Cast your hypothetical vote, for president, today:

[Dinsdale]

I still to
this day can't figure out why the liberals have a lust for surrender in all aspects of life

I wish I had an answer, but I do agree.

Bush the Liberal has certainly surrendered to a host of things -- his oath to Americans was one of the first things he surrendered.

Liberal mvscal has surrendered his allegiance to the USA, and now supports revoking "inalienable" rights.

Our entire liberal government surrendered the ideals of the Founders when they forgot that whole "entanglement in other nations' affairs" warning.


Whole buncha liberals fucking this country up, from both major parties.

Of course, there is a conservative presidential candidate, but this country's liberals are too afraid to let the People run there own lives, so they continue the status quo and let special interests run it for them.

[Dinsdale]

It was followed, you fucking moron.

No, a "fucking moron" is someone that can't grasp the concept of it being illegal to transfer a vested power from one Branch to another.


That is EXACTLY what the Founding Father sought to avoid... and that isn't even debatable. Volumes and volumes and volumes were written on the subject (including the guy who WROTE THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION... not sure how you're still struggling with that)... yet since some scumbag politicos thought they could dodge an accountability bullet by breaking the Rule of Law, all of a sudden the US Constitution is invalid?


That's just straight up treason, regardless how it's sugar-coated.


Congress says "We're going to war" or "we're not going to war." There not only isn't a provision in the Constitution that reads "the Legislative Branch may transfr it's vested powers under Article 1," but there's provisions that very strictly forbid it.


Where the fuck did anyone get the idea that Congress has the power to declare Article 1, Section 8 null and void? How the fuck could anyone be either so clueless or dishonest that they interperet anything in there to read "it's OK for Congress to transfer Legislative power to the Executive Branch"?


The most hideous breech of Separation of Powers in this country's history. But remember, any time you're looking to overthrow a powerful government, you need to do it within the framework of the system, and if anyone says anything about your efforts, you get on the biggest soapbox you can find and question their "patriotism." It's a technique that's been employed for thousands of years for a reason... because it's effective. I mean... most of you people are falling for it.

[poptart]

Mvscal, your military tie has turned your normally Constitutionally-aligned thinking away from what you know is correct.

The founders set up the Constitution with the clear directive that it is Congress that declares war.
Done so that it is the representatives of the PEOPLE who declare war, and not ONE single jackoff in the oval office.

The whole of Congress hears the case for war and then votes accordingly.
The government owned by the people.

You, I suppose because of your military hunger, spin away this truth that you are very well aware of.


Dinsdale is spot on.

About Paul, he speaks of respect for the Constitution and all the other candidates roll eyes and act as if the guy is some sort of alien.

It's absoultely incredible, and it just shows how far off the deep end we've gone.

[BSmack]

Mvscal, your military tie has turned your normally Constitutionally-aligned thinking away from what you know is correct.

Since when has mvscal's thinking been "Constitutionally-aligned"? This is the same poster who has advocated the Principate of Ceasar Augustus as a proper model for American government during the "war on terror"? Is he not?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

President Hilary Clinton.

Commander In Chief.


Get fucking used to it.

[upstart]

Poptart,Dinsdale I must respectfully disgree and toss my orr in with mvscal on this issue.The congress did in fact give GWB the right to wage war in order
to protect the nation as he sees fit.That said, the congress also can take that authority away by cutting funding for the troops in the field and force the Bush
admin hand.

Poptart said:

Mvscal, your military tie has turned your normally Constitutionally-aligned thinking away from what you know is correct

.

This statment is a push, I have read his past posts on the Constitution and he has been money and consistent at all times.

Now,I have military ties and I hope that does not cause you to dismiss my opinion out of hand or diminish my credibility.

The founders set up the Constitution with the clear directive that it is Congress that declares war

Are you quibbling about semantics or do you hold that the congress has NO authority to give the Prez the right to defend the country unless it a"declared war"

Keeping in mind the congress has only done so for The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II ?

[upstart]

President Hilary Clinton.

Commander In Chief.


Get fucking used to it.

Prime Minister Steven Harper

Feels good don't it

[upstart]

President Hilary Clinton.

Commander In Chief.


Get fucking used to it.

Prime Minister Steven Harper

Feels good don't it

BTW,Martyred care to respond to this statment by Mr Harper ?

"You also know that our work has not ended - we cannot just put down our weapons and hope for peace - that we can't set arbitrary deadlines and wish for the best and that we can't let anyone get away with tarnishing the reputation of the Canadian Forces as the most professional, dedicated, disciplined and effective soldiers on this planet,"
Prime Minister Steven Harper on Afghanistan , May,11. 2007.

[battery chucka' one]

Personally, my issues lie in that many try to use the constitution to tie the hands of the leaders of this country from carrying out their duties.

One of said duties is to deal with any conflicts that might arise in the carrying on of day to day business.

How did we deal with the Barbary pirates? Was there a declaration of war there? What about the seceding southern states? How shall we deal with nationless terrorists who attack our country?

These are issues that have arisen in our nations history. They were dealt with in turn. How many cried that we were blowing our noses with the constitution on those times, I wonder.

[BSmack]

Personally, my issues lie in that many try to use the constitution to tie the hands of the leaders of this country from carrying out their duties.

The utter stupidity of that statement defies description.

The Constitution DEFINES the duties of our leaders.

Tell me you knew?

[poptart]

Absolutely classically surreal moment of the last Republican debate.

Chris Matthews: Governor Romney, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

Romney: You sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you need to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us.


You sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you need to do????

bwaaa ....

Is this guy fucking kidding us???

Can't...stop....laffing....


Ron Paul, of course, jumped his shit when he got his rebuttal time.
Read the Constitution.
Congress declares war.


First off, if we 'take out' Iran's nuclear facilities it isn't for the protection of the American people.
Shitcan that fairy tale.

Second, people will claim that we aren't going to war with Iran, .... we are just bombing them.
LOL

Sure, if a foreign country started bombing targets in America nobody here would consider that an act of war.
LOL again.

Is there any wonder why America is regarded around the world as an arrogant nation?

Upstart, the five times the United States has declared war it was done properly.
All of the other 'use of military force' *wink* *wink* cases were not done in accordance with the Constitution, and they have generally, not coincidentally, ended with undesirable results for our country.

We don't need to be dicking around militarily in the middle east.
We're not wanted or appreciated there, and our foreign policy is unmanageable, far too costly, and detrimental to the future security of our country.
American arrogance again.

Imagine if say, China, set up military shop in northern Mexico, just south of our border.
You know, they maybe just need to make sure everything is going ok over here.

Sounds cool?


Leave the ragheads alone so they can kill each other.

And seal our OWN borders.

Make too much sense?

[Mikey]

Personally, my issues lie in that many try to use the constitution to tie the hands of the leaders of this country from carrying out their duties.

The utter stupidity of that statement defies description.

The Constitution DEFINES the duties of our leaders.

Tell me you knew?

I have a feeling that he had a different point of view from 1993 - 2000, and it may mysteriously change again after the next election.

(I wonder how BCO feels about "activist" judges...)

[battery chucka' one]

Personally, my issues lie in that many try to use the constitution to tie the hands of the leaders of this country from carrying out their duties.

The utter stupidity of that statement defies description.

The Constitution DEFINES the duties of our leaders.

Tell me you knew?

I have a feeling that he had a different point of view from 1993 - 2000, and it may mysteriously change again after the next election.

(I wonder how BCO feels about "activist" judges...)

If we're running in this direction, please tell me what your feelings were on how Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis. Do you agree with Bay of Pigs?

Since you brought it up, with regards to 1993-2000, we'll go case by case.

Haiti---I thought this action was perhaps the president over-stepping his authority.

Sudan---Reasonable action

Afghanistan---Reasonable action

Iraq---Reasonable action

Somalia---Inherited by the president from the previous administration

Balkans---Perhaps reasonable. NATO action. Still, would you think that intervening and choosing a side from a centuries long conflict was needed?

[battery chucka' one]

Personally, my issues lie in that many try to use the constitution to tie the hands of the leaders of this country from carrying out their duties.

The utter stupidity of that statement defies description.

The Constitution DEFINES the duties of our leaders.

Tell me you knew?

Of course it does. And when you toss out statements that congress didn't vote on this war, you are guilty of lying. No law against it. Just wrong.

The fact that the constitution is quite ambiguous according to specific situations creates a rather interesting quandry. Many are able to manipulate this to their own ends. Very sad. Way to go attorneys.

[Dinsdale]

The fact that the constitution is quite ambiguous according to specific situations

It's pretty freaking clear on the "going to war" part.

Congress declares, authorizes, and funds it, and the Executive Branch commands the troops and is responsible for the X's and O's of it.


Uhm... ever heard of "Separation of Powers"?

"Checks and Balances"?

That whole dealio?


Bottom line -- one branch transfered a vested power to another branch. Not even open for debate as far as legality. Congress only has power to do what's outlined in the Constitution. It is not authorized to transfer Legislative Power to the Executive Branch. That's a complete fucking affront to our Constitution.


But of course, "the Constitution is just a piece of paper," so no one seems to give a shit that certain interests are doing EXACTLY as the Founders warned they would eventually do, and they even outlined the likely result... and sadly, 200-odd years later, those warnings are falling on deaf, frightened, cowardly ears.

[battery chucka' one]

The fact that the constitution is quite ambiguous according to specific situations

It's pretty freaking clear on the "going to war" part.

Congress declares, authorizes, and funds it, and the Executive Branch commands the troops and is responsible for the X's and O's of it.


Uhm... ever heard of "Separation of Powers"?

"Checks and Balances"?

That whole dealio?


Bottom line -- one branch transfered a vested power to another branch. Not even open for debate as far as legality. Congress only has power to do what's outlined in the Constitution. It is not authorized to transfer Legislative Power to the Executive Branch. That's a complete fucking affront to our Constitution.


But of course, "the Constitution is just a piece of paper," so no one seems to give a shit that certain interests are doing EXACTLY as the Founders warned they would eventually do, and they even outlined the likely result... and sadly, 200-odd years later, those warnings are falling on deaf, frightened, cowardly ears.

What part of congress voted on this war don't you agree with? If they didn't, then what on earth did they vote on? Oh, I know, they voted to authorize the president. Blah blah blah. They voted for the war. Just because they now wish to wash their hands of it is no reason to allow them to avoid their just responsibilities in this situation. They had the exact same intelligence that Bush did. They had the exact same knowledge. Again, what part of this are you having problems comprehending?

[Dinsdale]

Just because they now wish to wash their hands of it is no reason to allow them to avoid their just responsibilities in this situation.

That's what you're not understanding -- they don't want to wash their hands of it "now" -- they reserved the ability to do it down the road 4+ years ago. Doesn't make it legal.


But hey, what's a little disobedience of the Constitution? Go ahead and shuffle those designated powers around... Separation of Powers isn't crucial to the American governmental model anyway, right?

After all, it's "just a piece of paper." What's the Constitution when it comes to "preserving our way of life," right?


BTW -- Iraq never attacked the United States. No justification of a preemptive strike halfway around the world on a nation that never attacked us, nor had any ability to do so.


No Navy? No air force? No money?


Better go ahead and bomb them... just to be safe.

[poptart]

The Constitution clearly gives congress authority to declare war, and the president has power to wage war.
What this means, of course, is that the president may not legally wage war against another country without a declaration of such from congress.

The fact that that many 'non-war' military beatdowns/clusterfucks have occured without properly following the Constitution does not make this latest situation any less troubling.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Why read the Constitution, when you can read...

...Michael Yon!


"Dere I was, see. Knee deep in spent ammo casings, and up to my bum in dead hajis...

Whiiizzzz..... Whiiirrrrrr.... Ka-BLOOOOOEY!

...explosions all around me! That poor fresh-faced PFC next to me wishing he was back home in Cedar Buckets, Idaho whittling on the screened porch with his grandpa, while mom baked apple pie on the old wood stove. Good ole AMERICAN apple pie...

Look out! Here they come again! WHAAAAA-BOOOOM! PLINK! PLINK! TINK!

Dust getting thick...bullets flying...wish I had a hot cup of joe to wash down this haji standstorm stuck in my throat...

[Terry in Crapchester]

If you aren't doing better than you ever have in this economy it is because YOU suck. Don't try to blame your own personal inadequacies on the economy.

You'll have an awfully tough time selling that line to a substantial portion of the American public. http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/18/news/ec ... 2007101811

And before you jump into an incorrect conclusion, I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that the economy is in a recession right now. But it's obviously nowhere near as rosy as you suggest.

[Cuda]

Why read the Constitution, when you can read...

...Michael Yon!


"Dere I was, see. Knee deep in spent ammo casings, and up to my bum in dead hajis...

Whiiizzzz..... Whiiirrrrrr.... Ka-BLOOOOOEY!

...explosions all around me! That poor fresh-faced PFC next to me wishing he was back home in Cedar Buckets, Idaho whittling on the screened porch with his grandpa, while mom baked apple pie on the old wood stove. Good ole AMERICAN apple pie...

Look out! Here they come again! WHAAAAA-BOOOOM! PLINK! PLINK! TINK!

Dust getting thick...bullets flying...wish I had a hot cup of joe to wash down this haji standstorm stuck in my throat...

So I'm caddying for the Llama and he tees-off, big hitter, the Llama, right into a 10,000-foot crevasse, right at the base of a glacier. Do you know what the Lama says?...

Gunga galunga. Gungala gungala gunga.

So we finish the 18, and he’s gonna stiff me.

And I say, ‘Hey, Lama! Hey! How about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know?’

And he says, ‘Oh, there won’t be any money. But when you die, on your deathbed, you will achieve total consciousness.'

So I got that going for me.

[poptart]

Like it or not we are a global power with global interests .....

Totally irrelevent.

Iraq was no threat to our national security and our Constitution does not call for us to go to war to uphold resolutions dictated by a foreign body -- U.N.

False wars and general flexing of military muscle doesn't enhance our global interests.

Quite the opposite.

[LTS TRN 2]

It's Hillary, like it or not. Her first pick for the supreme court (!), Barack Hussein Obama. Deal with it. He's a great balance to the rigid lunacy of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas (!), and Alito, and somehow, perhaps, we can salvage some hint of his nation's potential and true mission.

[Terry in Crapchester]

It's Hillary, like it or not.

Who told you that, Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, or one of their watter carriers in the media?

Lest we forget, at this point in the '04 election cycle, the media was telling us that Howard Scream was the Democratic nominee. How'd that turn out?

I do wish that the media would at least wait until a few votes that actually count are cast before telling us who the nominees are. Is that really asking too much?

Btw, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will be convinced at that point that my party has a death wish.

[Cuda]

^^^ Obvious Kucinich supporter

[Terry in Crapchester]

^^^ Obvious Kucinich supporter

Considering that I've posted, several times, that I intend to vote for Edwards in the New York primary . . .



But don't let facts get in your way. You never have before.

[Dinsdale]

I intend to vote for Edwards

Wow, a silver-spoon sucker who feeds special interests as fast as he can take your money.


That'll be a refreshing change of pace.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I intend to vote for Edwards

Wow, a silver-spoon sucker who feeds special interests as fast as he can take your money.

You obviously don't know the first thing about Edwards.

When he was born, his father had to borrow $50 to pay the hospital bill so that he and his mother could come home. Yeah, $50 went a whole lot farther in 1953 than it does today, but that's hardly evidence of a silver-spoon upbringing. Not to mention that he was the first person in his family to attend college.

From those humble beginnings, Edwards got to where he is today. Someone who embodies the American dream just might be a trustworthy guardian of it, ya think?

[Dinsdale]

Someone who embodies the American dream just might be a trustworthy guardian of it, ya think?

Dude -- in his "down time," he acted as "consultant" for a firm that's trying to take over casinos and horse racing.

That just has "ethics" and "integrity" written all over it, eh? Nah, no special interests to pay off there, or anything.

A guy who lives in a 25,000 square foot house is going to lecture us about global warming and carbon credits... ohhhhhkay.

He retired from ambulance-chasing to persue politics. I suppose the hilarity/sadness of that is lost on you, but last survey I saw, lawyers ranked right below used car salesman on the "trusted professions" list (and yes, that is true).

The memory of his dead son takes a huge back seat to him making a few extra bucks... pretty well-documented. Frankly, that's so depraved and disgusting, it's beyond words... but he looks good on YOU, though.

He doesn't believe in the sanctity of the Constitution(seeing a theme with these candidates?), as is proven by being a freaking COSPONSOR of an unconstitutional bill to pass the buck of war declaration to avoid political backlash... deplorable (a situation Dr. Paul tried to remedy by at least drafting an official war declaration against Iraq, in an attempt to at least keep it legal, which the Iraq War is not). He also told us all that Saddam had those pesky WMD's... which we assumed meant that he actually had some sort of evidence, before committing TRILLIONS of American dollars to a losing freaking embarrassment. Yes, I realize that he claimed he thought "Saddam Hussein was a serious threat"... but for myself, I'd prefer a Commander in Chief who realizes that a country with no army, no navy, and no air force has a hard time being a "serious threat."

He's a racist. Affirmative Action is blatant racism, it's just tolerated by tards who think racism is fine, so long as you're targeting the right races.

He's never seen a tax he doesn't want to raise.

He even has the audacity to suggest that upper-income people should be taxed additonally, and the money used so minorities can live next door to them. Yes, you did read that right -- he wants to increase taxes so ethnic diversity can be enforced on private property. Scary socialist concept, isn't it? The freaking government choosing your neighbors for you, and using YOUR money to make it so. That has "freedom" written all over it.



He's pure, unadulterated Washington Scum, like the rest.

But at least he has you fooled, so he's got that going for him.

[Cuda]

I intend to vote for Edwards

Wow, a silver-spoon sucker who feeds special interests as fast as he can take your money.

More like Fellow Scumbag. Terry's an Ambulance Chaser just like My Little Pony is

A guy who lives in a 25,000 square foot house is going to lecture us about global warming and carbon credits... ohhhhhkay.

Wrong house. The Carbon Credit Scam is all Algore. Edwards is the guy who lives in the 25k square foot house and wants to lecture us on poverty

[poptart]

He's never seen a tax he doesn't want to raise.

He even has the audacity to suggest that upper-income people should be taxed additonally, and the money used so minorities can live next door to them. Yes, you did read that right -- he wants to increase taxes so ethnic diversity can be enforced on private property. Scary socialist concept, isn't it? The freaking government choosing your neighbors for you, and using YOUR money to make it so. That has "freedom" written all over it.

Yes, and as preposterous as that is, even more egregious are things like taking YOUR money and sending it Africa (after some rich bureaucrat takes his healthy skim off it, of course) so that Imbeque Imzeque can have A.I.D.S. treatment.

Ummmmm ........

People, wakey wakey.

The notion that things like this are even considered, let alone done ROUTINELY is mind numbing.

And this is what is at the heart of the R.P.R.

Sure, Americans can send their money over to Africa to fight A.I.D.S. if they want to, but it has to be voluntary and it has to take place within the PRIVATE sector.

Private organizations raising money to fight poverty and A.I.D.S. in Africa -- Jim Dandy.

Just don't steal MY money, you arrogant fucking thieves.


Ironic that mvscal and I were in on a conversation at .net a few months ago where we both agreed that it would be wonderful if a large group of Americans all decided at the same time that they were not going to pay income tax.

Imagine that.

And that is what R. Paul supporters ought to organize to do if he fails to get the nomination.

Band together and have millions of folks all decline to pay income tax in '09.

April 15 rolls around -- nope, not paying up.

Let the government seek to come after millions of us.

[Dinsdale]

it would be wonderful if a large group of Americans all decided at the same time that they were not going to pay income tax.

I'd recommend making your "large group" larger than, say, 1.

It doesn't quite make the same political statement when done individually.

Sin,
Dinsdale

[Dinsdale]

By the way...


How many states ratified the 16th Amendment, anyway?


Ohhhhhh.....

[BSmack]

By the way...

How many states ratified the 16th Amendment, anyway?

Ohhhhhh.....

42 of the 48 then existing states ratified the Amendment.

[Dinsdale]

42 of the 48 then existing states ratified the Amendment.

Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.

Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.

Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.

Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.

Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.

And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

But hey, what's a little Constitution between friendly states, right?

I mean, proper procedure shouldn't matter, right?


Wasn't the 16th one of those Amendments they ramrodded through on a Sunday afternoon?

Nah, no reason to suspect ulterior motives when slimeballs are trying to quickly pass laws on Sunday afternoon or anything.

[BSmack]

Are we talking about Heisman busts again?

[Terry in Crapchester]

A guy who lives in a 25,000 square foot house is going to lecture us about global warming and carbon credits... ohhhhhkay.

Wrong house. The Carbon Credit Scam is all Algore. Edwards is the guy who lives in the 25k square foot house and wants to lecture us on poverty

Read my post above. His father had to borrow $50 so he could come home from the hospital after he was born. If that's not poverty, it's pretty damn close.

Hell, I live in poverty* and I'm pretty sure I could scrounge together $50 without borrowing from somebody for something like that.





*If you believe everything you read other people post about you on the interwebs, that is.

[Cuda]

His father had to borrow $50 so he could come home from the hospital after he was born. If that's not poverty, it's pretty damn close.

And that has exactly what the fuck to do with the fact that he's a millionaire shyster now?

Edwards lecturing anybody about poverty makes about as much snse as any of the Kennedys lecturing us on Demon Rum.

[RadioFan]

Since when did politics have to make any sense?

Sigworthy.

[Diogenes]

Of course, we can't completely discount Neil Diamond's write-in campaign yet.

He's got about the same chances as Ron Paul.

And when is Mr. Constitution going to introduce his bill recomending the repeal of the 17th Amendment?


The Founding Fathers are waiting.