Powell says Iraq surge should have come earlier

Southern Man said:
The president has the Constitutional authority to deal with threats to US citizens in any way he sees fit little man.
Click to expand...

Selling arms to a nation that is holding US citizens hostage is treasonous. Selling arms to a nation who is hostile to the USA is treasonous as well. Funds from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to the Contras. And that was plainly illegal.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you've read my signature, right? the framers of the constitution were very exact in the specific enumerated powers given to a federal government. how does one then go on to say that the constitution was written very vague to 'adapt to the dynamic nature of life and contemporaneous society'?
Click to expand...
I am so fucking tired of hearing about the framers and what they meant. If their intent was truly so sacrosanct they would have NEVER passed the Alien and Sedition Act which MANY of the framers put their name to. The Alien and Sedition Act was a pure and simple violation of the First Amendment and MANY of the framers passed that piece of shit. They had no idea what their own intent was and conservatives want to tell me what it meant? Fuck right off!
 
WinterBorn said:
Selling arms to a nation that is holding US citizens hostage is treasonous. Selling arms to a nation who is hostile to the USA is treasonous as well. Funds from the sale of weapons to Iran were diverted to the Contras. And that was plainly illegal.
Click to expand...
When you have a Democrat congress hostile to US interests then the grown-ups have to do what they have to do.
 
Socrtease said:
I am so fucking tired of hearing about the framers and what they meant. If their intent was truly so sacrosanct they would have NEVER passed the Alien and Sedition Act which MANY of the framers put their name to. The Alien and Sedition Act was a pure and simple violation of the First Amendment and MANY of the framers passed that piece of shit. They had no idea what their own intent was and conservatives want to tell me what it meant? Fuck right off!
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with limited government? and the first amendment is not unlimited....
 
Southern Man said:
When you have a Democrat congress hostile to US interests then the grown-ups have to do what they have to do.
Click to expand...

No, that is just bullshit. If Congress passes a law then the president (by virtue of his oath) has to abide by that law.
 
Damocles said:
And in moments of "no, duh" in history...

I spent years saying that we shouldn't have gone without a declaration and that it was unconscionable that when we did anyway we did not provide enough manpower to give Iraqis security to help them rebuild quickly so that we could get the heck back out of there...


The surge was definitely something that should have happened earlier, it should have been from the beginning if we were going in, but even earlier than that Congress should have exercised a bit of their own power.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is 20/20. We'll know about this for future wars that hopefully we won't wage.
 
Southern Man said:
You should be free to live however you want as you described yourself fat gut stinky feet just dont expect me to pay your heath care bills I noticed that you didnt dispute my accusation that you hate the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how about we keep everyone healthy and pay for the health bills when anyone needs it? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than the lose-lose situation you just proposed.
 
Socrtease said:
I am so fucking tired of hearing about the framers and what they meant. If their intent was truly so sacrosanct they would have NEVER passed the Alien and Sedition Act which MANY of the framers put their name to. The Alien and Sedition Act was a pure and simple violation of the First Amendment and MANY of the framers passed that piece of shit. They had no idea what their own intent was and conservatives want to tell me what it meant? Fuck right off!
Click to expand...

It is complete and total bullshit that they try to claim to be "originalists". Look, I latch onto the Hamilton definition of the commerce clause. It's been in practice for more than two hundred years. And yet right-wingers claim that the Madison interpretation is correct and there can be no other way to think about it and that anyone who thinks differently just doesn't believe in the constitution. Actually, the only reason they support the Madison definition is because it colludes with their anarchist intentions. But these pretentious "literalists" falsely claim to be above it.
 
Southern Man said:
When you have a Democrat congress hostile to US interests then the grown-ups have to do what they have to do.
Click to expand...

Wow. There's a constitutional literalist there. If Dems control congress and a "grown-up" (IE idiot) is in power, then he can do whatever he likes and ignore all that nonsense in Article One.
 
Southern Man said:
He has an oath to protect the interests of the US dummy.
Click to expand...

He has? Please show me that oath. He did take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And the US Constitution gives Congres the power to pass laws. It does not give the president the authority to break those laws in order to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government in another country.
 
WinterBorn said:
He has? Please show me that oath. He did take an oath to uphold the Constitution. And the US Constitution gives Congres the power to pass laws. It does not give the president the authority to break those laws in order to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government in another country.
Click to expand...
The Constitution requires him to protect the interests of this country in spite of what the Democrats will attempt to do to it little man.
 
Southern Man said:
The Constitution requires him to protect the interests of this country in spite of what the Democrats will attempt to do to it little man.
Click to expand...

When congress passes a law forbidding any government involvement or support of terrorist forces trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of another nation the president does not have the authority to go ahead and send money to the terrorists. (and that is least of what Reagan did in Nicaragua)

When Congress passes a law the president has some options but he cannot break that law. Your position that he can ignore laws in order to "protect the interests of this country" is insane.

Those "Freedom Fighters" that Reagan was funding raped, tortured and murdered thens of thousands of innocent civilians. They were trying to overthrow the democratically elected government.
 
WinterBorn said:
When congress passes a law forbidding any government involvement or support of terrorist forces trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of another nation the president does not have the authority to go ahead and send money to the terrorists. (and that is least of what Reagan did in Nicaragua)

When Congress passes a law the president has some options but he cannot break that law. Your position that he can ignore laws in order to "protect the interests of this country" is insane.

Those "Freedom Fighters" that Reagan was funding raped, tortured and murdered thens of thousands of innocent civilians. They were trying to overthrow the democratically elected government.
Click to expand...
And the democratic elections were fair, just like Iran's. :rolleyes:
 
Southern Man said:
And the democratic elections were fair, just like Iran's. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, they were fair elections. And it is not the job of the United States to either play world policeman or to fund/supply terrorist organizations trying to overthrow fairly elected governments.

There may have been problems but the US was directly responsible for backing the brutal dictator who was overthrown by revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top