Good god, we are screwed out of our minds (maybe)

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
  • #51
466
2
Prometheus said:
The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions. The blame lies with all of us.
Hey man, speak for yourself, I was 12 when GW was (s)elected.
 
  • #52
22
0
I'm reminded of Pa Kettle: "I will never apologise for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are." ~ George W Bush.
 
  • #53
343
0
wasteofo2 said:
Hey man, speak for yourself, I was 12 when GW was (s)elected.
I am sorry, but the rules are that we cannot blame Bush for being an idiot. We must all share in his blame. This includes you. You seem to be attempting to shirk your responsibility. I think that you might have a good future in politicas ahead of you.
 
  • #54
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Prometheus said:
The American people voted in an idiot, and we certainly cannot blame him for his actions.
No they didn't. Gore won the popular vote, narrowly but definitely. It was the electoral college, plus skulduggery, that put Bush in the White House.

I personally voted for Gore, and I then lived in a state that was screwed by the Electoral College setup - Illiinois. Notice that the E.C. unfairness is not just due to the constitution, but to the refusal to enlarge the House of Representatives to allow for population increases. This means that Wyoming can never lose its one congressman, but Illinois can lose one of its, if another state increases its population faster.

Bottom line, I refuse to accept any responsibility for Idiot Child and his gang of incompetent clowns.
 
  • #55
343
0
selfAdjoint said:
No they didn't.
I quite agree with you. I was being facetious.
 
  • #56
18,198
7,800
selfAdjoint said:
Bottom line, I refuse to accept any responsibility for Idiot Child and his gang of incompetent clowns.
The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do. They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better. This is why I hate politics. I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes. I'm definately not voting for John, 'Kill Small Buisness' Kerry.
 
  • #57
343
0
Greg Bernhardt said:
The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do.
Perhaps. If so, perhaps with good reason.

They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better.
I believe Bush screwed up more than any president in the last 50 years.

I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes.
You have the right to your opinion.

I think Bush is an evil person and an idiot. When you say "a good person", do you mean good as in "not an idiot" or as in "not incredibly evil"?
 
  • #58
466
2
Greg Bernhardt said:
The funny thing is that if Kerry wins and the US continues to deteriorate, which I believe will happen, the democrats will look back and say it was nothing Kerry could do. They will say bush screwed up too much for Kerry to make a difference even if Kerry wasn't any better. This is why I hate politics. I am voting for Bush, I think he's a good person even if he's made some mistakes. I'm definately not voting for John, 'Kill Small Buisness' Kerry.
I believe that Kerry can do a much better job than Bush, and that doesn't just mean not fuking up as bad as him, but actually improving things alot. For instance, I believe he'll make medicare etc. more affordable, raise the minimum wage, lower the defecit, restore alliances, actually create jobs, protect the environment better than Bush, and fight a smarter war on terror.

Even if Bush is a good person, he'll be the only president since hoover to have lost jobs, he's quite possibly the only person ever in the history of the world to think that cutting taxes twice while at war is a good idea, most of the world hates him and because of that 90% of the troops dying in Iraq are ours and more people are likely to want to harm us than hurt us.

How do you figure John Kerry will kill small buisness?
 
  • #59
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
selfAdjoint said:
No they didn't. Gore won the popular vote, narrowly but definitely.
That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:
 
  • #60
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
wasteofo2 said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that if the President gets congressional approval to take action against another nation so long as he does certain things that he can just ignore the things he's required to do?
The Constitution says two things: that the President is commander in chief of the miliary and that Congress has the power to declare war. It goes no further than that to define the powers of the President and Congress. After Vietnam, the War Powers Act was passed to better define and delineate the powers: it has never been invoked because it is likely an unconstitutional limit on the President's authority.

Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power.

....how could you say that it was alright that he lied and gave reasons for war that were totally false and he may not have even believed?
I do think he honestly believed, even with thin evidence he had, that we'd find some WMD in Iraq. Whether that was his primary reason for the war, I don't know, but I suspect not.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
343
0
russ_watters said:
That isn't now and never has been what decides a Presidential election in the US.

Greg - you may be further to the right than me! I had no idea. :surprise:
Excellent interpretation. You only had to put a couple of words into his mouth and change his meaning just a little bit to obtain such an interpreation. Nice work.
 
  • #62
kat
26
0
Either way, I do think the war powers of the President need to be clarified - with an amendment if necessary. But it won't happen because Congress wants to preserve their illusion of power.
There's no need for an amendment to clarify the war powers of the President. Congress approves a war when it grants the money to pay for it. That is it's quite but powerful manner of enacting its' congressional right to commit to war...without taking the flack for declaring war. Once congress decided it no longer wanted to commit to the Vietnam war, it cut funding..the war ended. It was really just as simple as that.
 
  • #63
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.
 
  • #64
1,490
22
selfAdjoint said:
Quite right. All it would have taken to stop the war on Iraq would have been a majority to say no. Getting such a minority is another problem. But it wasn't any constitutional failing; you can't expect a law or constitution to take positive action when legislators won't.
This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.
 
  • #65
22
0
USA Constitution:
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to...

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
USA War Powers Act:
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
United Nations Charter:
United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Wouldn't it be nice if they followed the law?
 
  • #66
kat
26
0
Artman said:
This doesn't stop the President from sending troops. It just takes away much of their support.
Actually, I've posted the case in one of these threads so a search would find it for you..I'm not going to dig it up and I can't remember it off the top of my head (we'll blame it on being pre-menopausal :surprise: ) BUT..according to caselaw....when congress votes to pay for a war it has in effect approved that conflict...which allows it to be a legal conflict. If congress did not approve that conflict by paying for it..or by any other means..then it would in all probability be an illegal conflict (in regards to presidential powers) after the initial time limit had lapsed.
 
  • #67
221
2
As far as I know USA and UK (and whoever else) have been bombing Iraq cities for about 10 year's now, maybe this has has relevnce on the current situation over htere im not sure what though.
 
  • #68
GENIERE
Username – Don’t be apologetic. Take a position. If your politics lean to the right you'll have a few supporters. If you lean to the left, you'll have hundreds.
 
  • #69
22
0
username said:
As far as I know USA and UK (and whoever else) have been bombing Iraq cities for about 10 year's now, maybe this has has relevnce on the current situation over htere im not sure what though.
Quite correct. http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
 
  • #70
467
1
As usual, the site that Adam posted has some rather curious logic. For example, here is a news article posted in the page titled "501 days (as of 7/31/04) of US Invasion/Occupation of Iraq":

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/072904_buried_mines_and_ordnance_contin.htm

The mines mentioned in the story were almost certainly buried during the Iran-Iraq War. The mine in the picture was made in Italy. But we'll blame the US anyway.
 
  • #71
22
0
"Almost certainly"?

Once again, "Dubya" gives a poor introduction to the news article in question. The article does no "blame the US anyway". Just read that, and the many other articles from that site, for yourselves.
 
  • #72
221
2
GENIERE said:
Username – Don’t be apologetic. Take a position. If your politics lean to the right you'll have a few supporters. If you lean to the left, you'll have hundreds.
Can I stay in the middle :)
 
  • #73
467
1
The article does no "blame the US anyway". Just read that, and the many other articles from that site, for yourselves.
Look at the title of the page where the link was located: "501 days (as of 7/31/04) of US Invasion/Occupation of Iraq."
 
  • #74
22
0
Your point?
 
Last edited:
  • #75
GENIERE
username said:
Can I stay in the middle :)
If you sit on a fence, you may have barbed wire in your arse.
 

Related Threads on Good god, we are screwed out of our minds (maybe)

Replies
7
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
150
Views
13K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
128
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
56
Views
4K
Top