Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
What about the North American Union that GW signed without the approval of Congress or the people?
-
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
What about the North American Union that GW signed without the approval of Congress or the people?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Who's discriminating? We're just saying his age just makes it more likely for him to die, allowing Palin to take his place as president. It has nothing to do with prejudice. Old people just have a tendancy to die.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
A family photo.
I've seen this photo a ton of times, but I have to say that whoever put the "I wish I could quit you" caption in there is just too good.
I laughed out loud when I saw this.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Age-discrimination is not acceptable to me (and I do think that some of the people in this thread are guilty of it). McCain's age is not a factor in my not voting for him. There are PLENTY of other reasons not to vote for him.
Yes, because McCain is older and has a history of cancer, it increases the likelihood that he will die in the next four years. Otoh, he very well may live many more years. Otoh, I've heard people say that they won't vote for Obama because he might get assassinated. Maybe.... It's also likely that he will not. Betting on the odds of death seems to me a rather silly way to choose a president.
We now know that both Lincoln and Kennedy likely would not have survived their second terms even if they had not been killed, they were that sick. Yet they are held up as two of our greatest presidents.
McCain's age and even his health (unless he were actually impaired in doing the job, which he is not) are not concerns to me. What is a concern tho (one of many) is the running mate that he chose. Any president could die, not just McCain, and so we would want to see that his or her second in command is fit to take his or her place. Without a doubt, Biden is ready to be president. Palin is NOT. And the fact that McCain picked her says a lot about his judgment and/or how seriously he takes the duties of president of the United States.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
Im not descriminating against age either..My father was a victim of that..With a very well known company and won a law suit against them....
Im descriminating against his JUDGMENT for picking Sarah Palin as his vice persidential candidate. ESPEPECIALY KNOWING he is elderly and has a history with cancer..Its irresponsible..We all have to face our own mortality and make decisions based on that..But its even more imperitive when you will be sitting as the President of a country and have to choose someone to take that position in the case of your death or incapacitation..
Love
Dallas
Im descriminating against his JUDGMENT for picking Sarah Palin as his vice persidential candidate. ESPEPECIALY KNOWING he is elderly and has a history with cancer..Its irresponsible..We all have to face our own mortality and make decisions based on that..But its even more imperitive when you will be sitting as the President of a country and have to choose someone to take that position in the case of your death or incapacitation..
Love
Dallas
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Alceste
Vagabond
It might be overly technical - I thought it was straightforward. Bush had already begun the invasion of Iraq a year before bothering to try to get congress to vote on it. The entire year was spent flogging the impending war - which had already been decided upon even before 9-11 - rounding up lawyers and foreign policy analysts willing to say there was both a legal excuse and a legitimate security reason for the war (which had already begun) - firing all the lawyers and generals who raised objections, and pouring your tax dollars into propaganda to convince Americans the war (which had already begun) was necessary.
It logically follows, then, that some way of either bypassing congress if a "no" vote seemed likely would have been devised (after all, he was able to devise methods of bypassing UN authorisation and bypassing the Geneva convention, why not the US constitution as well?) Either that or congresspeople would have been threatened, bribed or otherwise persuaded to support the war (which was already underway). Kind of like all the members of the "coalition of the willing" were threatened, bribed and coerced to put their names on Bush's ridiculous list of international supporters.
Maybe for this to make sense one needs to be familiar with the timeline of some key events leading up to the Iraq war. Here's a timeline, if you would like to brush up.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It made sense to me. Bush started bombing Iraq three weeks before he went to Congress to seek approval for the war.
That to me says that the president is the one who decides when we go to war.
Don't you think he's called Commander-in-Chief for a reason?
It's true that Congress has not had a backbone to stand up to Bush on this, but all of this was done at his initiative. It's primarily his responsibility.
Addendum:
The only power Congress had was to cutoff funding for a war that Bush had already started.
That put them in the position of cutting off funding for troops, PEOPLE, that were already fighting and dying in Iraq.
If the president sends U.S. citizens - sons and daughters and mothers and fathers of U.S. citizens - into harms way, exactly how many in Congress do expect will vote against giving them the money they need to protect themselves.
When they even hinted at ending the war, they were accused of not supporting the troops.
What Bush did was extortion, holding our soldiers hostage in the process.
Last edited:
In the pod.He's in there somewhere.?
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
BTW, Steve Guttenberg would have made a better running mate.
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
If we could only get all his colleges to join him in his exodus.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
I think people are confusing "having the power to send troops into combat" with "the power to declare war". They are not the same. If he had started bombing 3 weeks prior to going to Congress, all Congress had to do was wait another 5 weeks or so. However, they did vote, and voted to declare war, giving Bush complete control. I am sorry if I don't buy the "extortion part". In my opinion, if you are going to be in Congress you better have the balls to tell the President "No" when it comes time. Checks and balances.
Alceste
Vagabond
If you can at least accept that Bush started the war without congressional approval, we are getting somewhere. Everything after that is semantics.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
He has the power to send in troops for 60 days. He used it. That does not really mean he started the war. There was no official war until Congress voted. And there would have been no war if Congress had said "No". I agree that the bombings could be considered the beginning of the war but that is only because Congress latter approved it. If history would have turned out different, and Congress would have turned down the war, then it would have been considered an isolated attack against Saddam that eventally did not accomplish much.
zippythepinhead
Your Tax Dollars At Work
To follow up on Apex's statement a bit here. Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq. The US Constitution gives Congress the unique power to declare war. However, that power does not have to be titled "Declaration of War Against...."
It is purely an equivalent of a declaration of war to pass a resolution supporting a president's actions on the invasion, instigation of hostilities, or any other combative military actions by Congress.
Congress may then "declare war" on another nation state or even terrorists by the following:
A formal declaration of war.
A war resolution passed by both houses of Congress.
Funding of military operations with a specific goal against an enemy of the United States ie: Vietnam War or Iraq.
Ratifying a military deployment or action already in progress.
Legislation authorizing non hostile punitive measures against an enemy of the United States.(Cold War)
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Not to nitpick, but when you say that "the bombings could be considered the beginning of the war" - I would have to ask you if you consider December 7th the day the US got into WWII, or December 8th? I know that, popularly speaking, most would say "December 7th, a day that will live in infamy".
Regardless, I agree with your statement that IF Congress had not authorized the war, it would have ended after 60 days - that is, assuming that Bush had actually honored the will of Congress and the Constitution. Back to your point - there were many members of Congress that did NOT vote to authorize the war, but unfortunately, not enough had the courage to risk the wrath of the voters. Certainly the members of Congress that were up for re-election in 04 were not going to vote against it, considering all of the challenging of patriotism that was being tossed around at that time.