President gone mad.

Alright I got a little hot headed. I just dislike Bush extremely. I broke down and used emotion instead of reason on the previous posts. I apologize but he's as dangerous as he is clumsy.

Reagan was combatting a much more dangerous threat than a bunch of illiterate sheepherders who don't have the same means, method, training, and professionalism (IE not religious nutjobs who focus on some crazy arab's Messiah complex) like the Soviets.

How would Saddam even deploy these chemical weapons to the USA? I'm pretty sure Ol' Ronnie gave him those weapons to begin with. Like I've said before it's our own damn fault for Iraq. We funded Saddam for the longest time and now when he attacked our Gas Station (Kuwait, which was run by another dictator) we get hissy and no longer like him. He's not longer a part of the "Cool" club.

North Korea is a bigger threat and we haven't taken them on. Gee, I wonder why......

The reason we went to war is because SUPPOSEDLY Iraq was a decent threat. Sure it hates us, as almost the rest of the world is starting to, but they don't have the real means of hurting us. We should have done what Israel did. BOMB THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF THEM AND JUST GO HOME. There is no need to rebuild a country. Just a nice IAF style bombing that got us quite huffy at Israel back in the 80's. I can agree with surgical military strikes if it is so badly needed. Sometimes you have to go and kick bad people's asses to make a point. But this is making us look really really bad.
 
Alright I got a little hot headed. I just dislike Bush extremely. I broke down and used emotion instead of reason on the previous posts.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much a Class Act in the introspection category.
Forgiven on this end.
Rich
 
Reagan was combatting a much more dangerous threat than a bunch of illiterate sheepherders who don't have the same means, method, training, and professionalism (IE not religious nutjobs who focus on some crazy arab's Messiah complex) like the Soviets.
Click to expand...
Really? Wasn't it these half-bred sheephearders that knocked the piss out of the Soviets and sent them packing from Afghanistan?
 
Hey Rich,
Before you go gettin' all bloviated, I should point out that the Saddam assasination decree was addressed..... by Clinton.
Dubya may or may not have let that little factoid color his thinking, but here we are....

What you have just attempted to do is pick one item out of an argument and poison the entire well with it. A time honored (if intellectually dishonest) tradition.
Fact remains that Bush is the single most disastrous thing to happen to this country.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled flamewar, already in progress...

P.S. Breacher,
Love the sig.
 
The man is making his own rules no matter what the constitution says.
Click to expand...
Strange, but I can't find anything in the Constitution that prohibits the President from telling Congress what he thinks about new laws. Source, please.

Here's my take on bill-signing statements: any President is welcome to tell Congress anything he wants about a new bill, but the first time a President orders a substantive violation of federal law, I'll be writing my representatives in Congress to discuss impeachment.
 
gc70,
He's free to express his opinions. He is *NOT* free to interpret them however he sees fit. That is in the constitution.
 
What you have just attempted to do is pick one item out of an argument and poison the entire well with it. A time honored (if intellectually dishonest) tradition.
Click to expand...
Nope. I knocked the pins out from the opening salvo. The poster admitted an honest mistake and backed off to a neutral corner to marshal his argument properly. I fully believe he will.

Now, did you wish to be the guy to step up and say, "Well..ummmm, well. OK, maybe I was wrong about THAT one. But here's some more I heard. Bush knew about 911. Where's the WMD's? Bush brought Tower 3278BQ2 down with demo charges. The TriLateral commission is chaired by Dick Cheney."?

I mean, if that's where you wish to go, GS....GO. Just don't expect many of us to follow in abject defensive positions. It really has all been pretty well played out here.


Wanna bash Bush? Try starting with facts that show him asleep at the wheel and I'll be the first to support you (as I have on these issues regularly). Want me to nod my head over Bush being attributed with authorship of statements made by Bill Clinton? I suggest you take some straight oxygen before holding your breath.....it's gonna be a very long day. ;)
Rich
 
Breacher, I didn't call them half-breeds, I called them illiterate.

They also wouldn't have done so well had it not been for the fact the USSR was having immense internal problems and that the Mujaheed had immense support from the CIA and Special Forces. Without our help they would have been another satelite, however briefly, in the Soviet Union.
 
Rich,
Now, did you wish to be the guy to step up and say, "Well..ummmm, well. OK, maybe I was wrong about THAT one. But here's some more I heard. Bush knew about 911. Where's the WMD's? Bush brought Tower 3278BQ2 down with demo charges. The TriLateral commission is chaired by Dick Cheney."?
Click to expand...
The well-poisoning was an abject failure so now you'd like to try your hand at a few straw-men?
I have never said anything like that, nor have I said anything that might even remotely suggest I believe such drivel. Well...except for the WMD part ;) In fact, I'm amazed at this casual threadjack.

What say you we get back to the subject at hand?
 
President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force(emphasis mine) says in a report highly critical of the practice
Click to expand...

'nuff said :barf:

The ABA is about as friendly to W as the NRA was to Slick.

I wouldn't expect anything unbiased from them and this article is no exception.
More stuff and doubletalk than anything else.
 
I love the way people throw words and terms around indiscriminately without seeming to even know their meaning.

martial law
n.
1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Main Entry: mar·tial law
Pronunciation: 'mär-sh&l-
Function: noun
1 : the law applied in occupied territory by the military authority of the occupying power
2 : the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety —compare MILITARY LAW

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Click to expand...
 
"the American populace would very likely agree with the declaration until the IMMEDIATE threat is gone."




Yeah, totally. Government ALWAYS gives back power and control once it takes it.








The army WAS asked if, given the order, it would use force against U.S. citizens. Like 80% said they would. What brave and noble heroes they are to defend us from ourselves.
 
BigMac, you are way off on your history, from the strategic level down to the tactical. Too much,in fact, to list here and, off the thread mark.
Bottom line is, the USSR wanted to control Afghanistan. No country has been able to. We couldn't do it now if we wanted to. Most of the afghanis are fighting on our side b/c: 1) they know we intend to leave eventually, 2) the pay is great 3) they get to kill some guys who will be their future competition for power in their respective region.
And yes, many of those guys are 1/2 bred
 
v8fbird

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.

You are talking about the 29 Palms Marine Air Corp base questionairre entitled "Combat Arms Survey" which was the thesis paper for a Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham; who was earning his Masters Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Here are the true stats: http://198.170.124.22/books/thesis/q-46.htm
The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire."
Click to expand...

The questionairre was taken by three hundred marines and they didn't like the questions either. Many placed comments in the margins which were less than complimentary.
According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey qu estions; "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks on their response or written comments in the margin space."
Click to expand...

The questionairre was never distributed nor was it ever taken by any service personnel outside of the group at 29 Palms.

The questions which caused all of the uproar were questions #45 and #46 which states:
45. I would swear to the following oath: [SD D A SA NO]

"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I swear and affirm to support and defend the Charter of the United Nations and I am prepared to give my life in its defense."

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority. Consider the following statement: [SD D A SA NO]

"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."
Click to expand...

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/militarysurvey.htm
 
There was some footage of US Reservists forcibly disarming American citizens in the wake of the Katrina crisis. They had a teenage kid bound and seated next to his folks who were also bound with cable ties. It's pointless saying that the Govt would not use US troops against its own citizens because THERE IT WAS right in front of your eyes! They even used Blackwater security people to do the same thing ie. deprive US citizens their rights under the 2nd amendment. They also, openly removed private property (guns) which also breaches many laws and prevented those people from using them to legitimately defend themselves. Oh, and martial law hadn't been declared at that point.....who needs it.
 
Even the Washington Post approves of signing statements; they just don't like the President. :) Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Here is the lead editorial from yesterday's Post.
____________________________________________________________

Signing Off

Presidential signing statements aren't a problem. What Mr. Bush is saying in them is.

Friday, July 28, 2006; A24


ACROSS A WIDE range of areas, President Bush has asserted a grandiose vision of presidential power, one to which Congress has largely acquiesced. From domestic surveillance to holding detainees in the war on terrorism, the administration has generally ignored the legislature, brushed aside inconvenient statutes and proceeded unilaterally. All of this, as we have argued many times, warrants grave concern and a strenuous response. But it is worth separating that issue from the ongoing controversy over the president's aggressive use of what are called "signing statements" -- those formal documents that accompany the signing of a bill into law.

Ever since the Boston Globe reported this year that the president had used such statements to question the constitutionality of more than 750 provisions of law, critics across the political spectrum have been up in arms. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings, and this week a task force of the American Bar Association issued a report accusing the president of usurping legislative powers.

President Bush brought this skirmish on himself. He has used signing statements -- which indicate that he will interpret new laws so as to avoid the constitutional problems he has flagged within them -- far more frequently than other presidents. In some areas, he has used them to articulate deeply troubling views of presidential authority. Most infamously, in signing the amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) banning American personnel from using "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment on detainees, he stated that his administration would interpret the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power" -- apparently reserving for himself the power to override the prohibition.

Still, it is important not to let Mr. Bush's ugly signing statements bring the presidential practice into disrepute. Signing statements are actually a useful device for transparent and open government.

Presidents have long used signing statements to identify particular provisions of law as potentially unconstitutional. They have just as long declined to enforce provisions of law they regarded as unconstitutional. Particularly since the Carter and Reagan administrations, the use of signing statements has been on the upswing, and that's generally a good thing. These statements give the public and Congress fair warning about which laws the president intends to ignore or limit through interpretation. They thereby permit criticism and more vibrant debate. And they have no legal consequences over and above the president's powers to instruct the executive branch as to how to interpret a law -- which he could do privately in any case.

While Mr. Bush has been particularly aggressive about issuing signing statements, a great many break no new ground but merely articulate constitutional views that the executive branch has held across many administrations. The problem is not that Mr. Bush reserves the right to state his views; it is the dangerous substance of the views he sometimes states.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company
 
I think they have a point, although I argue that the president taking it upon himself to interpret laws is unconstitutional.
I wonder what his signing statement is going to look like when he signs the final form of HR 5013.
 
I argue that the president taking it upon himself to interpret laws is unconstitutional
Click to expand...
While it is not explicitly discussed in the Constitution, it is inherently part of the President's job to interpret laws. If the President does not guide the executive branch on how to execute unclear or ambiguous parts of laws, every government employee will be making up their own individual interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top