Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[shraby]

1. From what I've seen, Obama likes to teach republicans and congress lessons

the hard way. If they don't do what they need to do, are required to do, or fix something they should, he lets them go pound sand until it dawns on them.

[MisterP]

7. *voters*: it's voters he tells to pound sand

[jwirr]

2. IMO the Rs are going to own this even if they do not agree to it. They are only refusing to pass it

because they think he wants to limit it. So in essence they approve and want him to do more. The reason a President asks for a declaration of war is so that they congress share in the approval or the blame for the war. But by refusing for this reason they are already taking part of the credit for the war. Their statement simply says they do not think he is doing enough.

So be it.

[still_one]

3. Shortly the SC will decide how Constitutional Executive Action is in regard to his executive order

on immigration. Executive orders have been used since George Washington, but this could have implications for future Presidents.

However, the fact remains is that it is up to Congress to do what you suggest, and at least for the next two years that will not happen.

In all honesty, I am not sure even if we had a Democratic Congress if they would take responsibility for war

[NCTraveler]

4. I want to use your post to make a bigger point.

Over the years here I have seen multiple reoccurring themes here at du. One of which I will touch on and it has a direct relationship to your op and how we perceive politics.

There are times under Republican and Democratic administrations where they are about to do something we truly dislike. There are a group of people here at du who are very vocal and fight against these policies. Then there is another group who sits back and says we need to wait to see what is actually there before we make any determination. The most recent example is the TPP. We have people here who are extremely against it and fight like mad to disparage any support. Then there is another group who states we need to see the actual agreement itself before coming up with thoughts on it. Problem is, by that point it is too late to start a good ground game of opposition. Sometimes the people in opposition use assumptions or history to make their case because the actual verbiage of the agreement isn't there for us to read. Few just can't grasp that concept.

So what does any of that have to do with your op. Some of those sticking their neck out fighting some of this crap, often before even being made public, fully understand once it is voted on or put in place by the President it is too late and no future President will reign it in. Elected officials grant the money or power. That same group is not going to come in later and say no we really want to give that power up. The wait and see attitude is very damaging. With the TPP as an example, once it is done it is over. Now is the time to start the opposition, not simply when it is made public. Politicians and their funders will not give back what they have taken. Once it is almost in place it is too late to start the fight.

When one is granted the authority to do something and it is supported at one time by a majority, they will not then simply give it up. Yes, it does happen on rare occasion. Very rare.

[Turbineguy]

5. Many years ago

My HS poly-sci Teacher told us that. When Congress originally gave Bush all those sweeping powers, I was against it for the reasons you state. But then again, you can't expect republicans to understand concepts like "future" and "consequences".