The Debate

[tt]

It seems that the only Republican Candidate running for President has read the Constitution is Mr. Ron Paul of Texas.

In last night's debate, the Republican's seeking that office gave wide and somewhat strange answers regarding a possible war with Iran.

Article One Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

(Congress shall have the power to) Declare War, issue Letter of Mark and Reprisal and Rules Concerning captures on Land and Sea.

Gov. Romney wanted to talk with lawyers. Maybe he should read the Constitution first.

[p.a]

It seems that the only Republican Candidate running for President has read the Constitution is Mr. Ron Paul of Texas.

In last night's debate, the Republican's seeking that office gave wide and somewhat strange answers regarding a possible war with Iran.

Article One Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

(Congress shall have the power to) Declare War, issue Letter of Mark and Reprisal and Rules Concerning captures on Land and Sea.

Gov. Romney wanted to talk with lawyers. Maybe he should read the Constitution first.

Maybe they all should go back to grade school and have an 8th grade teacher explain it to them using small words and very slowly.

[Iwantutowantme]

It seems that the only Republican Candidate running for President has read the Constitution is Mr. Ron Paul of Texas.

In last night's debate, the Republican's seeking that office gave wide and somewhat strange answers regarding a possible war with Iran.

Article One Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

(Congress shall have the power to) Declare War, issue Letter of Mark and Reprisal and Rules Concerning captures on Land and Sea.

Gov. Romney wanted to talk with lawyers. Maybe he should read the Constitution first.

Lol!! Traveler.........you got it right. Ron Paul is a good man. When we vote, lets for for a president that we want...not just one that is highly favored...........thanks for listening.......Kripto

[spare_change]

:lmao

[tt]

:lmao

You find the Constitution of the United States of America a laughing matter. All I did was quote from that document.

[spare_change]

Nope. I find Ron Paul a laughing matter.

[69luvrboy]

It seems that the only Republican Candidate running for President has read the Constitution is Mr. Ron Paul of Texas.

In last night's debate, the Republican's seeking that office gave wide and somewhat strange answers regarding a possible war with Iran.

Article One Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

(Congress shall have the power to) Declare War, issue Letter of Mark and Reprisal and Rules Concerning captures on Land and Sea.

Gov. Romney wanted to talk with lawyers. Maybe he should read the Constitution first.
So, if you were Pres. you would jump right in without consulting anyone?

[p.a]

Yup Ron Paul is a buffoon, the running joke, the candidate least likely to be president. And thats to bad because if you really listen, he's probably the only candidate from either party not spinning the facts. People wont vote for Ron Paul because he's portrayed as a joke by the media. Instead people are likely to vote for the first woman, first black, first mayor who's more experienced in his own mind about terrorist because of an incident in his city on 9/11/2001, or an ex pow who thinks the lyrics " Bomb bomb Iran " was funny. We deserve what we get when something as serious as the political process becomes a running joke. We've had 6 years of a running joke in the White House but apparently some of us have not suffered enough.

I listen to all the candidates because I think they all bring something to the discussion. I'm not saying Ron Paul has my vote as of yet but he could be, and he could also be someones running mate for the VP seat.

I remember another little guy that the media portrayed as a buffoon who once called Ronald Reagan a liar on national Television during the debates. He came pretty close to beating Regan for the Republicans presidential nominee. He certainly got a lot of people thinking.

[tt]

So, if you were Pres. you would jump right in without consulting anyone?

The Constitution is the Law of The LAND. The current Adminstration has shown a marked dis-respect for the Constitution. The Congress and and the Congress alone has the power to make war. At least Mr. Paul has bothered to read it.

Bush on the other hand, used the Constitution for toilet paper.

[mrdiscreet]

Yup Ron Paul is a buffoon, the running joke, the candidate least likely to be president. And thats to bad because if you really listen, he's probably the only candidate from either party not spinning the facts. People wont vote for Ron Paul because he's portrayed as a joke by the media. Instead people are likely to vote for the first woman, first black, first mayor who's more experienced in his own mind about terrorist because of an incident in his city on 9/11/2001, or an ex pow who thinks the lyrics " Bomb bomb Iran " was funny. We deserve what we get when something as serious as the political process becomes a running joke. We've had 6 years of a running joke in the White House but apparently some of us have not suffered enough. ...

I know nothing about him, and have a hard time thinking I'd vote for any Repub in their current incarnation, but he came up hihg on the list of a pick the candidate quiz I took here. Seems he values civil liberties and common sense government. Yeah, that would make him mockable from the right!

[spare_change]

The Constitution is the Law of The LAND. The current Adminstration has shown a marked dis-respect for the Constitution. The Congress and and the Congress alone has the power to make war. At least Mr. Paul has bothered to read it.

Bush on the other hand, used the Constitution for toilet paper.

I absolutely enjoy the way you take a single piece of information -- and tout it as the end-all, be-all, without regard to all the circumstances surrounding it.

Your statement is factually incorrect. The Congress does NOT have the authority to MAKE war. It only has the authority to DECLARE war. Making war is the province of the President - the Commander In Chief. It is this little point that makes the current Democratic leadership so out of sync, in their attempts to manage and control the effort in Iraq. They don't have the authority, as much as they want it ---- so, they try to de-fund, sneak it in the backdoor, bury it in the SCHIP proposal, etc.

Additionally, you conveniently ignore the fact that Congress passed an Authorization to Use Force edict that gave the President his authority to act in Iraq, in conjunction with UN mandates. Public law 105-235 authorized the Commander In Chief to "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations".

Further, Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677".

I further note that the Democratically controlled Congress has not repealed, or revised, these laws.

So, as you can see, Bush operated in accordance with the Constitution, and prevailing law. Your "conclusion" (I swear you get them off the side of a Wheaties box, or something) has no basis in fact.

[p.a]

I absolutely enjoy the way you take a single piece of information -- and tout it as the end-all, be-all, without regard to all the circumstances surrounding it.

Your statement is factually incorrect. The Congress does NOT have the authority to MAKE war. It only has the authority to DECLARE war. Making war is the province of the President - the Commander In Chief. It is this little point that makes the current Democratic leadership so out of sync, in their attempts to manage and control the effort in Iraq. They don't have the authority, as much as they want it ---- so, they try to de-fund, sneak it in the backdoor, bury it in the SCHIP proposal, etc.

Additionally, you conveniently ignore the fact that Congress passed an Authorization to Use Force edict that gave the President his authority to act in Iraq, in conjunction with UN mandates. Public law 105-235 authorized the Commander In Chief to "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations".

Further, Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677".

I further note that the Democratically controlled Congress has not repealed, or revised, these laws.

So, as you can see, Bush operated in accordance with the Constitution, and prevailing law. Your "conclusion" (I swear you get them off the side of a Wheaties box, or something) has no basis in fact.

The President does not have the right to make war either. He as you said can ask the congress to declare war. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces but he cannot arbitrarily order an attack on any sovereign nation without the consent of congress. Such power given to the president would make him a dictator.

[spare_change]

The President does not have the right to make war either. He as you said can ask the congress to declare war. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces but he cannot arbitrarily order an attack on any sovereign nation without the consent of congress. Such power given to the president would make him a dictator.

A valid point -- i should have used the phrase "conduct" the war --

In this particular case, he did have the consent of Congress ... they loved the limelight while they were granting it, but now, are afraid to stand by the courage of their convictions.

(Oh wait -- I know -- they were lied to! Damn Halliburton)

[mrdiscreet]

A valid point -- i should have used the phrase "conduct" the war --

In this particular case, he did have the consent of Congress ... they loved the limelight while they were granting it, but now, are afraid to stand by the courage of their convictions.

(Oh wait -- I know -- they were lied to! Damn Halliburton)

A rare case of mostly agreeing with Spare here. They were lied to, but they wanted to be, and they were too cowardly to stand up an oppose the war in the face of popular flag waving (I wouldn't call that vote a courgge of convitions vote, but the opposite). Their later attempts to pretend they weren't unleashing Bush were just ridiculous.

[p.a]

A rare case of mostly agreeing with Spare here. They were lied to, but they wanted to be, and they were too cowardly to stand up an oppose the war in the face of popular flag waving (I wouldn't call that vote a courgge of convitions vote, but the opposite). Their later attempts to pretend they weren't unleashing Bush were just ridiculous.

I agree. We have a consensus.

[spare_change]

A rare case of mostly agreeing with Spare here. They were lied to, but they wanted to be, and they were too cowardly to stand up an oppose the war in the face of popular flag waving (I wouldn't call that vote a courgge of convitions vote, but the opposite). Their later attempts to pretend they weren't unleashing Bush were just ridiculous.



I love the phrase "lied to" ... as if it were an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as known at the time. Surely, you know better ....

As for being too "cowardly to stand up and oppose the war" .... maybe they realize that it is the right thing for the country, just very damaging to them politically. That, I would suggest, could be the real reason you don't see them oppose it.

[mrdiscreet]

I love the phrase "lied to" ... as if it were an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as known at the time. Surely, you know better ....

Surely, I know there are plenty of facts to suggest intentional deception, from patently unreliable sources dubbed "Curveball" to obviously counterfeit yellowcake documents. But, just as surely, neither of us knows the truth. I am content to allow history to judge.

[p.a]

I love the phrase "lied to" ... as if it were an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as known at the time. Surely, you know better ....

As for being too "cowardly to stand up and oppose the war" .... maybe they realize that it is the right thing for the country, just very damaging to them politically. That, I would suggest, could be the real reason you don't see them oppose it.

My neighbor on the right runs into my fence with his car so I retaliate by knocking out the windows of my neighbors house on the left. Makes perfect sense.:lmao

[toowildtotame]

Politics and religion and reasons why they best be left out of a discussion.

1. Everyone has differents views and beliefs, when it comes to Religion.
So it doesn't do any good to discuss it UNLESS you are doing so to lean more of others religion and except it.

2. If Americans actually knew everything our government was doing and have done, you would be overwhelmed. Not by only of what they have done but the lengths they have gone to to cover it up. Our childrens, children may one day find out what our government is doing today. If any of the players are alive they still won't find out.

[p.a]

Politics and religion and reasons why they best be left out of a discussion.

1. Everyone has differents views and beliefs, when it comes to Religion.
So it doesn't do any good to discuss it UNLESS you are doing so to lean more of others religion and except it.

2. If Americans actually knew everything our government was doing and have done, you would be overwhelmed. Not by only of what they have done but the lengths they have gone to to cover it up. Our childrens, children may one day find out what our government is doing today. If any of the players are alive they still won't find out.

Good point

[69luvrboy]

And, if we knew what our gov't knows, few of us could handle that. I love the second-guessers who make judgements without knowing all the facts.

[spare_change]

And, if we knew what our gov't knows, few of us could handle that. I love the second-guessers who make judgements without knowing all the facts.


Good point.

[mrdiscreet]

And, if we knew what our gov't knows, few of us could handle that. I love the second-guessers who make judgements without knowing all the facts.

What kind of sheep are we that "we can't handle the truth"? We have far more to fear from those who feel is is their special duty to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

If we as a people do not want to participate in our government and know the truth, then we deserve to be nothing more than serfs.

Come to think of it, we are well down that path in the US, enjoy!

[p.a]

And, if we knew what our gov't knows, few of us could handle that. I love the second-guessers who make judgements without knowing all the facts.

And for that reason the politicians in government feel they need to treat people like children for fear that we will all jump off the bridge if told the truth.

It is because of the lack of TRUTHFUL information that you have SECOND guessers.

So here's the deal, try telling the truth and lets see if people can handle it or not.

And what I mean by the truth is NO SPIN, NO fundamentalist rhetoric.

[tt]

I absolutely enjoy the way you take a single piece of information -- and tout it as the end-all, be-all, without regard to all the circumstances surrounding it.

Your statement is factually incorrect. The Congress does NOT have the authority to MAKE war. It only has the authority to DECLARE war. Making war is the province of the President - the Commander In Chief. It is this little point that makes the current Democratic leadership so out of sync, in their attempts to manage and control the effort in Iraq. They don't have the authority, as much as they want it ---- so, they try to de-fund, sneak it in the backdoor, bury it in the SCHIP proposal, etc.

Additionally, you conveniently ignore the fact that Congress passed an Authorization to Use Force edict that gave the President his authority to act in Iraq, in conjunction with UN mandates. Public law 105-235 authorized the Commander In Chief to "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations".

Further, Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677".

I further note that the Democratically controlled Congress has not repealed, or revised, these laws.

So, as you can see, Bush operated in accordance with the Constitution, and prevailing law. Your "conclusion" (I swear you get them off the side of a Wheaties box, or something) has no basis in fact.

No, It's Called The United States Constitution. . It's the document Bush has called "A Damn Piece of Paper."

[tt]

Well, poor little Sam Brownback had to drop-out. His "Yellow Brick Road To The White House Came Up Short." Either that, he needed to renew hsi litheum script.

[spare_change]

No, It's Called The United States Constitution. It's the document Bush has called "A Damn Piece of Paper."




".. for someone who doesn't read ...." I'll have you know that I read Beetle Bailey EVERY Sunday!!

[spare_change]

.....

[mrdiscreet]

So, Ron Paul = Libertarian, while I admire the principles, particularly the dedication to civil liberties, no government is a little extreme for me.

With Brownback out, it will be interesting to see if the GOP simply blows off the religious right. I think they should, but it will be fascinating to watch the Wall Street GOP square off with the holy roller GOP.

[oldandnaked]

You know -- I really enjoy your inability to put together a cohesive argument, but instead resort to personal attacks in order to push your point forward -- whatever the hell your point might be.

".. for someone who doesn't read ...." I'll have you know that I read Beetle Bailey EVERY Sunday!!

"Beetle Bailey", no big suprise there. Now Doonesbury would have been a shocker.

[oldandnaked]

So, Ron Paul = Libertarian, while I admire the principles, particularly the dedication to civil liberties, no government is a little extreme for me.

With Brownback out, it will be interesting to see if the GOP simply blows off the religious right. I think they should, but it will be fascinating to watch the Wall Street GOP square off with the holy roller GOP.

I'm with you 100% on Ron Paul and I find his growing popularity fascinating. He has some great ideas but tends to go way too far, dismantling of the Dept. of Education for example. To those who are fighting for his nomination the phrase "be careful what you ask for" comes to mind.

Looks like Huckabee may end up as Brownback's replacement for the holier than thou crowd or they may be the ones "blowing off" the Republican Party and going for an Independent candidate more to their liking or should I say choosing. There's a scenario I'd like to see, an Independent with the religious rights backing might do for the Republican nominee what Nader did for Gore.

[p.a]

I'm with you 100% on Ron Paul and I find his growing popularity fascinating. He has some great ideas but tends to go way too far, dismantling of the Dept. of Education for example. To those who are fighting for his nomination the phrase "be careful what you ask for" comes to mind.

Looks like Huckabee may end up as Brownback's replacement for the holier than thou crowd or they may be the ones "blowing off" the Republican Party and going for an Independent candidate more to their liking or should I say choosing. There's a scenario I'd like to see, an Independent with the religious rights backing might do for the Republican nominee what Nader did for Gore.

good point

[tt]

....

[spare_change]

...

[chiboy_67]

...:)

[spare_change]

...

[tt]

....

[tt]

Wonderful, incisive, and intelligent political input ....

And all too true.

[tt]

So, if you were Pres. you would jump right in without consulting anyone?

The Power to make war does not rest with the President. Section 8 is very clear about that. In fact, there is no war as so often told to us by members of the Bush Administration.

The last war to be declared by the United States was against the Empire of Japan on December 8, 1941. Germany Declared war against the United States shortly thereafter.

But at not time, since September 11, 2001 has the President of the United States, before a joint session of Congress made a formal request (As required by the United States Constitution) to declare war.

[tt]

I absolutely enjoy the way you take a single piece of information -- and tout it as the end-all, be-all, without regard to all the circumstances surrounding it.

Your statement is factually incorrect. The Congress does NOT have the authority to MAKE war. It only has the authority to DECLARE war. Making war is the province of the President - the Commander In Chief. It is this little point that makes the current Democratic leadership so out of sync, in their attempts to manage and control the effort in Iraq. They don't have the authority, as much as they want it ---- so, they try to de-fund, sneak it in the backdoor, bury it in the SCHIP proposal, etc.

Additionally, you conveniently ignore the fact that Congress passed an Authorization to Use Force edict that gave the President his authority to act in Iraq, in conjunction with UN mandates. Public law 105-235 authorized the Commander In Chief to "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations".

Further, Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677".

I further note that the Democratically controlled Congress has not repealed, or revised, these laws.

So, as you can see, Bush operated in accordance with the Constitution, and prevailing law. Your "conclusion" (I swear you get them off the side of a Wheaties box, or something) has no basis in fact.

"Use of Force." is NOT a forml declaration of war as required by the United States Constitution. In order to declare war, the President must go before a join session of Congress and make such a formal request, to date no such request has been made.

The limited use of force granted to him was done after the President promised to return to the U.N. for a second meeting with the U.N. Security Council, at that meeting the United States was to secure permission from the U.N. for military action. Bush failed to do so, he acted independently of the U.N. and in direct and willful disregard for the U.N. Charter that states no member state can attack another member.

Just another in the long list of bush lies.

[Cotties]

Cut the bullshit out people..This was last months nonesense.

How about I remove any flaming posts and we try being a bit more civil.

Please feel free to send me or any other mod a private message if you wish to discuss this matter which I hope is resolved.

All ideas may be challenged and debated. Personal critisism of individuals breaks the site rules under the heading code of conduct.

[tt]

I'm with you 100% on Ron Paul and I find his growing popularity fascinating. He has some great ideas but tends to go way too far, dismantling of the Dept. of Education for example. To those who are fighting for his nomination the phrase "be careful what you ask for" comes to mind.

Looks like Huckabee may end up as Brownback's replacement for the holier than thou crowd or they may be the ones "blowing off" the Republican Party and going for an Independent candidate more to their liking or should I say choosing. There's a scenario I'd like to see, an Independent with the religious rights backing might do for the Republican nominee what Nader did for Gore.

But who would that candidate be? Pat Robertson endorsed Rudie, who has had three (03) wives and kept his mistress in the Mayor's Mansion. Huckabee might be able to swing a few votes, but right now there is no clear "Standout" in the Republican Field.

Fred Thompson is not going to last, his campaign is half hearted at best and folksy charm is wearing off.

[oldandnaked]

But who would that candidate be? Pat Robertson endorsed Rudie, who has had three (03) wives and kept his mistress in the Mayor's Mansion. Huckabee might be able to swing a few votes, but right now there is no clear "Standout" in the Republican Field.

Fred Thompson is not going to last, his campaign is half hearted at best and folksy charm is wearing off.

Pat Robertson continues to amaze me. Huckabee is gaining some ground with the religious right. Still plenty of time for things to play out. I think their influence has dwindled significantly when it comes to determining who will get the nomination and their endorsement may actually do more harm than good.