1942

Most of the comments in any given thread aren't to me. So what? How do you think this works, people only reply to or react to comments directed at them? :auiqs.jpg:
yep, but the one I posted was directed at that one poster for his views. I truly don't give a fk about yours.
 
If Bibi nukes Iran, do you still support him?
I hardly support him now. However, I support Israel, and no matter what he does, doesn't change, I support Israel. Not sure why anyone would ever use it. The point of nukes is to never use them. But in the hands of terrorists, one never knows since they enjoy unaliving anyone without care.
 
How about you prove I'm wrong
You must have missed my response, since you didn;'t reply
To wit:

Easily.
Nothing in the constitution requires the President to consult with Congress while prosecuting a declared war.
Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

See? I proved you wrong.

Disagree?
Cite the Article/Section and copy/paste the text where the Constitution says the President needs to consult with Congress while prosecuting a declared war.

Well?
 
An Oldie (1991) but goodie.....still relevant.


"In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush’s willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the “legitimate” government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a “new world order” proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush’s new world order, except the Soviet Union’s assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long-suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled–all in the name of U.S. leadership."

Full analysis....

For an artistic, and still relevant politically, take on the whole situation, watch Lawrence of Arabia. Fantastic movie.
 
I hardly support him now. However, I support Israel, and no matter what he does, doesn't change, I support Israel. Not sure why anyone would ever use it. The point of nukes is to never use them. But in the hands of terrorists, one never knows since they enjoy unaliving anyone without care.
And yet Israel is the terrorist nation mass murdering children and babies.

Are you demented like your heroes Genocide Joe and Genocide Don?
 
The original? No
When they gave it back to the states? Yes.
Really?

So you, being the strict literal interpretation of the Constitution-minded person that you are. . . You think it is Constitutional for something as essential as "personhood" and when personhood (and basic human rights) begins can constitutionally vary from one State to the next, based on the human's location geographically, and according to the wants and whims of whatever State they might be located in.

Interesting.
 
Congress authorized Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq 2. There was also the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

But you have a point. Imagine if that had been our last war?
They didnt do it correctly. AUMFs are not constitutional.
Congress has no authority to delegate it legislative powers away.
 
Really?

So you, being the strict literal interpretation of the Constitution-minded person that you are. . . You think it is Constitutional for something as essential as "personhood" and when personhood (and basic human rights) begins can constitutionally vary from one State to the next, based on the human's location geographically, and according to the wants and whims of whatever State they might be located in.

Interesting.
Giving a fetus "basic human rights" takes away rights from the mother.
Any persons rights end, at the tip of another person's nose.
 
Giving a fetus "basic human rights" takes away rights from the mother.
Any persons rights end, at the tip of another person's nose.
Also interesting.

You, a strict Constitutionalist, actually believe that basic human rights are "given" to human beings and not simply recognized and respected.
 
Also interesting.

You, a strict Constitutionalist, actually believe that basic human rights are "given" to human beings and not simply recognized and respected.
Its something growing completely dependent in another person's body. Yes, they would have to be given.
Im not sure why we are having this conversation. First its irrelevant to the thread. 2, you are talking about rights of one, over another. That is your argument. Not a very good one about human rights.
 
Are there any ignoramuses still saying this "isn't a war" ?

 
15th post
Its something growing completely dependent in another person's body. Yes, they would have to be given.
Im not sure why we are having this conversation. First its irrelevant to the thread. 2, you are talking about rights of one, over another. That is your argument. Not a very good one about human rights.
Abortion is only being raised to make the point about your lack of consistency in how you interpret and apply the Constitution.

Nothing more than that.
 
Abortion is only being raised to make the point about your lack of consistency in how you interpret and apply the Constitution.

Nothing more than that.
If you are trying to prove inconsistency, you should try a different subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom