View Full Version : FOX Republican Debates!
The bottom line is Saddam Hussein was not at that time a major threat to the USA! There was no compelling reason to disregard the UN on the matter of waiting until there was indisputeable evidence of WMDs.
In a post 9/11 world, where Saddam had previously used WMD, had tried to assasinate a United States president (the elder Bush) and had stated more than once that he wanted to see the USA distroyed....
AND
had defied 12 UN resolutions that each threatend retaliation, and in the end thwarted the last round of UN inspectors, Saddam was a major threat to the United States. There WAS compelling reason to remove him. the UN security councel did in fact vote to give the US the right to go in. again, when you say the UN, you are speaking about FRANCE, a pack of cowards bent of doing all they can do to weaken the United States because they want to be a world super power and saw the chance in thwarting the USA.
when you speak of the UN not agreeing, you are speaking of a real menis nation in France. You are not speaking of ALL of the UN.
Italy
Spain
Poland
among some 30 nations did in fact, agree with us and were in some part involved in the Iraq invasion.
what was unwise, was not fighting from day one to control every inch of Iraq.
Ferd (and myself) are correct. The United Nations did pass 12 resolutions all ignored by Sadaam.
The United Nations would NEVER have actually done anything about Sadaam except give in to pressure to do away with the embargo against Iraq.
The United States just enforced the United Nations own resolutions that they were too weak to enforce.
The United Nations is a joke.
Oh, and let me add I don't give a rats behind what other countries think of the United States foreign policy.
Our primary goal must be to protect the security and interests of the United States and freedom.
France, Canada, and any host of pacifist nations can sit and let their countries face imminent dangers but that doesn't mean the United States has to do the same.
I have a Cowboy mentality and I am proud of it. The only thing idiots like radical Muslims in the middle east understand is force.
My only regret is that the USA was lulled into reducing the size of our military after the Cold War ended to the point where we are in a bind now that we need to take care of Iran's nuclear ambitions as well.
If a radical Muslim Nation gets a nuke we are all in a dire situation.
SoCaliUPC
05-20-2007, 08:29 PM
Oh, and let me add I don't give a rats behind what other countries think of the United States foreign policy.
Our primary goal must be to protect the security and interests of the United States and freedom.
France, Canada, and any host of pacifist nations can sit and let their countries face imminent dangers but that doesn't mean the United States has to do the same.
I have a Cowboy mentality and I am proud of it. The only thing idiots like radical Muslims in the middle east understand is force.
Amen! We have people amongst us who are so worried and want our people's perceptions and opinions to dictate foreign policy. I am AMERICAN first....and the protection of our security, interests and freedoms are firstmost.
Americans understand something that others are simply not able to grasp. when it is time to draw your six shooter, shut up and draw.
yea, we really are wild west cowboys.
Truly Blessed
05-20-2007, 10:29 PM
It's the attitude of Americans towards other peoples that has contributed to much of the hostility being shown towards the US today. Through the years the US has been very involved in providing arms and technology to dictators who ended up turning on them. IMO it's the foreign policy of the past that has placed the US in the position it is in now, not the cutback in defense spending. Of course I am an American who has lived outside of the US for most of my life and travelled to 25 nations, so I suppose I do have a different perspective than some of you. I have had many opportunities to listen to what foreigners have to say about American attitudes and policy. I have come to accept that not all American ideas are correct or good.
crakjak
05-20-2007, 11:10 PM
Sounds to me like a successful politician! :)
Truly, you must be reading and believing Hilliary's press releases and Bill's own autobiography. He certainly was a successful 'politician', he knows how to stick his finger in the air and chase the wind.:lol
crakjak
05-20-2007, 11:16 PM
It's the attitude of Americans towards other peoples that has contributed to much of the hostility being shown towards the US today. Through the years the US has been very involved in providing arms and technology to dictators who ended up turning on them. IMO it's the foreign policy of the past that has placed the US in the position it is in now, not the cutback in defense spending. Of course I am an American who has lived outside of the US for most of my life and travelled to 25 nations, so I suppose I do have a different perspective than some of you. I have had many opportunities to listen to what foreigners have to say about American attitudes and policy. I have come to accept that not all American ideas are correct or good.
Why is it that "other people" suck up every resource that the US sends their way and then bites the hand that feeds it? The US has plenty of issues and its share of evil politicians, but let there be a catastrophe in where in the world and WHO is the first on the sense? So, why do we get dished for the evil we do, but absolutely no praise for the great things that the US has done? It really is discouraging!
crakjak
05-20-2007, 11:18 PM
Truth is Clinton did nothing that other presidents haven't done when it comes to immorality. He just got caught and exposed in the most public way. Far as I'm concerned it should never have been made public ... but .... in the times we're living in nothing is kept quiet anymore. Nothing is considered sacred. Nothing is held back --- not even for the sake of decency or out of respect for the office a person holds.
The exposure brought shame on Clinton himself, on his wife and family, on the highest office in the land and on the United States of America and had huge repercussion. It did nobody or nothing any good whatsoever. In fact, just the opposite is true.
JMO.
I could not agree with you more, I was extremely embarrassed by the public airing.
crakjak
05-20-2007, 11:22 PM
Good points CC, but the fact is ..... Nixon lied too. And who knows but what there was sexual impropriety along the way as well.
It wasn't the sexual immortally, it was the lies!!!!! What a joke!:drseuss Fornication in the oval office is OK, just don't lie about it!!:killinme :killinme
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 08:04 AM
It wasn't the sexual immortally, it was the lies!!!!! What a joke!:drseuss Fornication in the oval office is OK, just don't lie about it!!:killinme :killinmeThe point is that sexual immorality has been going on in the White House for years. Clinton got caught! How did the preoccupation with this matter benefit the US? It didn't!
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 08:16 AM
Truly, you must be reading and believing Hilliary's press releases and Bill's own autobiography. He certainly was a successful 'politician', he knows how to stick his finger in the air and chase the wind.:lolDid you read my post at all? I tend to keep my ear open to the world. I am a news hound. I read news from many different sources around the world. It is to the detriment of Americans that they are so self-absorbed they can't consider that while they may be the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world they are a very small minority in the world. Most of the world does not relate to their culture and has a different world view. It would be in the interest of America to show more respect for the rest of the world that shares this planet.
This is manifesting itself in the church world as well. There are more Christians gathered for church services in China every week than there is in the US. Other nations are sending Christian missionaries to the US because they are more fervent in their faith than most Americans are and feel that the US is a backslidden nation.
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 08:23 AM
It wasn't the sexual immortally, it was the lies!!!!! What a joke!:drseuss Fornication in the oval office is OK, just don't lie about it!!:killinme :killinmeThe point is that sexual immorality has been going on for many years in the White House. Clinton simply got caught and then lied about it. He certainly wasn't the first president to lie to the American public. How was the preoccupation with Clinton of any benefit to the US? None! The US is a nation in decline and neither GWB or any other president will be able to turn it around. The US will lose its status as the most powerful nation on earth eventually and it may be sooner than most people think.
The point is that sexual immorality has been going on for many years in the White House. Clinton simply got caught and then lied about it. He certainly wasn't the first president to lie to the American public. How was the preoccupation with Clinton of any benefit to the US? None! The US is a nation in decline and neither GWB or any other president will be able to turn it around. The US will lose its status as the most powerful nation on earth eventually and it may be sooner than most people think.
Only if people with your view and that of France, etc prevail.
The point is that sexual immorality has been going on for many years in the White House. Clinton simply got caught and then lied about it. He certainly wasn't the first president to lie to the American public. How was the preoccupation with Clinton of any benefit to the US? None! The US is a nation in decline and neither GWB or any other president will be able to turn it around. The US will lose its status as the most powerful nation on earth eventually and it may be sooner than most people think.
So, if and when the US goes down the tubes, where do you think it will leave Canada?
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 08:44 AM
So, if and when the US goes down the tubes, where do you think it will leave Canada?Since most of the major corporations in Canada are being bought up by US corporations, Canada will go the way of the US. Europe and Asia will become the new economic powers in the near future. The US as a government, as is true with most Americans in general, is in debt up to its eyeballs and this cannot be sustained in the longterm. I advise you to read international news more. You'll get a better read on what is really happening in the world without the US filter.
The point is that sexual immorality has been going on in the White House for years. Clinton got caught! How did the preoccupation with this matter benefit the US? It didn't!
well, based on the fact that BC was under investagation for sexual harrasmint and only a few years before a senator had been removed from office for the same thing....and considering that lying under oath (the actual charge) is a felony under U. S. law, the preoccupation with the matter was (for some) a matter of honoring our own legal system and holding those in power to the same standard that average citizens are held to.
it seems the democrat party and the media did a good job in spinning the affair to make BC the victem and not the women he attacked.
It's the attitude of Americans towards other peoples that has contributed to much of the hostility being shown towards the US today. Through the years the US has been very involved in providing arms and technology to dictators who ended up turning on them. IMO it's the foreign policy of the past that has placed the US in the position it is in now, not the cutback in defense spending. Of course I am an American who has lived outside of the US for most of my life and travelled to 25 nations, so I suppose I do have a different perspective than some of you. I have had many opportunities to listen to what foreigners have to say about American attitudes and policy. I have come to accept that not all American ideas are correct or good.
I agree with this. the problem is that the rest of the world seems to have forgotten why. for the last half of the 20th century , America was locked in a death struggle with the soviet union. we did things and supported dictators that in a vaccume, it would be criminal to do.
in the same vein, in a vaccum, it would be seen as criminal for the US to bomb Berlin however in the context of WW2, not bombing Berlin would have been criminal.
Context is key. Americans remember. the rest of the world seems to have forgotten or simply chooses not to remember.
Since most of the major corporations in Canada are being bought up by US corporations, Canada will go the way of the US. Europe and Asia will become the new economic powers in the near future. The US as a government, as is true with most Americans in general, is in debt up to its eyeballs and this cannot be sustained in the longterm. I advise you to read international news more. You'll get a better read on what is really happening in the world without the US filter.
i agree completely with this assessment. Europe and Asia will surpass the US in the new economy. It also points to a failure of the Bush adminstration not to have understood the goal of France and Germany in the Iraq debate.
Your post articulates very well what France sought to achieve in putting the US in a bad position. In the end, France continues to play the roll it has historicaly played. (and one of the reasons for European wars)
That roll beign the balance shifter. France has shifted sides continously since the end of the hundred years war, in an effort to keep some balance of power in Europe.
Unless there is a major shift, and unless America can create an economic zone including central and south America, and unless we can find a way to raise the standard of living everywhere to our south, America will become the middle class nation.
Since most of the major corporations in Canada are being bought up by US corporations, Canada will go the way of the US. Europe and Asia will become the new economic powers in the near future. The US as a government, as is true with most Americans in general, is in debt up to its eyeballs and this cannot be sustained in the longterm. I advise you to read international news more. You'll get a better read on what is really happening in the world without the US filter.
Well, I would venture to guess that the US will stay in power as long as we have enough in our nuclear arsenal to wipe out the entire planet several times over. However, I do agree with you on the US having lost economic power, but I don't see Europe and Asia taking over in the near future. Also, what makes you think I don't read international news? Canadians aren't the only ones with the internet, ya know.
I honestly believe that history will treat Bill Clinton very well and George Bush will be listed among the worse presidents in US history. When you compare their accomplishments Clinton clearly outshines Bush. Clinton is the most intelligent president in many years.Because history tends to be written by liberals and secular humanists.
I have been a Republican all my life, but I can't stand Bush. I cringe every time he speaks wondering what stupid statement he'll make next. IMO he's an embarrassment to the the USA. His adminstration will be most remembered for his stupidity and for being so headstrong he would rather live a lie than to do what is in the best interest of the country and the world in general. The day Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State represents for me the beginning of the end of any hope for a successful Bush presidency.Well, now you have a wide range of Republican views to choose from - everything to Democrat in Republican clothing (Giuliani, McCain) to Conservative (Huckabee) to Libertarian (Ron Paul whose views many conservative Republicans ran on when they won control of Congress in 1994) and everything in between (the other candidates).
It's too bad that Clinton will also be remembered as well for his moral failures. Apparently his attendance at those UPC campmeetings didn't impact him as they should have! :)No one is even going to pay the least little bit of attention to his sexual escapades in the White House except to question why Congress wanted to impeach him over them.
And now for GWB, at least in part.
As CC1 stated, GWB is not a good public speaker. At least not in the mold of RR and BC who were both master communicators.
However, he is the first president with an MBA. you cant be dumb and do that. GWB is no idiot as some in the media and all in the democrat party.Just about anyone with an average IQ can get an MBA. Bush is not exactly the brightest crayon in the box and he has never truly succeeded at anything in the private sector but, instead, was the quintissential rich kid with a silver spoon in his mouth!
I think the history books will show that faced with increadable odds, GWB has done well. he inherited a pathetic economy and before he could even get his sea legs, 9/11 happened. GWB has handled the economy very well. unemployment is at an historical low. Tax revinue is at a record high and more importantly we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil. while it has not gotten much notice, according to some, there have been as many as 20 major attacks that have been thwarted without much fanfare. Unemployment is no lower than it has been in the 1990s. Inflation is higher. He took the government from a near budget surplus (if, indeed, it is ever possible for the government to have a surplus) to a multi-trillion dollar deficit. Government spending is higher than it was under Clinton. American liberties are being eroded in the name of "security" as the Bush administration turns an unconstitutional war that should have been limited to going after Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban government in Afghanistan that supported him to a quagmire in both Afghanistan and Iraq that we can't get out of any time soon in a way that saves face for the United States.
Afghanistan has quietly been moderately successful. Iran however is another story. We have taken care of Saddam, his sons, and the leader of Al Queda in Iraq Zarqwi. however, there have been set backs and we are now at a point politically where it may be impossible to bring this to a postive end. If you call returning Afghanistan to a nation run by war lords "successful." Of course, we still haven't captured Osama Bin Laden. Of course, since Congress didn't actually declare war, no matter what we did it was still unconstitutional.
the major reasons for that are GWBs on fault. First, for what ever reason, the he refused to articulate early and often what it was going to cost and how long it would likely take. He has said it in the past, that it could be ten years, but it has not been a repeated refrain. Maybe that was because the idiot neo-cons that pushed him into breaking his campaign promises and into a foreign policy of preemptive strike didn't tell him what it would cost and how long it would take? Maybe because no one really knew how long it could take?
Second, until this last offensive, we have worked with failed vietnam policy. we entered an area infested with insurgents, killed them then we left, only to have to return later. This failed in Korea and Vietnam. It failed in Iraq too. this has devistated American resolve and led to the near collapse of American will to win. It reamains to be seen if the current leadership can turn the corner. Well, that's what happens when you take some guy from President Ford's administration and make him your Secretary of Defense!
Lastly GWB for some reason has failed completely on the subject of immigration. I suspect his goal is to build good will to the hispanic commuinity and bring them into the republican party. What ever the reason, he has failed utterly on the subject. He's sucking up like most politicians do. He's also trying to imitate Ronald Reagan (much the way Slick Willie Clinton tried to imitate JFK).
I think in fifty years, GWB will be seen as an average president. certainly not as great as Ronald Reagan and the 2 Roosevelts. but no where near as bad as the likes of Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.You're being generous.
The bottom line is Saddam Hussein was not at that time a major threat to the USA! There was no compelling reason to disregard the UN on the matter of waiting until there was indisputeable evidence of WMDs.He wasn't any threat to the United States! Of course, maybe what we should have done was expose what France and Germany were doing and get the UN to bring sanctions against them.
Of course, no matter what we would have done militarily, it still would have been unconstitutional because Congress would never have declared war (since declaring war would mean they were ultimately responsible for the outcome).
I got my current issue of TIME magazine, and they proclaimed Rudy as the winner of the last debate!But they're a bunch of leftists over there at TIME.
It's the attitude of Americans towards other peoples that has contributed to much of the hostility being shown towards the US today. Through the years the US has been very involved in providing arms and technology to dictators who ended up turning on them. IMO it's the foreign policy of the past that has placed the US in the position it is in now, not the cutback in defense spending. Of course I am an American who has lived outside of the US for most of my life and travelled to 25 nations, so I suppose I do have a different perspective than some of you. I have had many opportunities to listen to what foreigners have to say about American attitudes and policy. I have come to accept that not all American ideas are correct or good.Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, the United States has been trying to butt its nose in the affairs of other nations, contrary to the foreign policy advice of many of the founding fathers and contrary to what was foreign policy from the founding of the republic through almost all of the 19th century. We are reaping what we have sown.
Why is it that "other people" suck up every resource that the US sends their way and then bites the hand that feeds it? The US has plenty of issues and its share of evil politicians, but let there be a catastrophe in where in the world and WHO is the first on the scene? So, why do we get dished for the evil we do, but absolutely no praise for the great things that the US has done? It really is discouraging!That's part of the problem: we keep butting our nose into everyone else's business. It's not our job to police the world or to serve as the world's food distribution warehouse! Trade with other nations, be friendly with other nations but keep America's nose out of the internal affairs of those nations.
StillStanding
05-21-2007, 11:17 AM
But they're a bunch of leftists over there at TIME.
TRUE!! :) I think they don't think Hillary or OBama can win, so for this issue they're trying to promote Al Gore as a possible candidate.
Just about anyone with an average IQ can get an MBA. Bush is not exactly the brightest crayon in the box and he has never truly succeeded at anything in the private sector but, instead, was the quintissential rich kid with a silver spoon in his mouth!
cant let this one go.
WHERE DO YOU LIVE? IN AN OLD SHOE BOX???????????????????????????
GWB was one of the most successful Governers of one of the largest states in America. when he left office his approval rating in Texas was above 60%. he even garnered a majority of the hispanic vote and a third of the black vote.
he left office with a billion dollar surplus. and was the FIRST Governer of Texas to be re-elected since Texas started with 4 year terms as governer.
In his first election victory he beat Maw Richards, a very popular democrat with wide bi-partisan support.
He started out with less than 20% polling across the state and worked his butt off. with less than 2 months to go, his campaign was written off by everyone. He went out and WON the election on his own.
he built wide bi-partisian support for his agenda and even with a dem controlleed house, and a dem lt governer, GWB was able to drive the discussion and create real change in Texas.
GWB DID in fact have personal accomplishments ouside of that "rich kid" business.
beyonod that, GWB was the managing owner of a group that bought the Texas Rangers. he put together the ownership group, manitianed controlling intrest and turned the franchise into a money maker. when the group sold out to Tom Hicks, his parternership made $$$$$.
Chan it is really easy to say something as ignorant has youve done. it is another thing to be able to prove it. GWB was successful in both business and politics before becomeing President.
Unemployment is no lower than it has been in the 1990s. Inflation is higher. He took the government from a near budget surplus (if, indeed, it is ever possible for the government to have a surplus) to a multi-trillion dollar deficit. Government spending is higher than it was under Clinton. American liberties are being eroded in the name of "security" as the Bush administration turns an unconstitutional war that should have been limited to going after Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban government in Afghanistan that supported him to a quagmire in both Afghanistan and Iraq that we can't get out of any time soon in a way that saves face for the United States.
wrong. unemployment is nearly a point below the average of the 1990s.
currently unemployment is around 4.3% the 1990s ranged around 5.5 %
while on the surface that might now seem like a lot but it is a statistaclly large number. indicating millions of jobs.
Home ownership (even with recient issues with high risk loans) is at an all time high. Home ownership in minority areas is at an even greater all time high.
inflation is higher in a post ressession period than it was in an unusually low period of the 1990's. the 1990's was very much an anomoly. this was during a period when we were in the beginnings of a major shift in business modeling and an entirely new employment paradym was in the beginnings states.
that bubble busted if you remember. dont blame GWB for what happend before he took the oath of office.
as for American Liberties.... well, name one American liberty that has eroded?
cant let this one go.
WHERE DO YOU LIVE? IN AN OLD SHOE BOX???????????????????????????
GWB was one of the most successful Governers of one of the largest states in America. when he left office his approval rating in Texas was above 60%. he even garnered a majority of the hispanic vote and a third of the black vote.Oh, please!!!!!!!! He was a puppet of the Republican establishment who had a rich daddy! Besides, being Governor of Texas isn't nearly as much of an office as being Governor in other states. Under the Texas Constitution of 1876, the Governor's office was intentionally created as a weaker office, distributing many of the duties Governors in other states have to various other elected officials. Thus, there is what amounts to a "plural executive" in Texas.
he left office with a billion dollar surplus. and was the FIRST Governer of Texas to be re-elected since Texas started with 4 year terms as governer. Considering that the responsibility for the budget in Texas is largely given over to a ten-member board overseen by the Lieutenant Governor, Bush really can't be given much credit.
In his first election victory he beat Maw Richards, a very popular democrat with wide bi-partisan support. She obviously wasn't popular enought.
He started out with less than 20% polling across the state and worked his butt off. with less than 2 months to go, his campaign was written off by everyone. He went out and WON the election on his own.All that shows is that he's a politician!
he built wide bi-partisian support for his agenda and even with a dem controlleed house, and a dem lt governer, GWB was able to drive the discussion and create real change in Texas. Considering that the Governor's office is a much weaker office in Texas than in other states, did he really have much of a choice?
GWB DID in fact have personal accomplishments ouside of that "rich kid" business.
beyonod that, GWB was the managing owner of a group that bought the Texas Rangers. he put together the ownership group, manitianed controlling intrest and turned the franchise into a money maker. when the group sold out to Tom Hicks, his parternership made $$$$$.
What personal accomplishments? What businesses did he start on his own (without daddy's money)? What real jobs has he ever held? Being the owner of a baseball team is pretty much meaningless considering that the actual business is run by various managers, accountants, etc.
Chan it is really easy to say something as ignorant has youve done. it is another thing to be able to prove it. GWB was successful in both business and politics before becomeing President.The guy was not very successful on his own.
we call this spin.
GWB was a very successful governor in a state that has not been real kind to its sitting governors. so, spin it all you want. this is true.
clinton had no more experiance.
RR had no more experience
carter had no more experience.
And Chan, it is wishfull thinking for those of you that hate GWB to suggest he was a republican puppet.
I LIVE in Texas, and did the entire time GWB was Governor of this state. he was an active Governor and you are quoting popular liberal myth in suggesting that the Gov. is powerless.
wrong. unemployment is nearly a point below the average of the 1990s.Are you sure about that?
currently unemployment is around 4.3% the 1990s ranged around 5.5 % Did it range around or was that the average? You can't have it both ways. Actually, it's at 4.7 percent today. It's higher today than it was at the low point of the 1990s (around 1999). SOURCE (http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?page=teacher&lesson=EM205)
while on the surface that might now seem like a lot but it is a statistaclly large number. indicating millions of jobs. Any reduction in unemployment is usually a good thing. Like all unemployment figures touted by politicians, it doesn't take into account all the people on public assistance ("Welfare," Social Security Disability, other government disability) or all the people who've simply stopped collecting unemployment payments and stopped looking for work.
Home ownership (even with recient issues with high risk loans) is at an all time high. Home ownership in minority areas is at an even greater all time high. And with home ownership comes increased debt load, which in the long term is not good for the economy.
inflation is higher in a post ressession period than it was in an unusually low period of the 1990's. the 1990's was very much an anomoly. this was during a period when we were in the beginnings of a major shift in business modeling and an entirely new employment paradym was in the beginnings states. Was it an anomaly or was it the fruit of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s?
that bubble busted if you remember. dont blame GWB for what happend before he took the oath of office. Of course the stock market bubble burst: it was making a very necessary correction of an abnormally inflated market. It's going to burst again. This kind of thing seemingly happens in cycles and presidents have nothing to do with it.
as for American Liberties.... well, name one American liberty that has eroded?The federal government having the right to obtain information about you (such as phone records and what books you check out at the public library, church records, and other records that third parties have on you) without a search warrant and with the third parties being prohibited from telling you about it; roving wiretaps; seizing business records without having evidence that an individual citizen has links to terrorism; access to credit reports, financial records, etc. without a warrant just by issuing a "National Security Letter"; the nearly complete lack of judicial oversight (since the federal government under the Patriot Act doesn't have to get a warrant or have probable cause, the latter would have been necessary for the warrant). Other liberties eroded include increased federal government secrecy, particularly around the implementation of "emergency" laws such as the Patriot Act; indefinite detention of U. S. citizens without access to an attorney or without criminal charges being filed; shall I go on?
And Chan, it is wishfull thinking for those of you that hate GWB to suggest he was a republican puppet.
I LIVE in Texas, and did the entire time GWB was Governor of this state. he was an active Governor and you are quoting popular liberal myth in suggesting that the Gov. is powerless.
Then you don't know much about your own state government. Here's what one educational source has to say...
"When creating the Texas Constitution of 1876, the authors dispersed much of the power traditionally given to the office of the governor to independently elected officials, creating what some refer to as a "plural executive." Nonetheless, the governor remains one of the most influential figures in the Texan political process."
By the way, "influential" doesn't mean having political authority.
"While the Governor is responsible for recommending a budget for the next two years, the majority of budget authority lies in the ten-member Legislative Budget Board, which is made up of nine members of the state Legislature and chaired by the Lieutenant Governor."
SOURCE (http://student-voices.org/texas/governor/)
Here's a power point presentation on the Texas Governor: http://faculty.tcu.edu/rmillsap/StateGovtNotes/Governor.ppt
"Partly because of many elected officials, the governor's powers are quite limited in comparison to other state governors or the U.S. President." SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_state_government)
unemployment rates from the US labor dept.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
average of the bush years are lower than the 1990's.
the bubble i am talking about is not just the stock market (although even that was affected. ) I am talking about the internet business bubble that was in many ways a false business modle that ran amuck and lead to an over inflated stock market and thus a signicant collapse.
this anomoly Clinton gets credit for the upswing and gets the genious tag but no one gives him any blame for the fall out. GWB navigated these waters very successfully. GWB should get double credit
Then you don't know much about your own state government. Here's what one educational source has to say...
"When creating the Texas Constitution of 1876, the authors dispersed much of the power traditionally given to the office of the governor to independently elected officials, creating what some refer to as a "plural executive." Nonetheless, the governor remains one of the most influential figures in the Texan political process."
By the way, "influential" doesn't mean having political authority.
"While the Governor is responsible for recommending a budget for the next two years, the majority of budget authority lies in the ten-member Legislative Budget Board, which is made up of nine members of the state Legislature and chaired by the Lieutenant Governor."
SOURCE (http://student-voices.org/texas/governor/)
Here's a power point presentation on the Texas Governor: http://faculty.tcu.edu/rmillsap/StateGovtNotes/Governor.ppt
"Partly because of many elected officials, the governor's powers are quite limited in comparison to other state governors or the U.S. President." SOURCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_state_government)
Chan, you get to read "educational" sources on the subject. I get to live here. my view is much better than yours.
but it demonstraits a great point. Considering the fact, that in Texas, the Governor is saddled with a pretty large commettee to get anything done, it shows the power and popularity and skill of a governor to be as successful as GWB was.
He drove the debate. He outlined to the state what he sought to achieve and he was extremely successful. so much so, that even minority voters who are traditionally 80 to 90% democrat voted for him on re-election.
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 03:23 PM
Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, the United States has been trying to butt its nose in the affairs of other nations, contrary to the foreign policy advice of many of the founding fathers and contrary to what was foreign policy from the founding of the republic through almost all of the 19th century. We are reaping what we have sown.Good point Chan! I agree.
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 03:31 PM
That's part of the problem: we keep butting our nose into everyone else's business. It's not our job to police the world or to serve as the world's food distribution warehouse! Trade with other nations, be friendly with other nations but keep America's nose out of the internal affairs of those nations.The problem I have is that in some areas of the world like Darfur and Zimbabwe the US is no where to be seen. I can't understand (except for the oil factor) why the US would feel they needed to remove Hussein, but have no problem with what Mugabe is doing to the people of Zimbabwe. I have been there and seen first hand the devastation Mugabe's dictatorship is wreaking on that nation. It is worse now than when I was there a few years ago. I was in a meeting with the head of our ACOP churches in that nation on Thursday. It is unbelievable what Mugabe is doing and no one is doing anything to stop him.
StillStanding
05-21-2007, 03:43 PM
I guess I must remind some that the US in the most generous nation in the world when it comes to giving to tragedies worldwide, and to help underdeveloped countries. Beleive it or not, as the worlds superpower, the US is called on to be the police for conflicts as they occur.
I would love it if the US would just decide to focus all of their efforts on themself (like Canada!), but folks around the globe would eventually be screamming for our help. I guess we could tell them that we have our own domestic problems to worry about (like Germany and France) and they are on their own!
All we need for this to happen is to get a yellow bellied Democrat in office, and before long we'll be the next France! Someone could get rich making white flags for our military!
I guess I must remind some that the US in the most generous nation in the world when it comes to giving to tragedies worldwide, and to help underdeveloped countries. Beleive it or not, as the worlds superpower, the US is called on to be the police for conflicts as they occur.
I would love it if the US would just decide to focus all of their efforts on themself (like Canada!), but folks around the globe would eventually be screamming for our help. I guess we could tell them that we have our own domestic problems to worry about (like Germany and France) and they are on their own!
All we need for this to happen is to get a yellow bellied Democrat in office, and before long we'll be the next France! Someone could get rich making white flags for our military!
Coward. that is what France and most of the democrat party are.
The problem I have is that in some areas of the world like Darfur and Zimbabwe the US is no where to be seen. I can't understand (except for the oil factor) why the US would feel they needed to remove Hussein, but have no problem with what Mugabe is doing to the people of Zimbabwe. I have been there and seen first hand the devastation Mugabe's dictatorship is wreaking on that nation. It is worse now than when I was there a few years ago. I was in a meeting with the head of our ACOP churches in that nation on Thursday. It is unbelievable what Mugabe is doing and no one is doing anything to stop him.
the difference is Saddam said he wanted to see the US destroyed, had used WMD in the past and we live in a post 9/11 world.
Mugabe and Saddam were/are both monsters. there has to be a tipping point. the above was the tipping point.
crakjak
05-21-2007, 06:38 PM
The point is that sexual immorality has been going on for many years in the White House. Clinton simply got caught and then lied about it. He certainly wasn't the first president to lie to the American public. How was the preoccupation with Clinton of any benefit to the US? None! The US is a nation in decline and neither GWB or any other president will be able to turn it around. The US will lose its status as the most powerful nation on earth eventually and it may be sooner than most people think.
I don't disagree with anything you say in this post, I was making a TIC post, concerning the huge ado made over Clinton's sexual immortally.
However, I disagree with your view of his presidential acuity.
The problem I have is that in some areas of the world like Darfur and Zimbabwe the US is no where to be seen. I can't understand (except for the oil factor) why the US would feel they needed to remove Hussein, but have no problem with what Mugabe is doing to the people of Zimbabwe. I have been there and seen first hand the devastation Mugabe's dictatorship is wreaking on that nation. It is worse now than when I was there a few years ago. I was in a meeting with the head of our ACOP churches in that nation on Thursday. It is unbelievable what Mugabe is doing and no one is doing anything to stop him.
Mugabe does not control a significant portion of the world's oil nor has he posed a threat to the United States or it's Allies as Sadaam did.
Had we not intervened in the first Gulf War the United Nations would have sat by and let Sadaam have gotten away with invading and taking over Kuwait. That would have emboldened him to then have invaded Saudi Arabia. His dream was a Pan Arabaic State spanning most of the Middle East. With Kuwait and Saudi Arabia he would have controlled an unbelievable amount of the worlds oil.
Why doesn't the United Nations get involved in Darfour, etc? If most of the members are too yellow to confront terrorism you would think they at least could muster the gumption to send troops to settle third world idiot peons from killing each other and their people.
Good point Chan! I agree.
You mean like entering the European theator in WW2? resquing france and Britten in WW1? saving half of Korea from communsim? standing up against the spread of communism (in another attempt to bail france out) in Vietnam?
Rescuing our own people in Grenada?
removing a guy from power in Panama who was putting drugs on American Streets?
Oh, no those might be justified. no we are talking about
Supporting Saddam against Iran (in league with the USSR and had taken American hostages)
supporting brutal dicatorts in South America (in an effort to keep the USSR out of the mainland of South America)
As far as I am concerned, we didnt do enough. we should have stomped the Chinese in Korea, marched on North Vietnam and invaded Cuba and made it the 51st state.
just call me JingoFerd.
I think you are probably right as far as the Dem ticket goes but I do not think Rudy will get the Republlican nomination. He is too far to the left for Republican primary voters despite the fact we all like his leadership skills. Here is why he won't get the nom;
1. Pro abortion
2. Heavily promoted restrictive gun control laws while Mayor of NYC
3. Endorsed and voted for the Democrat Gubenatorial canidate in New York state over the Republican one while he was the Republican Mayor of NYC.
4. Messy personal life. Three marriages and was living with one woman while still married to another.
CC
these days the morals are so low who really cares anymore ? not too many really. almost everyone has baggage don't you think ? it can't get much worse then Bill clinton.
Ferd, who is Thompson? I don't think too many people know who a thompson is so who is going to vote for an unknown? let's face it, Bush has a 30% rating lowest ever and it aint budging. americans in general want change just like they did in this last election. Last Nov was a frieghtful day i agree but we have to face the music sometime.
maybe it will be a wake up call for the people of God. we are too comfortable anyways
Mugabe does not control a significant portion of the world's oil nor has he posed a threat to the United States or it's Allies as Sadaam did.
Had we not intervened in the first Gulf War the United Nations would have sat by and let Sadaam have gotten away with invading and taking over Kuwait. That would have emboldened him to then have invaded Saudi Arabia. His dream was a Pan Arabaic State spanning most of the Middle East. With Kuwait and Saudi Arabia he would have controlled an unbelievable amount of the worlds oil.
Why doesn't the United Nations get involved in Darfour, etc? If most of the members are too yellow to confront terrorism you would think they at least could muster the gumption to send troops to settle third world idiot peons from killing each other and their people.
it is much easier to sit back and do wring your hands and complain about America being mean.
CC
these days the morals are so low who really cares anymore ? not too many really. almost everyone has baggage don't you think ? it can't get much worse then Bill clinton.
Ferd, who is Thompson? I don't think too many people know who a thompson is so who is going to vote for an unknown? let's face it, Bush has a 30% rating lowest ever and it aint budging. americans in general want change just like they did in this last election. Last Nov was a frieghtful day i agree but we have to face the music sometime.
maybe it will be a wake up call for the people of God. we are too comfortable anyways
Thompson is a star on one of the longest running and most successful TV shows in history. Millions know who he is and think of him as a very serious and capable man. in addition to that he has a real politial resume having served as a senator.
CC
these days the morals are so low who really cares anymore ? not too many really. almost everyone has baggage don't you think ? it can't get much worse then Bill clinton.
Ferd, who is Thompson? I don't think too many people know who a thompson is so who is going to vote for an unknown? let's face it, Bush has a 30% rating lowest ever and it aint budging. americans in general want change just like they did in this last election. Last Nov was a frieghtful day i agree but we have to face the music sometime.
maybe it will be a wake up call for the people of God. we are too comfortable anyways
Fred Thompson was a lawyer, Asst. DA, movie and TV star,Senator from TN, and recently TV star again.
He is smart, savvy, a great orator, etc. If he gets in the race polls show he will immediately be the #2 or #3 guy in the Republican race.
Today Rush said as things stand today there is an 80% chance Hillary will be elected President in 08.
it is much easier to sit back and do wring your hands and complain about America being mean.
Many of those wringing their hands wouldn't be here if America had not been an interventionist meanie.
Fred Thompson was a lawyer, Asst. DA, movie and TV star,Senator from TN, and recently TV star again.
He is smart, savvy, a great orator, etc. If he gets in the race polls show he will immediately be the #2 or #3 guy in the Republican race.
Today Rush said as things stand today there is an 80% chance Hillary will be elected President in 08.
okay, vaugley do i recall this person now that you and ferd mentioned some of the highlights.
It's going to be God's curse upon America if Hillary gets elected. I seriously believe it will be punishment from up above
okay, vaugley do i recall this person now that you and ferd mentioned some of the highlights.
It's going to be God's curse upon America if Hillary gets elected. I seriously believe it will be punishment from up above
I am not going to blame God if Hillary is elected. I blame an ignorant electorate.
Many of those wringing their hands wouldn't be here if America had not been an interventionist meanie.
or they would be speaking german or russian.
I am not going to blame God if Hillary is elected. I blame an ignorant electorate.
french minded fruit cake liberal loving coward democrats.
Praxeas
05-21-2007, 07:50 PM
french minded fruit cake liberal loving coward democrats.
Or those that just think the Republicans got us in a war nobody wants and 70 trillion in dept, weak borders, no health care, sinking dollar, North American Union (our European Union)
Or those that just think the Republicans got us in a war nobody wants and 70 trillion in dept, weak borders, no health care, sinking dollar, North American Union (our European Union)
that is another way of saying
french minded fruit cake liberal loving coward democrats.
crakjak
05-21-2007, 08:42 PM
The problem I have is that in some areas of the world like Darfur and Zimbabwe the US is no where to be seen. I can't understand (except for the oil factor) why the US would feel they needed to remove Hussein, but have no problem with what Mugabe is doing to the people of Zimbabwe. I have been there and seen first hand the devastation Mugabe's dictatorship is wreaking on that nation. It is worse now than when I was there a few years ago. I was in a meeting with the head of our ACOP churches in that nation on Thursday. It is unbelievable what Mugabe is doing and no one is doing anything to stop him.
Where is Canada in these affairs?? If the US doesn't protect the oil supply from tyrants and terrorists, they will dictate to the world using oil and money as leverage. Where is UK and France, Russia, China and on and on??
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 09:00 PM
Where is Canada in these affairs?? If the US doesn't protect the oil supply from tyrants and terrorists, they will dictate to the world using oil and money as leverage. Where is UK and France, Russia, China and on and on??Canada is carrying on the war in Afghanistan that the Americans didn't finish. And they are actively involved in many of the world hotspots endeavouring to make the rest of the world aware of the seriousness of those situations.
As to the oil, Canada has its own oil supply, which the US is trying to get their hands on. There is no doubt that should something happen in the Middle East that cuts off the oil supply, the US would most likely find an excuse to invade Canada as it has Iraq.
Canada is carrying on the war in Afghanistan that the Americans didn't finish. And they are actively involved in many of the world hotspots endeavouring to make the rest of the world aware of the seriousness of those situations.
As to the oil, Canada has its own oil supply, which the US is trying to get their hands on. There is no doubt that should something happen in the Middle East that cuts off the oil supply, the US would most likely find an excuse to invade Canada as it has Iraq.
please tell me that last bit was said with your oral appendage firmly planted in your cheek.
however, it has been my long standing view that the two most costly battles for America were the 2 battles of Quebec
Canada is carrying on the war in Afghanistan that the Americans didn't finish. And they are actively involved in many of the world hotspots endeavouring to make the rest of the world aware of the seriousness of those situations.
As to the oil, Canada has its own oil supply, which the US is trying to get their hands on. There is no doubt that should something happen in the Middle East that cuts off the oil supply, the US would most likely find an excuse to invade Canada as it has Iraq.
Forget Puerto Rico, Canada would make a great 51st state!!!
Canada has that giant oil sludge field that in the past has been too expensive to extrtact oil from but between oil prices being so high and some new technoogy it is eventually going to be a great economic boon for Canada.
Truly Blessed
05-21-2007, 10:54 PM
please tell me that last bit was said with your oral appendage firmly planted in your cheek.You honestly believe that if the US oil supplies were cut off for whatever reason, the US wouldn't look North? Oil has it firmly planted in the Middle East, why would it not seek to gain control over the oil supplies in Canada? Canadians certainly believe they would!
crakjak
05-21-2007, 11:24 PM
Canada is carrying on the war in Afghanistan that the Americans didn't finish. And they are actively involved in many of the world hotspots endeavouring to make the rest of the world aware of the seriousness of those situations.
As to the oil, Canada has its own oil supply, which the US is trying to get their hands on. There is no doubt that should something happen in the Middle East that cuts off the oil supply, the US would most likely find an excuse to invade Canada as it has Iraq.
Wow, maybe you've been in Canada too long, joined the hate America crowd. I heard Micheal Moore has a new movie come out, I guess our neighbors to the north will help make him richer bashing America.
Things are not always as they seem you can fall in the ditch on the left as well as the right.
Canada has not only become Anti America but Anti-God as well.
They have laws now in canada where you can't preach against sin and immoral practices .
crakjak
05-21-2007, 11:30 PM
You honestly believe that if the US oil supplies were cut off for whatever reason, the US wouldn't look North? Oil has it firmly planted in the Middle East, why would it not seek to gain control over the oil supplies in Canada? Canadians certainly believe they would!
Show me one example of American invading a friendly nation. Oil in the Middle East is held by dictators and terrorists.
If America was of the "old school" we would have gone into Iraq, completely occupied the country and hooked up the oil pipeline, to pay for the war. Has this happened? Only in the M. Moore minds of the world.
Felicity
05-21-2007, 11:34 PM
Canada has not only become Anti America but Anti-God as well.
They have laws now in canada where you can't preach against sin and immoral practices .You're getting a little carried away here gentlemen.
Nobody said they hate the U.S. I love the U.S. but it may not hurt to listen to another perspective even if you don't agree without getting so defensive.
What is always amazing to me is how that Americans make many prejudicial statements about other countries and nationalities but as soon as someone starts to be honest and speak honestly about some of the U.S.'s own weakness or failing or what have you they come unglued.
And Thad........
We still preach against sin and immorality here.
crakjak
05-21-2007, 11:47 PM
You're getting a little carried away here gentlemen.
Nobody said they hate the U.S. I love the U.S. but it may not hurt to listen to another perspective even if you don't agree without getting so defensive.
What is always amazing to me is how that Americans make many prejudicial statements about other countries and nationalities but as soon as someone starts to be honest and speak honestly about some of the U.S.'s own weakness or failing or what have you they come unglued.
And Thad........
We still preach against sin and immorality here.
I'm not unglued, I even agreed with some of TB's assessments, but we are a little defensive right now because of the division even among ourselves. It is actually a sad state of affairs.
Felicity
05-21-2007, 11:56 PM
I'm not unglued, I even agreed with some of TB's assessments, but we are a little defensive right now because of the division even among ourselves. It is actually a sad state of affairs.I was referring partly to the "hate America crowd" statement.
My husband has lived in Canada now for 35 years and he's not taken out Canadian citizenship yet. He loves his country and I love his country as well. He's also come to appreciate (if not love exactly :)) mine.
crakjak
05-22-2007, 12:10 AM
I was referring partly to the "hate America crowd" statement.
My husband has lived in Canada now for 35 years and he's not taken out Canadian citizenship yet. He loves his country and I love his country as well. He's also come to appreciate (if not love exactly :)) mine.
I knew what you were saying, I appreciate you and TB's posts on this forum. Except maybe when he starts praising Bill Clinton.:heeheehee
Felicity
05-22-2007, 12:17 AM
I knew what you were saying, I appreciate you and TB's posts on this forum. Except maybe when he starts praising Bill Clinton.:heeheeheeLOL! I know. I told him that would be a very unpopular opinion.
It will be interesting to see how history treats Bill Clinton.
Canada is carrying on the war in Afghanistan that the Americans didn't finish. And they are actively involved in many of the world hotspots endeavouring to make the rest of the world aware of the seriousness of those situations.
As to the oil, Canada has its own oil supply, which the US is trying to get their hands on. There is no doubt that should something happen in the Middle East that cuts off the oil supply, the US would most likely find an excuse to invade Canada as it has Iraq.
Oh please. Get a grip.
Forget Puerto Rico, Canada would make a great 51st state!!!
Canada has that giant oil sludge field that in the past has been too expensive to extrtact oil from but between oil prices being so high and some new technoogy it is eventually going to be a great economic boon for Canada.
Yeah! Let's overrun them stuck up Canadians and take over their country!:club
You honestly believe that if the US oil supplies were cut off for whatever reason, the US wouldn't look North? Oil has it firmly planted in the Middle East, why would it not seek to gain control over the oil supplies in Canada? Canadians certainly believe they would!
TB, we have our own oil we can turn to, should that happen.
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 06:55 AM
1ptU2GzwOMs
StillStanding
05-22-2007, 07:01 AM
You honestly believe that if the US oil supplies were cut off for whatever reason, the US wouldn't look North? Oil has it firmly planted in the Middle East, why would it not seek to gain control over the oil supplies in Canada? Canadians certainly believe they would!
Well......the French influenced part of Canada should be easy prey! haha! Get the white flags ready! :)
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 07:19 AM
Well... things didn't go so well the last time we fiddled with Canada.
You honestly believe that if the US oil supplies were cut off for whatever reason, the US wouldn't look North? Oil has it firmly planted in the Middle East, why would it not seek to gain control over the oil supplies in Canada? Canadians certainly believe they would!
The US would look North wiht giant wads of cash but not with the turretts of our tanks. that really is a shameful statement.
American blood has been spilled in many places in the last 100 years. In many places justifed and in some places the justice of the action was debatable. but in EVERY instance America's enemy has been a totalatarian state.
this really saddens me.
btw. the current belief is that America has oil reserves greater than the middle east. there is a gigantic field in eastern colorado that is massive and has never been tapped. there is a new discovery in the gulf of mexico that is also massive and then there is ANWR.
but the idea that we would invade Canada and that someone believes that, is just deflating to me.
You're getting a little carried away here gentlemen.
Nobody said they hate the U.S. I love the U.S. but it may not hurt to listen to another perspective even if you don't agree without getting so defensive.
What is always amazing to me is how that Americans make many prejudicial statements about other countries and nationalities but as soon as someone starts to be honest and speak honestly about some of the U.S.'s own weakness or failing or what have you they come unglued.
And Thad........
We still preach against sin and immorality here.
Auntie, please note that I only make judgemental prejudicial statements about France. they deserve it.
(If you would like I can make a case usin historical fact that France is the blame for every major conflict in Europe going back before Napoliean.
LOL! I know. I told him that would be a very unpopular opinion.
It will be interesting to see how history treats Bill Clinton.
if they use my notes, the historians will be quite accurate.
Well... things didn't go so well the last time we fiddled with Canada.
a lament i have mentioned repeatedly.
if old Benedict Arnold had just beaten the brits in Quebec in 1775 we would have what? 65 states? and the largest nation on the planet....I even bet that would have led to the US taking Mexico duringn the Mexican American War.
The US would look North wiht giant wads of cash but not with the turretts of our tanks. that really is a shameful statement.
American blood has been spilled in many places in the last 100 years. In many places justifed and in some places the justice of the action was debatable. but in EVERY instance America's enemy has been a totalatarian state.
this really saddens me.
btw. the current belief is that America has oil reserves greater than the middle east. there is a gigantic field in eastern colorado that is massive and has never been tapped. there is a new discovery in the gulf of mexico that is also massive and then there is ANWR.
but the idea that we would invade Canada and that someone believes that, is just deflating to me.
It just shows you how looney the world has gotten. What used to be the thoughts of extreme leftist wacko Democrats, Socialists, and Communists is now being spouted by everyday Americans others around the world.
It shows just what a good job the leftist mass media has done with anti American propaganda.
The stat that came out a few days about that 35% of Democrats believe GWB knew about 9-11 before it happened is a sad testiment to the state of America's intellect and common sense.
As much as I cannot stand Bill Clinton I would never think he, nor Hillary if President, would be part of something so evil. Liberals apparently have no bounds in the imagination of their minds.
Felicity
05-22-2007, 08:40 AM
but the idea that we would invade Canada and that someone believes that, is just deflating to me.But the FACT is the perception is there in the minds of many people around the world. For some reason. :)
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 08:42 AM
But the FACT is the perception is there in the minds of many people around the world. For some reason. :)
Well to feel such a way with no precedence to lean on is ridiculous. :lol
Felicity
05-22-2007, 08:43 AM
Well to feel such a way with no precedence to lean on is ridiculous. :lolLOL. Yeah, I know. ;)
But the FACT is the perception is there in the minds of many people around the world. For some reason. :)
It is called "Anti-Americanism" and is at an all time high. The world media is made up of pacifists, one worlders, peaceniks, socialists, etc.
Not to mention that as the most successful nation on earth there is a bad case of envy and coveting going on.
Over the years Europe has basicly gone socialist with the population being left wing pacifists. The Europe of today would have never prevailed in WWII even with the help of the USA.
I think the unending drumbeat of the left wing media has caused what was once the perception of extreme wackos only to enter the mainstream.
Liberal Dems may think it helps their cause but it diminishes us all to have this kind of crazy thinking prevail.
Felicity
05-22-2007, 08:51 AM
We are not anti-America -- just seeing how things are with our eyes open looking at the U.S. outside of its borders rather than the rather limited perspective of looking at it from INside.
You can't dismiss every negative statement or thought or perception about the US of A. There is some truth in some of the outsider perceptions and not just perception but actual happenings.
I don't think Canadians in general are anti-American either. THere's a great relationship between the 2 countries and it's been that way generally speaking for a long time - as long as I've lived for sure.
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 08:55 AM
It is called "Anti-Americanism" and is at an all time high. The world media is made up of pacifists, one worlders, peaceniks, socialists, etc.
Not to mention that as the most successful nation on earth there is a bad case of envy and coveting going on.
Oh cool... I can add that to the list too huh?
They hate us because of our freedom.
They are just plain jealous.
On the successful portion... You are aware that we borrow around $3,000,000,000.00 per day on average... right?
But the FACT is the perception is there in the minds of many people around the world. For some reason. :)
which is so very disappointing. it is based on the fact that it has been the American Military that has gone everywhere, dealing with the things that nobody else would. increadably deflating. and extremely sad.
Oh cool... I can add that to the list too huh?
They hate us because of our freedom.
They are just plain jealous.
On the successful portion... You are aware that we borrow around $3,000,000,000.00 per day on average... right?
They don't hate us for our "freedom". Where did you get that? They hate us because we are strong, powerful, successful, rich,etc,etc.
Freedom has nothing to do with it.
The truth is that many of the people who trash America would move here in a second if given the chance. That is one reason we have a significant population that does not want to assimilate and become "American". They want the ecocomic and political benefits of America while still hating America. This is a rot from within.
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 09:19 AM
They don't hate us for our "freedom". Where did you get that?
From Georgie...
They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
George W Bush - September 21, 2001
And from Rudy Guli..
These people came here and killed us because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women, because they hate us...
Rudy Giuliani
And many others. It has pretty much been the battle cry for the last 6 years.
crakjak
05-22-2007, 10:14 AM
Oh cool... I can add that to the list too huh?
They hate us because of our freedom.
They are just plain jealous.
On the successful portion... You are aware that we borrow around $3,000,000,000.00 per day on average... right?
It is a well known fact that the money brokers of the world dictate the cash flow around the world not only in the US but in Canada as well, the real puppeteers are one and the same. Our individual blessings come from the Lord and certainly not the government, we cannot put our trust in the systems of this world, everyone of them are flawed and are destined to crash.
The problem I have is that in some areas of the world like Darfur and Zimbabwe the US is no where to be seen. I can't understand (except for the oil factor) why the US would feel they needed to remove Hussein, but have no problem with what Mugabe is doing to the people of Zimbabwe. I have been there and seen first hand the devastation Mugabe's dictatorship is wreaking on that nation. It is worse now than when I was there a few years ago. I was in a meeting with the head of our ACOP churches in that nation on Thursday. It is unbelievable what Mugabe is doing and no one is doing anything to stop him.Chalk it up to American (and European) hypocrisy! The United States of America claims to have certain "national interests" and they use this as an excuse to impose its will on other nations and interfere with their internal affairs. Most, if not all, of the founding fathers believed that the "national interest" of the United States was to not get entangled in the affairs of other nations. It was a good foreign policy then and it's still a good foreign policy.
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 10:24 AM
Canada has not only become Anti America but Anti-God as well.
They have laws now in canada where you can't preach against sin and immoral practices .Where did you get that from Thad?????
You mean like entering the European theator in WW2? resquing france and Britten in WW1? At least our involvement there was constitutional.
saving half of Korea from communsim? standing up against the spread of communism (in another attempt to bail france out) in Vietnam? We had no business being involved. Neither of these actions were constitutional
Rescuing our own people in Grenada? Notice that they were OUR citizens and not someone else's.
removing a guy from power in Panama who was putting drugs on American Streets? A guy that the United States put into power in the first place. We had no business interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. As for the drug market, prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 1920s; why do you and others think that prohibition works for other substances (some of which were actually used as over-the-counter medications in the late 1800s and early 1900s - and Coca Cola got its name from one of its original ingredients: cocaine).
Oh, no those might be justified. no we are talking aboutUnless Congress actually declares war, they're unconstitutional.
Supporting Saddam against Iran (in league with the USSR and had taken American hostages)We had no business being involved.
supporting brutal dicatorts in South America (in an effort to keep the USSR out of the mainland of South America)Again, we had no business being involved.
As far as I am concerned, we didnt do enough. we should have stomped the Chinese in Korea, marched on North Vietnam and invaded Cuba and made it the 51st state.Without Congress specifically declaring war, such actions would be unconstitutional.
I'm going with George Washington and John Quincy Adams on this one.
They don't hate us for our "freedom". Where did you get that? They hate us because we are strong, powerful, successful, rich,etc,etc.
Freedom has nothing to do with it.
The truth is that many of the people who trash America would move here in a second if given the chance. That is one reason we have a significant population that does not want to assimilate and become "American". They want the ecocomic and political benefits of America while still hating America. This is a rot from within.No, they hate us because since at least the 1950s we've been butting into the internal affairs of their Middle Eastern nations and trying to impose our will on them.
Where did you get that from Thad?????
studies show that only 12% of canadians go to church anymore. I recall a canadian on this forum telling me it is in fact that low.
your country also past a law that makes it discrimanatory to preach against the gay lifestyle as sin
which is so very disappointing. it is based on the fact that it has been the American Military that has gone everywhere, dealing with the things that nobody else would. increadably deflating. and extremely sad.Going where we had no business going!
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 10:37 AM
I knew what you were saying, I appreciate you and TB's posts on this forum. Except maybe when he starts praising Bill Clinton.:heeheehee
I am not a Bill and Hillary Clinton fan. I simply think it sad that even Christians are not able to acknowledge the good that someone does. Why does it always have to be that if a politician is of the other party everything about them is bad.
IMO there is no godly party in the US. One of the reasons that I am convinced that the days are numbered for the US is that it is "a house divided against itself". There was a day when politicians respected one another and tried to work together for the common good of the people they represent. Now it is constant bashing of one another.
I love the USA and would not want to be anything other than an American in spite of its faults. My father fought for America in North Africa during WWII. However, it is sad to see that many of the values for which he fought have been lost not because of the enemy without, but the enemy within. :usa
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 10:39 AM
Oh please. Get a grip.I have a grip and that's why your crying "ouch"! :lol
I'm sorry Ferd ... but to act as if a President constitutional right to repel what he deems as attacks on America is INDEED VERY CONSTITUTIONAL.
Simply put the President has war powers and it's guaranteed to him by the Constitution and War Powers resolution of 1973.
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal). [Wiki]
Furthermore early Presidents took military actions w/o formal declaration from Congress.... Adams in the Quasi War ... and Jefferson in the War of Tripoli ...
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 10:41 AM
It is a well known fact that the money brokers of the world dictate the cash flow around the world not only in the US but in Canada as well, the real puppeteers are one and the same. Our individual blessings come from the Lord and certainly not the government, we cannot put our trust in the systems of this world, everyone of them are flawed and are destined to crash.
It is, indeed, an increasingly well known fact.
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 10:42 AM
TB, we have our own oil we can turn to, should that happen.You don't have enough Rico. What you guys need to do is stop wasting so much oil with your extravagant lifestyles and reduce the demand for oil in the world. :)
I am not a Bill and Hillary Clinton fan. I simply think it sad that even Christians are not able to acknowledge the good that someone does. Why does it always have to be that if a politician is of the other party everything about them is bad.What good has he done that he wasn't forced into by a Republican Congress that kept him pushed toward the centrist he claimed to be when he ran for President in 1992? Welfare reform (a good thing) would never have happened if Congress hadn't pushed him on it and, even with that, he still didn't (to quote one of his campaign promises) "end Welfare as we know it."
IMO there is no godly party in the US. One of the reasons that I am convinced that the days are numbered for the US is that it is "a house divided against itself". There was a day when politicians respected one another and tried to work together for the common good of the people they represent. Now it is constant bashing of one another.The very concept of politics is a system of this wicked world and, as such, is part of that enemy of God we call "the world."
I love the USA and would not want to be anything other than an American in spite of its faults. My father fought for America in North Africa during WWII. However, it is sad to see that many of the values for which he fought have been lost not because of the enemy without, but the enemy within. :usaSo, being a citizen of the kingdom of Heaven doesn't mean anything to you?
Welfare reform was part of a Gringrich-Republican led Congress and their Contract w/ America ... Clinton was left no choice.
You don't have enough Rico. What you guys need to do is stop wasting so much oil with your extravagant lifestyles and reduce the demand for oil in the world. :)
Hogwash. Someone else already mentioned some of the reserves we have, which are huge. I didn't know about the one in Colorado, but I did know about the one in the Gulf and Alaska. Also, I won't be apologizing for the fact that America has more money than Canada, and as such can live a better lifestyle.
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 10:49 AM
We are not anti-America -- just seeing how things are with our eyes open looking at the U.S. outside of its borders rather than the rather limited perspective of looking at it from INside.
You can't dismiss every negative statement or thought or perception about the US of A. There is some truth in some of the outsider perceptions and not just perception but actual happenings.
I don't think Canadians in general are anti-American either. THere's a great relationship between the 2 countries and it's been that way generally speaking for a long time - as long as I've lived for sure.
And with a surging C$ that is hovering at US$.92, that relationship is about to get even better. (At least in the shopping malls)! :)
I'm sorry Ferd ... but to act as if a President constitutional right to repel what he deems as attacks on America is INDEED VERY CONSTITUTIONAL.
Simply put the President has war powers and it's guaranteed to him by the Constitution and War Powers resolution of 1973.But this War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. By the way, here is the extent of the President's power with regard to the military, quoting from Article 2 of the Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Now, notice the power Article 1 of the Constitution gives to CONGRESS:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations*;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
*For more about what this is: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/LAWOFNAT.HTM and http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm.
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal). [Wiki]But it's still unconstitutional.
Furthermore early Presidents took military actions w/o formal declaration from Congress.... Adams in the Quasi War ... and Jefferson in the War of Tripoli ...Now, here's what really happened with the quasi-war:
In an effort to resolve differences with France that had accumulated between the two nations since the Treaty of Alliance of 1778, President John Adams dispatched a commission of three men to meet with French Minister of Foreign Affairs Talleyrand in 1797. After many delays, the American commissioners were approached by three intermediaries of Talleyrand, who demanded apologies for allusions critical of France made by President Adams and payment of a bribe of several million dollars before official negotiations could proceed. Convinced that further negotiations were hopeless the three commissioners returned to the United States, and President Adams released their dispatches to Congress, substituting X, Y, and Z for the names of Talleyrand’s agents. “I will never send another minister to France without assurances that he will be received, respected, and honored, as the representative of a great, free, powerful, and independent nation,” Adams declared. The American public was outraged at publication of the dispatches, and Congress enacted a series of measures to raise an army and authorize a Navy Department. It also unilaterally abrogated treaties with France, authorizing privateers and public vessels to attack French ships found competing with American commerce. Between 1798 and 1800 the U.S. Navy captured more than 80 French ships although neither country officially declared war. SOURCE (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/nr/16318.htm)
As for Tripoli, Jefferson was going against Barbary pirates that had been attacking American ships. France and Britain had the same problem with the pirates until those countries paid off the Barbary states.
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 11:01 AM
They don't hate us for our "freedom". Where did you get that? They hate us because we are strong, powerful, successful, rich,etc,etc.
Freedom has nothing to do with it.
The truth is that many of the people who trash America would move here in a second if given the chance. That is one reason we have a significant population that does not want to assimilate and become "American". They want the ecocomic and political benefits of America while still hating America. This is a rot from within.CC1, what you have expressed here is one of the main reasons there is such animosity towards Americans. When they travel the world they carry this very attitude with them. I've had many opportunities to observe Americans around the world and they are so arrogant and spend much of their time in other countries showing off what they believe is their strength, their power, their success, their riches, etc, all the while complaining about the local conditions and people.
Americans would be much more appreciated if when they travel to other countries they would show respect for the culture and people of those nations. It would benefit both them and all Americans if they would actually take time to learn from other cultures the invaluable insights into what has made them who they are as a people and nation.
Believe it or not, many people in the world are happy even though they do not have the affluence and privileges we enjoy in North America.
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 11:15 AM
CC1, what you have expressed here is one of the main reasons there is such animosity towards Americans. When they travel the world they carry this very attitude with them. I've had many opportunities to observe Americans around the world and they are so arrogant and spend much of their time in other countries showing off what they believe is their strength, their power, their success, their riches, etc, all the while complaining about the local conditions and people.
Americans would be much more appreciated if when they travel to other countries they would show respect for the culture and people of those nations. It would benefit both them and all Americans if they would actually take time to learn from other cultures the invaluable insights into what has made them who they are as a people and nation.
Believe it or not, many people in the world are happy even though they do not have the affluence and privileges we enjoy in North America.
We interrupt this thread for the following announcement....
The opinions expressed by some neo-con Republicans on this forum and the actions taken by neo-con Republican administrations of late are not necessarily the thoughts or wishes of all (or even most) Americans.
We now return you to the thread in progress.
Chan ... you arguments trying to deny the War powers ofa President ... is nothing new ... this debate has been raging for decades .... you can twist and turn it as you please ... the fact still remains .... THAT ONLY THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES WHATS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT .... AND TILL THIS DAY THEY HAVE NOT ... RULED IT UNCONSTITIONAL ....
furthermore my statements about the military actions of early presidents still stand ... as actions W/O formal declarations of war ... they are no different ... then the commercially based military action/decisions ... recent Presidents have made ....
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 11:51 AM
Chan ... you arguments trying to deny the War powers ofa President ... is nothing new ... this debate has been raging for decades .... you can twist and turn it as you please ... the fact still remains .... THAT ONLY THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES WHATS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT .... AND TILL THIS DAY THEY HAVE NOT ... RULED IT UNCONSTITIONAL ....
furthermore my statements about the military actions of early presidents still stand ... as actions W/O formal declarations of war ... they are no different ... then the commercially based military action/decisions ... recent Presidents have made ....
Has the Supreme Court addressed this issue?
If they did address it and found it to be unconstitutional for anyone but Congress to declare ware then what would be your view be on who has the power to declare war?
I'm sorry Ferd ... but to act as if a President constitutional right to repel what he deems as attacks on America is INDEED VERY CONSTITUTIONAL.
Simply put the President has war powers and it's guaranteed to him by the Constitution and War Powers resolution of 1973.
The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec.. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal). [Wiki]
Furthermore early Presidents took military actions w/o formal declaration from Congress.... Adams in the Quasi War ... and Jefferson in the War of Tripoli ...
did you mean Ferd or Chan? I think we agree.
Eliseus
05-22-2007, 12:21 PM
The Michigan GOP tried to get Ron Paul booted out of any further debates, and we SHUT THEM DOWN. (YES, I was one of the 20,000 plus callers to both the Michigan GOP and the RNC). When I called, the day the story broke, they told me they had already had over 1,000 callers on that single issue.
Recently, nationwide, newspapers ran the story that the North American Union is a myth. They denied the existence of the "trans texas corridor". Funny, on US 59 just north of New Caney Texas not too long ago there was a billboard put up by the Texas DOT advertising the TTC...
The mainstream media are nothing else but a propaganda arm of a criminal enterprise manipulating our government into treasonous felonies that are designed to benefit special interest groups - namely, large, wealthy multi-national interests.
The Senate just recently agreed to put off voting on the Amnesty-for-Illegals bill (and yes, I called my Senator's office about it and let them know I was AGAINST any amnesty garbage) for a couple months. The House will be taking up the issue next week I believe.
Folks, persons in high places are committing was is known as "High Treason". High Treason is when people use government resources and powers to gut the nation's security.
The TTC, the North American Union, the proposed amnesty for all the illegals, on and on and on and on it goes.
I heard (haven't verified it yet) that the Selective Service is preparing new cards which ask for gender.
Hello!!!! Does that mean anything to anyone?
We have a President who has stated repeatedly that we are in an open ended, unending war. A war undeclared by Congress. A war costing TRILLIONS of dollars WE DO NOT HAVE, to fight OTHER PEOPLE'S WARS for the most part. We have Selective Service getting prepared to draft YOUR DAUGHTERS AND WIVES. I also heard in another report that the Selective Service laws are being revised so that the marriage exemption will no longer apply.
The age has already been upped to 45.
Your 35 year old wife could theoretically be drafted into military service if this garbage continues.
These are perilous times, but they are also historical times. The globalist/socialist/statists, whatever you want to call them (labels no longer mean anything) are pushing and pushing and are in fact going faster NOW than they did under the Clintonistas. (Imagine what it would be like if Hillary was in the WH!)
The DoD announced LAST YEAR a new program to recruit FOREIGN NATIONALS into our military, and they will "fast-track" them into US citizenship if they serve. Foreign Legion, anyone? This is EXACTLY what happened to Rome, right before they collapsed.
The Santa Fe police department recruiter is trying to find a way to recruit Mexican nationals (Mexican citizens) into the Santa Fe PD (this came out Monday).
FIFTEEN YEARS AGO I heard about plans for dissolving the United States, for dividing the territory up into Regional governments, for having foreign troops in the US enforcing international laws and resolutions.
NOW WE ARE SEEING IT BEING PUT INTO PLACE.
If we do not stop these criminal traitors NOW, we may find our grandchildren having the word "freedom" missing from their vocabulary entirely.
We suffer and tolerate MORE ABUSES NOW than the founding fathers tolerated in 1775. The things that sent the Colonies into a War for Independence against a tyrannical government are PEANUTS compared to what is perpetrated on the American people EVERY DAY.
Warrantless searches? Warrantless wiretaps? SECRET LEGISLATION?????? Do you realise the law regarding the FTA and the "no flight list" is SECRET and "classified"????? Do you realise the proposed amnesty bill before Congress now is SECRET?????? Not revealed? Only a few Senators have even been allowed to SEE (let alone read) the law before them?????
Folks need to get active politically NOW, WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
The alternative is, well, against the law to discuss.
Chan ... you arguments trying to deny the War powers ofa President ... is nothing new ... this debate has been raging for decades .... you can twist and turn it as you please ... the fact still remains .... THAT ONLY THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES WHATS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT .... AND TILL THIS DAY THEY HAVE NOT ... RULED IT UNCONSTITIONAL ....
furthermore my statements about the military actions of early presidents still stand ... as actions W/O formal declarations of war ... they are no different ... then the commercially based military action/decisions ... recent Presidents have made ....I quoted what the CONSTITUTION says about the powers of the President and those of Congress. I'm going to take the words of the Constitution over anything else. And, no, there is nothing in the Constitution that says only the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or not. Of course, maybe the reason they haven't ruled on the War Powers Resolution is because no one has filed suit in federal courts.
Now, for a little lesson in what the Constitution says about the Courts. Quoting from Article 3:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The section in parentheses was modified by the 11th Amendment. That amendment states:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
I don't see anything in the sections quoted above about the Court getting to decide what is or is not constitutional.
Where you are getting this notion of the Courts declaring laws "unconstitutional" from is a very famous Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm)
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 12:31 PM
Eliseus...
Great post...
Now prepare for the neo-con drone but don't sweat it.
This nation is waking up.
The mainstream media is acting like this movement isn't happening and the numbers they are seeing are mere flukes.
The movement IS that big and it is growing by the day.
Let the talking heads rattle because they will soon be working hard to keep themselves convinced of their own rhetoric as the new reality becomes harder and harder to deny.
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 12:32 PM
I quoted what the CONSTITUTION says about the powers of the President and those of Congress. I'm going to take the words of the Constitution over anything else. And, no, there is nothing in the Constitution that says only the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or not. Of course, maybe the reason they haven't ruled on the War Powers Resolution is because no one has filed suit in federal courts.
Now, for a little lesson in what the Constitution says about the Courts. Quoting from Article 3:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The section in parentheses was modified by the 11th Amendment. That amendment states:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
I don't see anything in the sections quoted above about the Court getting to decide what is or is not constitutional.
Where you are getting this notion of the Courts declaring laws "unconstitutional" from is a very famous Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm)
Yet none of this will have the slightest affect...
Reminds me of trying to show folks stuff in the Bible... point to it with your finger and press it to their nose yet they still don't see it.
Eliseus
05-22-2007, 12:33 PM
Eliseus...
Great post...
Now prepare for the neo-con drone but don't sweat it.
This nation is waking up.
The mainstream media is acting like this movement isn't happening and the numbers they are seeing are mere flukes.
The movement IS that big and it is growing by the day.
Let the talking heads rattle because they will soon be working hard to keep themselves convinced of their own rhetoric as the new reality becomes harder and harder to deny.
I quit listening to the "neo-con drone" when I found out neoconservativism is nothing but Trotskyism.
:)
Yet none of this will have the slightest affect...
Reminds me of trying to show folks stuff in the Bible... point to it with your finger and press it to their nose yet they still don't see it.And it probably won't have the slightest effect either. They believe what the Republicans, Democrats or the media cheerleaders tell them to believe.
a good thread with really great content has been taken over by the black helicopter crowd.
sorry Truely Blessed, CC1, Daniel, Aunt Felicity, I cant wade thru the skitzophrenia to find the good stuff any more.
Digging4Truth
05-22-2007, 02:59 PM
a good thread with really great content has been taken over by the black helicopter crowd.
sorry Truely Blessed, CC1, Daniel, Aunt Felicity, I cant wade thru the skitzophrenia to find the good stuff any more.
And in a flash... before anyone could notice he struck.... its.... CLICHE'MAN!!!!
With nut cases like Rosie O-Donnell bashing someone like Elizabeth Hasselbeck(sp?), I can't believe anyone would actually want to buy into the left-wing crud and identify with wackos like her. Dems and "centerist" Republicans are just risking their credibility with the public when they spout their conspiracy theories, etc.
Makes them sound like they need to call the men in the little white coats and the paddy wagon. Come-n-gettum!
You don't have enough Rico. What you guys need to do is stop wasting so much oil with your extravagant lifestyles and reduce the demand for oil in the world. :)
I would continue to argue with you but I have to go fill the Rolls up with gas, check the swimming pool, water the lawn, then fire up the grill so I can make my carbon imprint quota for the month.:bubble
a good thread with really great content has been taken over by the black helicopter crowd.
sorry Truely Blessed, CC1, Daniel, Aunt Felicity, I cant wade thru the skitzophrenia to find the good stuff any more.
You better hush or that secret group of people directing the entire world economy are going to come to your house and silence you!
(some of the C__P people believe is incredible. Especially said when it is suppsoedly intelligent Pentecostal folks)
Felicity
05-22-2007, 05:59 PM
You better hush or that secret group of people directing the entire world economy are going to come to your house and silence you!
(some of the C__P people believe is incredible. Especially said when it is suppsoedly intelligent Pentecostal folks)**makes mental note that when CC1 comes to visit -- no discussion of politics allowed**
:D
**makes mental note that when CC1 comes to visit -- no discussion of politics allowed**
:D
:bubble
the following is not a discussion of politics. (it could be called paranoia though)
"FIFTEEN YEARS AGO I heard about plans for dissolving the United States, for dividing the territory up into Regional governments, for having foreign troops in the US enforcing international laws and resolutions.
NOW WE ARE SEEING IT BEING PUT INTO PLACE."
**makes mental note that when CC1 comes to visit -- no discussion of politics allowed**
:D
Plenty of other stuff to talk about!!! (like everybody on AFF, LOL!!!)
Truly Blessed
05-22-2007, 08:26 PM
**makes mental note that when CC1 comes to visit -- no discussion of politics allowed**
:DI thought you told me he won't be coming to Canada now. He's too strong, too wealthy, and too successful to hang around with humble Canadians. :lol
Hey! What am I saying? He can hang around with me! I'm one of those strong, wealthy, and successful Americans. :bubble
I thought you told me he won't be coming to Canada now. He's too strong, too wealthy, and too successful to hang around with humble Canadians. :lol
Hey! What am I saying? He can hang around with me! I'm one of those strong, wealthy, and successful Americans. :bubble
Would you settle for hanging around with a short, fat, nearsighted, in debt American?
:lol
crakjak
05-22-2007, 09:50 PM
You don't have enough Rico. What you guys need to do is stop wasting so much oil with your extravagant lifestyles and reduce the demand for oil in the world. :)
Tell Al Gore and the leftist movie stars. The rest of us are already conserving.
Tell Al Gore and the leftist movie stars. The rest of us are already conserving.
Al Gore's house in Nashville is more than 5 times as big as mine and his electric bill is more than ten times mine.
If I remember correctly records show that his electric bill is equal to 20 normal homes. Plus he owns more homes than this one in Nashville.
Of course his PR response is that he is buying those phoney baloney "carbon offsets".
Truly Blessed
05-23-2007, 10:19 AM
Al Gore's house in Nashville is more than 5 times as big as mine and his electric bill is more than ten times mine.
If I remember correctly records show that his electric bill is equal to 20 normal homes. Plus he owns more homes than this one in Nashville.
Of course his PR response is that he is buying those phoney baloney "carbon offsets".Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites among American politicians!!!! Not only that but his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with half-truths. Half-truths are always whole lies!
RonPaul4President
05-23-2007, 10:25 AM
Ron Paul For President!
RonPaul4President
05-23-2007, 10:35 AM
qdrGKwkmxAU&NRAn important warning of Ike's leaving speech.
Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites among American politicians!!!! Not only that but his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with half-truths. Half-truths are always whole lies!
see, we can find common ground!
Truly Blessed
05-23-2007, 11:44 AM
see, we can find common ground!Like Calvary? :)
Like Calvary? :)
thats some pretty good common ground too!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.