The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
The uninformed sound off again....Jeez.
Which awful environmental consequences?
Accidents happen....Do you drive a car? Ever been in a swimming pool? Use a toaster? been caught in a thunderstorm?
If risk averse people like you ran the country we'd be living in hovels......eating stone soup
As opposed to stupid people like you, who happily send poor kids off to die for rich people.
Seriously. **** you.
You're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people. That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one. In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them. Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution.
You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.
Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.
Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.
Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your ******* Constitution again, bucko!
Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.
That is the role of the president.
Congress can only declare war and fund the military.
And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.
You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.
Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.
And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
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;
It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC
could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that
could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.
But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election.
You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.
If anyone ever wants to know what Liberal Droning looks like.....
