A challenge for both right & left

evince said:
so gassing your own people to a man woman and child is fine?

your a sociopath
Click to expand...

It’s better to bomb the shit out of them even though they are no threat to us and we have everything to lose and nothing to gain by playing the roll God, right fatty shitty panties?
 
Anti-Party said:
Libertarians are the only party that is smart about war. It's not about "Make love, not war" and it's not about "Putin offended us! Let's bomb him *beats chest*"

It's the ability to differentiate Unnecessary war from Necessary war that America has lost. War is expensive in cost and we lose many soldiers/parents/children/family in the process of war. War is not something to be taken lightly and the American people should know all the information behind the reason for war if war is started.

I say make love, and make war when it's necessary. But focus on diplomacy when possible because the pen is mightier than the sword.
Click to expand...

Another incredibly naive fool who thinks despots, dictators and tyrants can be reasoned with.

I am amused that Libertarians fancy themselves as anything higher than the same moronic naiveté’ as a Liberal.

Next you will be telling us that America is a war monger nation that is a greater threat to security and freedom than Mao. :rolleyes:
 
Truth Detector said:
Another incredibly naive fool who thinks despots, dictators and tyrants can be reasoned with.

I am amused that Libertarians fancy themselves as anything higher than the same moronic naiveté’ as a Liberal.

Next you will be telling us that America is a war monger nation that is a greater threat to security and freedom than Mao. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What’s your foreign policy plan especially in Syria BIG fucking SHOT, know-it-all, rightwing neo-con moron? Oh! Maybe ya better check with your war mongering bastards Obama buddies McCain and Graham, huh?
 
Classic Liberal said:
What’s your foreign policy plan especially in Syria BIG fucking SHOT, know-it-all, rightwing neo-con moron? Oh! Maybe ya better check with your war mongering bastards Obama buddies McCain and Graham, huh?
Click to expand...

Why would I respond to such a vulgar childish rant that illustrates an incredible dullard who would rather Bloviate than debate? Would it make a dent in your incredibly thick vulgar skull? I'm thinking it would not make a difference so I will abide by the sage advice to not attempt argumentation with an idiot like you; you will merely attempt to drag me down to your dullard level, then beat me with experience.
 
What should this administration do about Syria, a nation it has chosen to all but ignore so far; it's an interesting question.

At this stage of the game, the best things to not do are engage in blustery rhetoric you cannot enforce. You cannot draw a redline, then foist responsibility for that rhetoric onto the UN, your allies and Republicans in the minority. That's just dumb and makes you look stupid and innefective.

The best policy for America to take now is to denounce BOTH sides for the casualties, support Turkey and Jordan with financial aid for all the refugees, and if you are not going to send in troops to end fighting on both sides, which could be costly and unpopular, stay out of the civil war and argue for the parties sitting together to find a peaceful diplomatic solution.

In addition, America should clearly declare it cannot take a side in such conflicts or arm either side to continue the killing.

The unclear innefective acts of this administration have been a total failure because it is not clear, decisive and comprehensive. How did our policies work for us in Libya?

You cannot lead with innefective rhetoric you are not willing to back up. You also cannot lead without the support of the American people. You also cannot argue for war when you spent the earlier part of your career impugning your predecessors for engaging in wars, it makes you look stupid and shallow.

Last but never least is this historic reality; you cannot negotiate with despots, dictators, tyrants or terrorists. Such parties and individuals are liars, manipulators and see any attempts to debate as opportunity to bide time to group and regroup their efforts. They are uninterested in Democracy or peaceful outcomes. Anyone who does not understand this reality are too painfully stupid and naive to be President; unfortunately for us, thanks to low information dullards, this is our current reality with this President.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution, “The Congress shall have the power to………declare war…….”

Article Six, United States Constitution…..”This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Article Five, United States Constitution.”The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, ……….”

I challenge any and all rightist and or leftist to explain how the Congress can and has passed a “War Powers Resolution” that overrides that constitutional clause without a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

The war powers resolution limits the presidents ability to use their police powers outside of a formal declaration of war. The condition never clearly states what additional powers a formal declaration gives, and it never clearly limits military action outside of a formal declaration (which was, in part, intentional on the part of Madison). So, over time, a formal war declaration has largely become a nice formality. Regardless, congress ultimately has the power of the purse, and thus the right to limit unilateral executive use of informal war like activities, a right they asserted with the war powers act.
 
Liberty said:
I'm still trying to figure out how I lost the right to my property to the 16th amendment. But I did?
Click to expand...

Previous to the 16th amendment, direct taxes were required to be levied in proportion to a states population. So, income taxes were technically legal, it's just that poorer states would be hit harder relative to their wealth. The sixteenth amendment merely eliminated this requirement.

Regardless, income is not property, no reasonable person would say that taxes are a violation of a right to property, and there is no explicit right to property in the constitution. Go cry somewhere else.
 
Hitomi's Tanakas said:
Previous to the 16th amendment, direct taxes were required to be levied in proportion to a states population. So, income taxes were technically legal, it's just that poorer states would be hit harder relative to their wealth. The sixteenth amendment merely eliminated this requirement.

Regardless, income is not property, no reasonable person would say that taxes are a violation of a right to property, and there is no explicit right to property in the constitution. Go cry somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Ummm yes there is....
 
Classic Liberal said:
At least the bastards passed an amendment even though it contradicts every other principle of the Constitution and flies in the face of freedom.
Click to expand...

Ah, the apportioning of direct taxes on the states proportional to population. Truly a Keystone if the constitution, on par with freedom of speech, press, and the solution of slavery (so, far, far inferior to the right to individually own any weapon you want and shoot black people). What freedom is there if your direct taxes aren't levied proportion to a states population, I say? There is none, only anarchy and tyranny remain after such a brazen seizure of power. All we libertarians are left with is the ability to whine in endless butthurt on the internet about the fact that we must play by societies rules to live in it! Oh, woe is me!
 
Hitomi's Tanakas said:
The war powers resolution limits the presidents ability to use their police powers outside of a formal declaration of war.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution do we find the authority of the “President’s Police Powers” relative to war making activities?

The condition never clearly states what additional powers a formal declaration gives, and it never clearly limits military action outside of a formal declaration (which was, in part, intentional on the part of Madison).
Click to expand...

“Additional powers?” As far as I can tell, the only war powers given to a President by the Constitution is his power to be “Commander & Chief” in the prosecution of wars.

So, over time, a formal war declaration has largely become a nice formality. Regardless, congress ultimately has the power of the purse, and thus the right to limit unilateral executive use of informal war like activities, a right they asserted with the war powers act.
Click to expand...

In my opinion all war powers act/resolution are unconstitutional and in effect a corruption of the Constitution. The Congress has always had the sole constitutional power to decide the use of military force and any additions or subtractions to and from that power can only become constitutional law by amendment to the Constitution.

If the founders and writers of the Constitution left something out of the Constitution one thing they didn’t leave out was Article 5, the power of the Congress and or the States to amend the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top