Republican Debate: The Issues

2007-12-02 03:05:18

#51

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6847|'Murka

While I agree that things have certainly been better WRT the view of America and Americans in the rest of the world, taking the position that our country may somehow fall apart if one of the many douchebags running for president wins is a bit reactionary.

This country can survive poor leadership. We're still here, aren't we? As bad as things are now, they were worse (at least economically) during the Carter administration. Yet America survived that, and came out stronger for it. Things are cyclical, and the ship will right itself.

The system of checks and balances will ensure (as it has for the last 200+ years) that the person occupying the office of President cannot destroy the country singlehandedly.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-02 03:20:05

#52

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|7101|NT, like Mick Dundee

FEOS, gimme a shot. I reckon I could run the USA into the ground in 4 years with enough money and the help of a friendly congress.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2007-12-02 08:29:02

#53

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6847|'Murka

LOL. You'd probably do better than any of the candidates we have for 2008.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-02 12:32:21

#54

SonderKommando: Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....; +564|7096|The darkside of Denver

FEOS wrote:
While I agree that things have certainly been better WRT the view of America and Americans in the rest of the world, taking the position that our country may somehow fall apart if one of the many douchebags running for president wins is a bit reactionary.

This country can survive poor leadership. We're still here, aren't we? As bad as things are now, they were worse (at least economically) during the Carter administration. Yet America survived that, and came out stronger for it. Things are cyclical, and the ship will right itself.

The system of checks and balances will ensure (as it has for the last 200+ years) that the person occupying the office of President cannot destroy the country singlehandedly.

The system of "checks and balances" didnt stop bush from going to war without consent from congress or from signing us into the NAU potentailly destroying America as we know it today. What you said is exactly what they want you to believe. The time for change is now, before it's too late.

2007-12-02 15:56:04

#55

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6847|'Murka

<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
FEOS wrote:
While I agree that things have certainly been better WRT the view of America and Americans in the rest of the world, taking the position that our country may somehow fall apart if one of the many douchebags running for president wins is a bit reactionary.

This country can survive poor leadership. We're still here, aren't we? As bad as things are now, they were worse (at least economically) during the Carter administration. Yet America survived that, and came out stronger for it. Things are cyclical, and the ship will right itself.

The system of checks and balances will ensure (as it has for the last 200+ years) that the person occupying the office of President cannot destroy the country singlehandedly.
The system of "checks and balances" didnt stop bush from going to war without consent from congress or from signing us into the NAU potentailly destroying America as we know it today. What you said is exactly what they want you to believe. The time for change is now, before it's too late.

Actually, he did have "consent" from Congress. What the hell do you think the Democrats are slicing Hillary up for? Her vote approving the use of force against Iraq. She didn't vote all by herself. There was a majority of the House and Senate that voted with her. Does that count?

And the House just passed a Defense funding bill with withdrawal timetables associated with it. So...yes. Checks and balances.

Not sure about the NAU, but I think you're more convinced than the rest of the world: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ican_Union

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-02 18:49:54

#56

SonderKommando: Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....; +564|7096|The darkside of Denver

FEOS wrote:
<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
FEOS wrote:
While I agree that things have certainly been better WRT the view of America and Americans in the rest of the world, taking the position that our country may somehow fall apart if one of the many douchebags running for president wins is a bit reactionary.

This country can survive poor leadership. We're still here, aren't we? As bad as things are now, they were worse (at least economically) during the Carter administration. Yet America survived that, and came out stronger for it. Things are cyclical, and the ship will right itself.

The system of checks and balances will ensure (as it has for the last 200+ years) that the person occupying the office of President cannot destroy the country singlehandedly.
The system of "checks and balances" didnt stop bush from going to war without consent from congress or from signing us into the NAU potentailly destroying America as we know it today. What you said is exactly what they want you to believe. The time for change is now, before it's too late.
Actually, he did have "consent" from Congress. What the hell do you think the Democrats are slicing Hillary up for? Her vote approving the use of force against Iraq. She didn't vote all by herself. There was a majority of the House and Senate that voted with her. Does that count?

And the House just passed a Defense funding bill with withdrawal timetables associated with it. So...yes. Checks and balances.

Not sure about the NAU, but I think you're more convinced than the rest of the world: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ican_Union

Congress never offically declared war on Iraq. Yeah they implemented a time table, but why are we building an embassy the size of the Vatican there, why are we building so many PERMANENT military bases in Iraq? This war is not INTENDED to end, at least not anytime soon. Thousands of Americans have died, and hundreds of thousands if Iraqi's have died, all under false pretenses. Sadam did not have any weapons of mass destruction (he used all the ones WE SOLD HIM against his own people already), there has been no proof that Sadam was connected to Al Qaeda although Al Qaeda is using the situation to full advantage to target Americans in Iraq, and lastly even with this half baked exit strategies there is no way we are going to be leaving the middle east anytime soon (Iran anyone?)

And about the NAU:....

This shit is REAL, we need to stop this gentlemen. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell.
Ron Paul can stop this. American needs to wake up and do the right thing.

Last edited by <SS>SonderKommando (2007-12-02 18:51:32)

2007-12-02 19:52:42

#57

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6847|'Murka

<SS>SonderKommando wrote:
Congress never offically declared war on Iraq. Yeah they implemented a time table, but why are we building an embassy the size of the Vatican there, why are we building so many PERMANENT military bases in Iraq? This war is not INTENDED to end, at least not anytime soon.

And about the NAU:....

This shit is REAL, we need to stop this gentlemen. During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell.
Ron Paul can stop this. American needs to wake up and do the right thing.

I understand what you're saying about Congress, but the simple fact is you are wrong. Congress does not have to declare war to authorize the President to take military action. I know Ron Paul's position on this, and I'm not necessarily in disagreement with him.

Congress did authorize military action against Saddam. It's just as simple as that.

All bases are "permanent" until you leave them, so not really sure what you're getting at there. We will be in Iraq until the Iraqi government wants us to leave. And as long as we let them keep sucking on the teat of our sacrifices and not forcing them to take control of their own country, they will keep asking us to stay. So...we have to make sure our troops have the infrastructure (ie, bases) to support their mission and what little quality of life can be provided in a war zone. That would certainly make it look like "permanent" basing, but it's really not.

The rest of the post re: Iraq...not really relevant to the discussion, but I can understand one having strong feelings about it.

From what I saw in the video, the SPP is looking at basically coming to common agreement on cross-border activities. Granted, I will have to read up a bit more on it, but from what they presented, I don't see how Lou Dobbs got "Canada, the US, and Mexico merging" from what was stated about the goals of the agreement.

Keep in mind, the NAU can't happen without Congress passing legislation AND a national referendum (a la the EU). If Congress wants the NAU, it will happen. The President can't stop that, particularly if the legislation passes with a veto-proof majority.

Realizing the source, this is interesting reading: http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

Last edited by FEOS (2007-12-02 20:02:42)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2007-12-03 18:33:40

#58

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7037|132 and Bush

I think the last time Congress "officially" declared war was WWII. Actually I think Hitler had already declared war on us before Congress did.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-12-15 17:59:29

#59

HTHTucoTheRat: Member; +2|6586|Clemson, South Carolina

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
SEREMAKER wrote:
they should have made this pay-per-view
Only if a "cage" was introduced.
I wonder if the Republicans were to have a smack down then who would win?

Thompson: Too lazy
McCain: Old
Paul: Also old
Huckabee: Maybe, if he was as fat as he used to be then yes
Guliani: He looks pretty sickly to me
Romney: Yeah, most likely him

I still might give it to McCain...6 years in the Hanoi Hilton. In my book, that's one tough bastard any way you slice it.

2007-12-15 18:09:02

#60

HTHTucoTheRat: Member; +2|6586|Clemson, South Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
I think the last time Congress "officially" declared war was WWII. Actually I think Hitler had already declared war on us before Congress did.

You are correct...US and Britain declared war on Japan (NOT Germany) on December 8th, 1941. Then, on December 11th, 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the US...HUGE mistake. The US immediately responded with their own declaration.

"Why yes, by all means sir, drop that f*cker...twice!" Gene Hackman in Crimson Tide. They started it, we finished it. Well, sorta...We actually shot at the Japanese first at Pearl Harbor.

Last edited by HTHTucoTheRat (2007-12-15 18:14:49)

2007-12-15 18:29:59

#61

NantanCochise: Member; +55|6415|Portugal/United States

Very interesting

2008-01-06 18:22:22

#62

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7037|132 and Bush

OP updated with last nights debate.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums Republican Debate: The Issues

FEOS wrote:

<SS>SonderKommando wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

<SS>SonderKommando wrote:

FEOS wrote:

<SS>SonderKommando wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer