Yeah; it's the terrorists who decide.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What IF McCain Wins? What Will You Do?
- Thread starter zippythepinhead
- Start date
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It was Bush who decided that we were going to war with Iraq.
I know you're going to say that constitutionally, he doesn't have the power to declare war.
But functionally he does.
On the eve of the Iraq war, when Bush had ramped up his rhetoric and moved aircraft carriers into the Gulf and pointed everything at Iraq, I was still arguing with my brother about how unfounded this impending war was. And his response was that we had no choice, because the president had already positioned us such that everything we did said we were going to war. If we didn't follow thru, we would look weak. On the one hand, I think this mentality is problematic. But otoh, knowing that many people think like my brother, I realized that even tho we hadn't officially declared yet, Bush had already won the fight over whether we were going to fight.
The president can't officially declare war. But he can position the U.S. in such a way that the country feels it has to go along with it. Bush has done it. Other presidents have done it.
Functionally, the president decides when we go to war.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Technically, the President does have the authority.
According to the War Powers Act (which, ironically enough, was intended to limit the President in his power), the President can commit armed forces to military action - but he has to notify Congress within 48 hours. It further states that the President cannot keep them engaged beyond 60 days without a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of the military force.
After the famous "Mission Accomplished" farce, it should be clear that 60 days is a significant amount of time with today's technology.
Beyond all of that, with a President like Lord Bush, it is obvious that he can simply issue a signing statement, and then do as he wishes. That would then put Congress in the position of having to take the time to "trump" the President in terms of controlling the military. Prior to Lord Bush, I think that entire scenario was ridiculously absurd, but after the last eight years of watching this administration shred our Constitution, I realize that it is actually a possibility.
According to the War Powers Act (which, ironically enough, was intended to limit the President in his power), the President can commit armed forces to military action - but he has to notify Congress within 48 hours. It further states that the President cannot keep them engaged beyond 60 days without a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of the military force.
After the famous "Mission Accomplished" farce, it should be clear that 60 days is a significant amount of time with today's technology.
Beyond all of that, with a President like Lord Bush, it is obvious that he can simply issue a signing statement, and then do as he wishes. That would then put Congress in the position of having to take the time to "trump" the President in terms of controlling the military. Prior to Lord Bush, I think that entire scenario was ridiculously absurd, but after the last eight years of watching this administration shred our Constitution, I realize that it is actually a possibility.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I hope that never happens. Its already bad enough with how many extreme liberal nut jobs we got here. Imagine what it would be like if we flooded it with the same amount of right wing nut jobs?
Could you site some examples of "extreme liberal nut jobs" here at RF? Most people here strike me as rather rational.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Because McCain is practically a walking corpse, meaning Palin could be a heart attack away from the presidency.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Playing the age card are we?
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Alceste
Vagabond
The "age card"? Since when is the average life expectancy of an American man a "card"? If he lives 4 more years, he'll have beat the odds by a whole year.
You have never heard of age discrimination? What is the difference between choosing a candidate because of race and choosing because of age?
Alceste
Vagabond
Well since the concern with McCain is that he's going to DIE SOON, and the concern with Obama is that he doesn't happen to be white, I think you are talking about two completely different issues.
Although I think the nearness-to-death "card" would not be so pressing an issue for most voters if McCain had made an intelligent pick for VP.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
No, playing the realism card.
Alceste
Vagabond
Reverend Rick said:
BTW, I just did this at a job interview and selected the younger applicant not because of her age, but because of the computer literacy she was able to demonstrate as a direct result of her age. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to hire the old lady, but I didn't want to bring her up to date on how the world works now as opposed to back in the days of carbon triplicate and type writers. Is it less important for the leader of a country to be familiar with contemporary issues and technologies?
Anyway, where I come from people retire at 65. By 72, my grandfather was building lovely furniture in his garage for pleasure and going for long seaside walks with my grandmother when he wasn't recovering from surgeries, minor strokes and heart attacks. People should have peace and free time when their bodies and mental faculties start to fail. They shouldn't be trying to be president of the United States.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Because someone who is really old and in poor health is more likely to die than someone who is young and in good health. That's just the reality of life.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
You know if I called names we would have a flame fest. And yes, most people here are rational, but not all. All it takes are a few extreme (whether its to the right or left) posters, turning out a substantially large volume of posts, to ruin it.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
One question for everyone who thinks the President now has full power to bring this Country to war.
Do you place any blame on Congress, who is the only entity legally given the right to declare war, for the US entering the current war? And, if so, can you please explain why they are never mentioned when blame for this war is discussed?
Do you place any blame on Congress, who is the only entity legally given the right to declare war, for the US entering the current war? And, if so, can you please explain why they are never mentioned when blame for this war is discussed?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, it depends on how you define war. Technically we're not at war now.
I DO blame Congress for handing Dubya a blank check, but he's the one who used it.
Obama's life expectancy may be shorter than McCains for all we know. My Father is in his 80's and walks 18 holes of golf every day, (4 miles). He shoots in the high 70's and low 80's. Age is just a number and your prejudice of age is despicable.
I would have thought better of some of you acting like McCain has one foot in the grave.
As far as a VP pick, having an unpopular VP has it's advantages. Just ask GWB.
