v. Reagan
Synopsis
Conyers v. Reagan is a case that challenged the U.S. invasion of Grenada.
Description
That's it in a nutshell. Reagan lied, and didn't follow the War Power's Act, also called the War Power's Resolution.In October 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had ordered a pre-dawn invasion of Grenada by nearly 1,900 Marines and armed airborne troops under the code name “Urgent Fury.” The fighting was heavier than expected and by the end of the month, the United States military presence had reached more than 5,600 troops. After a few days of heavy fighting and a number of deaths, the shooting ended.
The invasion and occupation constituted, within the meaning of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a war against the people of Grenada. The President, however, at no time sought the required congressional approval. He justified the invasion by claiming falsely that the lives of U.S. medical students were in danger. The same pretext was given to justify the U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965.
Within a few weeks of the invasion, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Congressman John Conyers and 10 other members of Congress, challenging the invasion as a violation of the War Powers Clause. The suit requested a judgment that the invasion had taken place in violation of the U.S. Constitution and that all U.S. forces should therefore leave Grenada. The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing that members of Congress are not permitted to bring such suits as they have adequate remedies within Congress. The government also argued that the case was moot because there were only 300 U.S. troops remaining in Grenada.
The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the congressional plaintiffs had other remedies. The plaintiffs appealed and the federal appeals court ruled that the case was moot since most U.S. troops had been withdrawn from Grenada.
Not quite, it was supported by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU, and several Congressmen.jefjef wrote: The lawsuit was politically driven and without basis AND support.
They were safe on campus when they were found. Basically, house arrest (campus arrest).jefjef wrote: AND SAX!. Is that why our troops had to fight their way to those students that were being guarded and protected? OK.
The major justification for the invasion was the protection of American lives. Reagan administration officials falsely claimed that the island's only operating airport was closed, offering the students no escape. In reality, scores of people left the island on charter flights the day before the U.S. invasion, noting that there was not even a visible military presence at the airport and that customs procedures were normal. Regularly scheduled flights as well as sea links from neighboring Caribbean islands had ceased as of October 21, however, though this came as a direct result of pressure placed on these governments to do so by U.S. officials. Apparently, by limiting the ability of Americans who wished to depart from leaving, the Reagan administration could then use their continued presence on the troubled island as an excuse to invade. The Reagan administration admitted that no significant non-military means of evacuating Americans was actively considered.
Particular concern was expressed over the fate of 800 American students at the U.S.-run St. George's University School of Medicine. The safe arrival in the United States of the initial group of happy and relieved students evacuated from Grenada resulted in excellent photo opportunities for the administration. It appears, however, that the students' lives were never actually in any danger prior to the invasion itself.
Grenadan and Cuban officials had met only days earlier with administrators of the American medical school and guaranteed the students' safety. Urgent requests by the State Department's Milan Bish to medical school officials that they publicly request U.S. military intervention to protect the students were refused. Five hundred parents of the medical students cabled President Reagan to insist he not take any "precipitous action." Staff members from the U.S. embassy in Barbados visited Grenada and saw no need to evacuate the students.
Reports from the Washington Post indicated that since 1981 the CIA had engaged in efforts to destabilize the Grenadan government politically and economically. In August 1981, U.S. armed forces staged a mock invasion of Grenada on the island of Vieques off the coast of Puerto Rico. As in the real invasion that would come later, paratroopers secured key points on the Grenada-sized island followed by a marine amphibious assault with air and naval support, totaling almost 10, 000 troops. Striking similarities in the geographic code names during the exercise to actual locations on Grenada were hardly coincidental. It is not unreasonable to assume that a U.S. invasion of Grenada was planned at least two years prior to the revolution's self-destruction, which gave the United States the excuse it had been waiting for.
Dude, you do realize that the United States military has plans for invading almost every country around the world, right? As well as carrying out exercises involving any countries that aren't particularly friendly to the United States or our close allies? This isn't exactly earth-shattering information that the invasion of Grenada was planned at least two year's prior...we've had invasions planned for a lot longer than that. It's a part of military planning and our military would be frankly stupid NOT to have done so.Juan_Bottom wrote:Striking similarities in the geographic code names during the exercise to actual locations on Grenada were hardly coincidental. It is not unreasonable to assume that a U.S. invasion of Grenada was planned at least two years prior to the revolution's self-destruction, which gave the United States the excuse it had been waiting for.
Wait... wait... Reagan lied? I better go back and change my vote to one of the presidents who didn't lie. Hmm... which one to pick?Juan_Bottom wrote:It's the timing here that is interesting, not necessarily the plans themselves. I included that bit of information because of that. The US didn't begin mock invasions until just after their cherry-picked leader had been ousted. And this is despite the fact that the new government was peaceful and had asked the US several times for assistance. Because of this, it would appear that the US was waiting for any excuse to invade.
& back on point, that makes Reagan a liar.
I have to say I'd like to see a bit more evidence in this.Phatscotty wrote:Okay, not to jump in and derail, but I think a few ingredients are missing here, namely, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush Sr. Bush was the former head of the CIA, Reagan said he would never choose Bush as a running mate, Bush becomes the running mate, Reagan wins, Reagan is shot soon after, only by a mircale does reagan survive, Bush was doing all that shit.
Reagan wins this thread.Juan_Bottom wrote:OK, but I win this thread.
.He only wins because most the people here are conservative and worship someone who is idealised and they forget all the bad stuff he actually did and what he actually stood for.jefjef wrote:Reagan wins this thread.Juan_Bottom wrote:OK, but I win this thread.
You win a
I remember all the bad stuff he did and what he actually stood for and I voted for him. You might want to rewrite that sentence.Titanic wrote:He only wins because most the people here are conservative and worship someone who is idealised and they forget all the bad stuff he actually did and what he actually stood for.jefjef wrote:Reagan wins this thread.Juan_Bottom wrote:OK, but I win this thread.
You win a
My bad, is this better?thegreekdog wrote:I remember all the bad stuff he did and what he actually stood for and I voted for him. You might want to rewrite that sentence.Titanic wrote:He only wins because most the people here are conservative and worship someone who is idealised and they forget all the bad stuff he actually did and what he actually stood for.jefjef wrote:Reagan wins this thread.Juan_Bottom wrote:OK, but I win this thread.
You win a
I've been told that I'm not remotely conservative...I don't idealize him, and I certain remember all the bad stuff and "what he actually stood for" (which I strongly suspect is different from what YOU believe he actually stood for). I voted for him.Titanic wrote:He only wins because most the people here are conservative and worship someone who is idealised and they forget all the bad stuff he actually did and what he actually stood for.jefjef wrote:Reagan wins this thread.Juan_Bottom wrote:OK, but I win this thread.
You win a
I have said this so many times in my short life;thegreekdog wrote:Most people who voted for him remember what he stood for, and voted accordingly.
This is the worst apology ever!!! I thought you would appreciate having your way with a fresh perspective about Reagan's policy. Specifically his policy of invading peaceful nations and lying to you about it. I mean, at least you know now right?jefjef wrote:Reagan wins this thread.Juan_Bottom wrote:OK, but I win this thread.
You win a
That was baiting to keep the discussion moving. No one ever admits when they are wrong in this forum (jefjef!), and instead they disappear. And really, it's about what he lied about. He invaded a peaceful island, killed people, set-up a puppet government, and lied to the American people about why.thegreekdog wrote: Wait... wait... Reagan lied? I better go back and change my vote to one of the presidents who didn't lie. Hmm... which one to pick?
Reagan got singled out because he's winning the vote, and because he's a douchebag. I could go on and on about this subject.thegreekdog wrote: Other "wars" - The First Iraq War, intervention in Bosnia, intervention in Somalia, invasion of Afghanistan, Second Iraq War. Which ones of those had Congressional approval and who was president?
I think you can believe in something and not know why you believe in it; but that's beside the point. You want reasoning, I'll provide reasoning. He was a better president than Presidents Carter, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. He did more for the economy of the country. He did more for the foreign policy of the country.Juan_Bottom wrote:Believing in something doesn't mean dick if you don't know why you believe in it. I haven't seen much reasoning here behind voting for Reagan.
Please do. But, make sure you tell us why you believe douchebag. And if you give reasons why he is a douchebag, make sure you give reasons behind the reasons he is a douchebag. For example, if you say "he cut taxes for the rich" or "trickle down economics don't work," please provide the whys.Juan_Bottom wrote:Reagan got singled out because he's winning the vote, and because he's a douchebag. I could go on and on about this subject.
Frigidus wrote:Reagan is, without a doubt, the most overrated president in the history of our country.
yeah, the federal reserve and interest rates have nothing to do with the economy or job creation. It's all the presidentTitanic wrote:Greek, I think its your job to prove that trickle down economics does work. You can't just throw something out and say prove this doesn't work.
Btw, he did more for the economy then any of the other presidents? Clinton maintained a pretty damn solid economy throughout his tenure (he created 22m jobs during his time vs Reagans 16m) and Obama has had to rescue an economy in its worst state in 80 years. Believe me I think Reagan was a good president and did some great stuff, but it seems everyone who adores him points to the same soundbite stuff which doesn't stand up to the facts.
I would say the President and the executive are the single most important person and office in determining the state of the economy. Through the budget they propose, the influence they have in businesses, society, lawmakers and internationally they are far and away more powerful then other players in the game. Case to point, GWB had awful economic ideas and he created a huge deficit, an economy where the median wage went down and no jobs were created and resulted in the worst economic crash in 80 years.Phatscotty wrote:yeah, the federal reserve and interest rates have nothing to do with the economy or job creation. It's all the presidentTitanic wrote:Greek, I think its your job to prove that trickle down economics does work. You can't just throw something out and say prove this doesn't work.
Btw, he did more for the economy then any of the other presidents? Clinton maintained a pretty damn solid economy throughout his tenure (he created 22m jobs during his time vs Reagans 16m) and Obama has had to rescue an economy in its worst state in 80 years. Believe me I think Reagan was a good president and did some great stuff, but it seems everyone who adores him points to the same soundbite stuff which doesn't stand up to the facts.
