Oh she's running alrighty..Go Palin Go.

[Dr.House]

Libs sure do watch a lot of Sarah Palin...

I'm sure she appreciates all the money and attention you give her...

Does anyone have a choice with the saturation of Palin coverage? ...

I actually choose what I watch on the tube and I haven't seen her in a while...

I don't watch cable news and I haven't seen this new show she has... She's not on ESPN, FOX network, AMC, SyFy, Science Channel, and any of the others stations I choose to watch...

I certainly don't tune in to her interviews like the OP did...


So the answer is "Yes, you have a choice."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Holy crap.

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go fucking pick up a book.

Wikipedia is not a book.

Funny even wikipedia coudn't substantiate your claim that Reagan violated the Constitution.

You can lead a horse to water..

You couldn't lead a horse out of the barn if the barn was on fire and you had a bucket of oats.

Fact is nowhere in that wikipedia link you provided did it alledge Reagan of violating the Constitution, which was your claim.

 

[uscitizen]

Wikipedia is not a book.

Funny even wikipedia coudn't substantiate your claim that Reagan violated the Constitution.

You can lead a horse to water..

You couldn't lead a horse out of the barn if the barn was on fire and you had a bucket of oats.

Fact is nowhere in that wikipedia link you provided did it alledge Reagan of violating the Constitution, which was your claim.

Reagan used US military on forweign soil in combat without and congressional declaration of war several times.
A clear constitutional violation.
Iran Contra was treason. Dealing weapons with an avowed enemy of the USA.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You can lead a horse to water..

You couldn't lead a horse out of the barn if the barn was on fire and you had a bucket of oats.

Fact is nowhere in that wikipedia link you provided did it alledge Reagan of violating the Constitution, which was your claim.

Reagan used US military on forweign soil in combat without and congressional declaration of war several times.
A clear constitutional violation.
Iran Contra was treason. Dealing weapons with an avowed enemy of the USA.

Well I know how foreign facts are to you but lets examine the facts.

Fact: Congress has only formally declared war four times, the War of 1812 (1812); the Spanish‐American War (1898); World War I (1917); and World War II (1941).

Fact: In the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman decided against asking Congress to declare war because he thought his critics might filibuster the resolution and thereby dilute its symbolic effect.

Over the next four decades, presidents used Truman's precedent to argue that the commander‐in‐chief clause empowers them to send U.S. troops into combat without congressional authorization. In August 1964, Congress passed with only two dissenting votes the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which approved President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to use force to prevent further Communist aggression in South Vietnam.

Fact: President Ronald Reagan did sign a 1983 bill that gave him authority to keep U.S. troops in Lebanon for eighteen months, but in doing so he repeated the claim that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. (No court has ruled on the constitutionality issue.)
The resolution did not figure in the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989, the intervention in Haiti in 1994, or the peacekeeping missions in Somalia in 1992 or Bosnia in 1995.

In the case of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, President George Bush refused to invoke the War Powers Resolution, and he argued that he did not need congressional authorization to order U.S. troops to liberate Kuwait. Public opinion, however, eventually forced Bush to seek the approval of Congress. The authorizing resolution, which did not mention the War Powers Resolution, passed in the Senate with five votes to spare.

The circumstances in which presidents can initiate the use of military force without congressional authorization remain an open constitutional question. The federal courts have generally declined to hear lawsuits challenging the president's right to use military force, either on the grounds that such suits raise political and not legal questions or that it is up to Congress and not the courts to preserve congressional prerogatives. The net effect of the courts' reluctance to settle the issue has been to diminish the war powers of Congress and to enhance those of the president.

•A. D. Sofaer, War, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Power: The Origins, 1976.
•F. D. Wormuth and E. B. Firmage, To Chain the Dog of War: The War Power of Congress in History and Law, 1986; 2nd ed., 1989.
•M. J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy, 1990.
•W. C. Banks and P. Raven‐Hansen, National Security Law and the Power of the Purse, 1994.
•J. M. Lindsay, Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1994.
•L. Fisher, Presidential War, 1995


Read more: Congress, War, and The Military: Information from Answers.com

 

[Sallow]

You couldn't lead a horse out of the barn if the barn was on fire and you had a bucket of oats.

Fact is nowhere in that wikipedia link you provided did it alledge Reagan of violating the Constitution, which was your claim.

Reagan used US military on forweign soil in combat without and congressional declaration of war several times.
A clear constitutional violation.
Iran Contra was treason. Dealing weapons with an avowed enemy of the USA.

Well I know how foreign facts are to you but lets examine the facts.

Fact: Congress has only formally declared war four times, the War of 1812 (1812); the Spanish‐American War (1898); World War I (1917); and World War II (1941).

Fact: In the Korean War, President Harry S. Truman decided against asking Congress to declare war because he thought his critics might filibuster the resolution and thereby dilute its symbolic effect.

Over the next four decades, presidents used Truman's precedent to argue that the commander‐in‐chief clause empowers them to send U.S. troops into combat without congressional authorization. In August 1964, Congress passed with only two dissenting votes the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which approved President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to use force to prevent further Communist aggression in South Vietnam.

Fact: President Ronald Reagan did sign a 1983 bill that gave him authority to keep U.S. troops in Lebanon for eighteen months, but in doing so he repeated the claim that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. (No court has ruled on the constitutionality issue.)
The resolution did not figure in the invasions of Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989, the intervention in Haiti in 1994, or the peacekeeping missions in Somalia in 1992 or Bosnia in 1995.

In the case of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, President George Bush refused to invoke the War Powers Resolution, and he argued that he did not need congressional authorization to order U.S. troops to liberate Kuwait. Public opinion, however, eventually forced Bush to seek the approval of Congress. The authorizing resolution, which did not mention the War Powers Resolution, passed in the Senate with five votes to spare.

The circumstances in which presidents can initiate the use of military force without congressional authorization remain an open constitutional question. The federal courts have generally declined to hear lawsuits challenging the president's right to use military force, either on the grounds that such suits raise political and not legal questions or that it is up to Congress and not the courts to preserve congressional prerogatives. The net effect of the courts' reluctance to settle the issue has been to diminish the war powers of Congress and to enhance those of the president.

•A. D. Sofaer, War, Foreign Affairs, and Constitutional Power: The Origins, 1976.
•F. D. Wormuth and E. B. Firmage, To Chain the Dog of War: The War Power of Congress in History and Law, 1986; 2nd ed., 1989.
•M. J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy, 1990.
•W. C. Banks and P. Raven‐Hansen, National Security Law and the Power of the Purse, 1994.
•J. M. Lindsay, Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1994.
•L. Fisher, Presidential War, 1995


Read more: Congress, War, and The Military: Information from Answers.com

All of which sails right over Reagan selling Iran weapons during an embargo.

That clearly was a violation of the United States Constitution, specificially powers of Congress. Additionally...his administration secretly funded the Contras..another violation.

Each of which should have won him impeachment and removal from office.

 

[rightwinger]

Libs sure do watch a lot of Sarah Palin...

I'm sure she appreciates all the money and attention you give her...

Does anyone have a choice with the saturation of Palin coverage? ...

I actually choose what I watch on the tube and I haven't seen her in a while...

I don't watch cable news and I haven't seen this new show she has... She's not on ESPN, FOX network, AMC, SyFy, Science Channel, and any of the others stations I choose to watch...

I certainly don't tune in to her interviews like the OP did...


So the answer is "Yes, you have a choice."

Wow...good point there

I guess those who only watch the Cartoon Network and Weather Channel wouldn't see much of Palin either. Just a warning though House...if you watch Comedy Central you will see a lot of Palin

 

[rightwinger]

Go for it Palin, however I think her associations with the media will be a problem once she is an official candidate.

Fox will be renamed "The Palin Network"

No...it will always be the Anti-Obama Network

 

[Sallow]

Go for it Palin, however I think her associations with the media will be a problem once she is an official candidate.

Fox will be renamed "The Palin Network"

No...it will always be the Anti-Obama Network

Well until 2016..

 

[rightwinger]

Go for it Palin, however I think her associations with the media will be a problem once she is an official candidate.

Fox will be renamed "The Palin Network"

No...it will always be the Anti-Obama Network

Well until 2016..

You mean it will go back to being the Anti-Clinton Network?

 

[antagon]

All of which sails right over Reagan selling Iran weapons during an embargo.

That clearly was a violation of the United States Constitution, specificially powers of Congress. Additionally...his administration secretly funded the Contras..another violation.

Each of which should have won him impeachment and removal from office.

i dont think he remembered that.

 

[Shadow]

She can't win in a general election. Too much inexperience along with too much media scrutiny.

Reality is not going to stop her.

Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Her running is not set in stone. I heard her on Shaun Hannity's Radio show recently. She said if she felt that by running, the media hoopla about her would over shadow the rebublican's "message" and prevented it from being heard...she would not move forward.

 

[antagon]

a candidate should probably not definitively declare this far ahead. they're meant to use rhetoric to duck such a declaration until its the right season to make their intention known.

 

[Sallow]

She can't win in a general election. Too much inexperience along with too much media scrutiny.

Reality is not going to stop her.

Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. Her running is not set in stone. I heard her on Shaun Hannity's Radio show recently. She said if she felt that by running, the media hoopla about her would over shadow the rebublican's "message" and prevented it from being heard...she would not move forward.

Like she's shown by endorsing such "Republican" luminaries as Joe Miller, Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell.

Yeppers..real party faithful that one.