Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Let's be truthful, ronaldo- very few in our government respect the Founder's intent. At all.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let's be even more truthful. Bush can say whatever he wants about about what he expects Congress should do. Congress can end the war right now if it wants to. All they have to do is cut off funds. The editorial's author complains of Bush thinking he is a king, and yet...what he should be complaining about is the Chickenshit, Lying Democratic Party, which refuses to end the war as they said they would.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let's be even more truthful. Bush can say whatever he wants about about what he expects Congress should do. Congress can end the war right now if it wants to. All they have to do is cut off funds. The editorial's author complains of Bush thinking he is a king, and yet...what he should be complaining about is the Chickenshit, Lying Democratic Party, which refuses to end the war as they said they would.

The New York Times lead says Congress accidentally gave President George Bush the power to conduct warrantless searches and seizures when it passed a wiretapping bill earlier this month. Democrats are embarrassed they voted without understanding language that would allow—among other things—some physical searches, and the collection of business records, without a court order.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

I totally agree with you, almost...I Tapped That??

The only way they 'accidentally' gave those powers is if they didn't fucking read the bill they passed. Any bets a ton of them voted just because their buddies in congress did, or because they were lobbied to, or because they saw the title and thought it sounded good...or...all of the above?

With the war, it is a whole other story. Yes, they could stop the funding, but that would honestly put the soldiers at even more risk (you can't fund a withdraw either). The blame falls into this administration's lap. They have made this unjust war an occupation set in stone. They've (and I'd add AIPAC for their unstoppable lobbying process on the Republican and Democratic side) made sure no one can shut it down.

Originally Posted by trumptman


Stop making excuses for why Republicans are jerks, and Democrats are accidental jerks when they do, say and act the exact same way but have better "intentions." It is a line of bull.

Nick

Originally Posted by Kickaha

If the Dems were any different, they'd repeal the powers they inherit. They won't.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Let's be truthful, ronaldo- very few in our government respect the Founder's intent. At all.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

We are at a point where the Constitution itself is a barrier to be overcome by the power elite, not the principles by which they govern.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let's be even more truthful. Bush can say whatever he wants about about what he expects Congress should do. Congress can end the war right now if it wants to. All they have to do is cut off funds. The editorial's author complains of Bush thinking he is a king, and yet...what he should be complaining about is the Chickenshit, Lying Democratic Party, which refuses to end the war as they said they would.

Originally Posted by mydo

You lost me there @_@ Artman. Your narrow focus on Israel shows your real feeling.

In response to many requests, not only from Americans, The Political Compass has charted the most prominent names in the 2007 US Primaries. They have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records. Our apologies for those not included.

It is important to recognise that The Political Compass is a continuum rather than consisting of hard and fast quadrants. For example, Ron Paul on the social scale is actually closer to Dennis Kucinich than to many figures within his own party. But on the economic scale, they are, of course, far apart.

When examining the chart it is important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let's be even more truthful. Bush can say whatever he wants about about what he expects Congress should do. Congress can end the war right now if it wants to. All they have to do is cut off funds. The editorial's author complains of Bush thinking he is a king, and yet...what he should be complaining about is the Chickenshit, Lying Democratic Party, which refuses to end the war as they said they would.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well it involves a little more consequence than just cutting off the funds.

Besides I must point out they're not as bad as the lying, chickenshit, republicans who started and have been the main supporters of this conflict all along.

And yes before you start any democrat who voted for this war should have been able to see Bush and CO. for what they are. A snake in the grass. But as I've said you want to believe when your president says " Let's go to war! ". Any thinking person saw it for what it is. I simply find it incredible that he blindsided so many. Trying to turn this conflict into " It's the democrat's fault " isn't going to solve anything. They didn't start this.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Let me ask you this jimmac, which is worse, someone who is wrong who doesn't realize it and thus keeps acting in a wrong manner, or someone who is wrong who does realize it and keeps acting in a wrong manner.

The Iraq vote was far from party line. It passed the Senate 77-23 and the House 296-133.

But for Democrats to say this is wrong, to get elected either saying they will end the war, that their vote was wrong and they desire to make amends for it, and then do nothing is not acceptable. You can't ask to be empowered and then claim helplessness, forgetfulness, carelessness, etc. You can't declare a desire to make amends and then keep doing the same wrong action.



How can one be blindsided when there is skepticism from the beginning? You have to start assigning responsibility for actions to the people who undertake them. The Democrats thought Bush was elected illegitimately so they.... gave him everything he wanted?!? Oh wait.. they know he cheated and so when he lied about Iraq they....gave him everything he wanted?!?! Oh well now they are the party in power and so they are going to put a timeline on the war and instead they... gave him everything he wanted?!?!

Finally... we gave him everything he wanted, something we decried as spying on Americans without warrants because...well we can't read our own writing.

Either it is right and they want to talk out of both sides of their mouth while voting for it, or it is wrong and they are bad people.

Man I get tired of this nonsense. The bad actions are excused EVERY time and the buck and blame are always passed on. When are the Democrats finally bad people for voting FOR the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, warrantless surveillance on Americans, etc.

Really stop telling me the Republicans are some evil boogie men because they undertake bad actions with bad intentions while the Democrats are good and noble because they undertake bad actions with good intentions.

Nick

Originally Posted by jimmac

Trumpy,

If you're trying to say that Bush didn't know what he was doing that won't fly!

He knew how weak the evidence was.

Yes the democrats should take more action. However they didn't start this, they aren't the ones not letting go, and they aren't the ones who've been deceptive about this whole situation from the start.

I've never said they were noble. Ever.

I'm sur they have their own selfish and political reasons for holding back at this time.

But trying to make this " Quagmire " all about them is not only lame it's stupid!

I've always said what I thought.

They are the lesser of evils and the only semirational thing we've got going right now.

I'm registered independant. Get it!

Ps. So does this mean you're in favor of them cutting off the funds and pulling out of Iraq?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Trumpy,

If you're trying to say that Bush didn't know what he was doing that won't fly!

He knew how weak the evidence was.

Yes the democrats should take more action. However they didn't start this, they aren't the ones not letting go, and they aren't the ones who've been deceptive about this whole situation from the start.

I've never said they were noble. Ever.

I'm sur they have their own selfish and political reasons for holding back at this time.

But trying to make this " Quagmire " all about them is not only lame it's stupid!

I've always said what I thought. They are the lesser of evils and the only semirational thing we've got going right now. There is no way an independent will get elected this time around. Maybe sometime in the future when they're better organized but not right now! So I must vote for the democrat. Because I don't want another Bush clone to carry on the torch and their agenda.

I'm registered independant. Get it!

Ps. So does this mean you're in favor of them cutting off the funds and pulling out of Iraq?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Here is what you refuse to understand, claiming to be dealing with a known variable makes every justification about the Democrats even worse.

Understand that it makes you look a hundred times worse when you claim to have bought a lie from a known cheat, liar, wannabe dictator, etc.

Ignorance is bliss, but you claim they knew these things about Bush, that EVERYBODY knows these things about him and yet they still give him and do what he wants.

How terrible is that?!?



They are letting go. They passed the revised FISA, the revised Patriot Act, they gave Bush additional war funding. There is not a single thing that has changed with regard to his actions since the Democratic Congress has come into session. Claiming they can't do everything has some truth, claiming they can't do anything? Nonsense.

Also they have been deceptive about it from the start. Statements from the period before the war reflect their belief, from briefings and readings they had available to them just as Bush did, that Iraq was on the same course it had been understood to be on since the first Gulf War. In fact most non-war votes were due to the fear of high death counts due to guerrilla fights on the streets of Baghdad and fears of massive deaths due to chemical agents being deployed.

If the search function worked here, I'd drag out the posts from people here who said the same thing. Democrats authorized this war. If they claim they bought a lie from a known cheat and liar, which is what they claim Bush is known to be, that just makes it worse that they went along. IT NEVER MAKES IT BETTER.



You make it about who has the power to respond. The Democrats asked for control of the government to make these changes, and have now not made them. It isn't just all about htem, but to exempt them defies reality.



Can you prove that the Democratic nominee won't be a Bush clone? We hear all these claims that the Democrats are so different. Clinton started "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Hillary has not claimed she would do anything different. Both Obama and Clinton have made statements that they would undertake preemptive war actions in countries related to terrorism with or without the consent of those countries. All they have claimed is to be more focused and selective with their choices.

At best most have claimed they would move the troops out of Iraq, but not out of the region. They haven't really said they would bring them home.

No major candidate has pledged to enforce our borders, empty out bases abroad and end America as empire. No one.

Tomato...Tomahto.



I'm in favor of them following through on actions instead of passing the buck. When people earn power they need to exercise it. If people disagree with that action, then they need to put forth the effort to elect replacements.

Basically, use it or lose it.

" Nick

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He didn't say that. Not at all.



False and unprovable assertion. You think you know. He by all accounts felt otherwise.

Irrelevant. The Democrats are the ones controlling both houses and the ones who claim to want to end the war. Yet, they don't. So tell me...who's worse....the politician you disagree with and does what he wants to do....or the one who agrees with you but doesn't follow through? Hmmm?



Not, but you've questioned Bush's motivation. Are you saying that they are political whores too?



Then why defend them?



Well, they've made it about them as opposed to being about winning. They've done so by relentlessly bashing the President and military whilst voting to continue the war. And coming soon to a Tv screen near you, they will be attacking the report by Petraeus because it contains good news. Just watch.



Unfortunately.



Now they're not. They are at least as bad. In fact, they're worse.

There is no way an independent will get elected this time around. Maybe sometime in the future when they're better organized but not right now

! So I must vote for the democrat. Because I don't want another Bush clone to carry on the torch and their agenda.[/quite]

So you'll vote for Hillary over say, a Guiliani or Thompson or even McCain? Hillary is going to be the nominee. She's way worse than a Bush clone. Way.



Whatever. You can be a registered communist for all I care. You're still totally polarized.



PS: Stop putting words in his mouth. It's cheap. You know he doesn't believe that.

Originally Posted by jimmac

"Can you prove that the Democratic nominee won't be a Bush clone? "

No Democrat has even come close to ever doing the type of things that Bush has done. Whereas on the republican side you can site several examples : Nixon ( Watergate ) Reagan ( the Contra affair ) etc. I'm sorry but they've always had this sort of " For your own good " type of attitude. While saying they're not for big government.

" Both Obama and Clinton have made statements that they would undertake preemptive war actions in countries related to terrorism with or without the consent of those countries. "

Once again Iraq isn't about 911!


" I'm in favor of them following through on actions instead of passing the buck. "

So you're in favor of them cutting off funds and stopping this war?

If not it kind of takes the wind out of your argument.

Originally Posted by theapplegenius

So you're essentially saying that Hillary would be a better president than Bush becuase she's a Democrat and Republicans have historically done worse things.

What a horrible, weak argument.

What they're trying to say is that the POTUS is powerless without Congress (which is held by the Dems), which means that the Dems are entirely able to stop the war in Iraq, warrentless wiretapping, ect. But, they don't. They continue to give President Bush what he wants, then whine about what a terrible person he is.

I remember there was something on the Colbert Report about a guy who voted to appropriate funds for the Iraq war, then give a speech denouncing it. Is he *better* than everyone else too because he's a Dem? No, I think he's worse because he knows what he's voting on is wrong, but continues to shovel money.

...I'm just rambling now but you get the point.

Originally Posted by jimmac

No Democrat has even come close to ever doing the type of things that Bush has done. Whereas on the republican side you can site several examples : Nixon ( Watergate ) Reagan ( the Contra affair ) etc. I'm sorry but they've always had this sort of " For your own good " type of attitude. While saying they're not for big government.

Once again Iraq isn't about 911!

So you're in favor of them cutting off funds and stopping this war?

If not it kind of takes the wind out of your argument.

Originally Posted by jimmac;1130679Just because they are giving Bush what he wants [I

now[/I] doesn't mean they are in agreement with those policies. Also it doesn't mean that they are one in the same with the party that instituted those policies.

So we're also back to the idea that if you agree with the president's policies ( Which you've not stated your position ) then what the hell are you trying to say ( or spin )?


Hey it's an easy idea to wrap your mind around! The recent polls show that the american public mirrors my attitude. They don't approve of how congress has handled things so far but they still trust them more than they do the republicans.

Personally I think you guys are the ones with the weak argument.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So you'll vote for Hillary over say, a Guiliani or Thompson or even McCain? Hillary is going to be the nominee. She's way worse than a Bush clone. Way.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Wow, a person who actually wants to go back to the Clinton days. A democrat no less. Stunning, considering this single man screwed the party for almost a decade. I wish we could elect Bill Jeff again... sure does make selling Conservatism easier.

Originally Posted by trumptman

First, Jimmac, do us all a favor and use the quote function please.

Now you claim that NO Democrat has ever done what Bush has done or what Republicans hav done historically. That is complete nonsense. Democrats were responsible for Jim Crow laws, for the Civil War, and for Dixiecrats advocating segregation.

Additionally Democrats are the only presidents who have signed sedition acts which made it illegal to criticize the government and for internment camps which tossed out every possible Constitutional guarantee for Japanese-American citizens.

You find me anything worse than that history.

You say Iraq isn't about 911, but fail to grasp that preemptive war isn't about waiting for a 9/11. I mean seriously you couldn't miss the point more if you tried. Preemptive war is about being willing to attack someone BEFORE they attack us and for no other reason than they do not root out and end elements considered dangerous to us. The doctrine of preemptive war is what created Iraq and neither Hillary nor Obama have refuted it. In fact in various hawkish statements they have vowed to continue it, but simply apply it more carefully than Bush.

Nick

Originally Posted by vinea

Check our polls lately? There are folks that look fondly back on the Days of Bill. Bush is going to go down in history like "that idiot Carter" but without the humanitarian and Nobel stuff at the end.

I suspect that Bush is going to get doubly blessed as the US economy slides into a deep hole before he leaves office.

Originally Posted by theapplegenius

So...that means that the American public is stupid and the democratic congress is chickenshit and ball-less.

Yeah, that who I want representing the country.

Originally Posted by jimmac

So Iraq was about to attack us? Gosh I must of missed that one!

Originally Posted by tonton

This is what we've been saying since day one. It's a clear debunking of the idea that this particular pre-emptive war was called for, or even legal.

But...

Deaf ears. Deaf, lying ears.

Originally Posted by jimmac

So Iraq was about to attack us? Gosh I must of missed that one!

Just how were they going to do that? Given that on a good day their missiles would only go about 700 miles. Also I seem to remember that they found no WMD.

s for the rest I think you're reading a lot into statements by Ms. Clinton and Obama.

"If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including [Osama] bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should," Obama said. "That's just common sense."

"Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," Biden said. "It's already the policy of the United States -- has been for four years -- that there's actionable intelligence, we would go into Pakistan."