Drunk Driving lesson for Paris and other drunks

Battleborne said:
Can you also see the pattern here...the threads always go to 'conservative bashing'...it always appears as if libs are stuck like a broken record..I sure hope it is not just me who sees this!;)
Click to expand...
Seriously, dude. This is no "Conservative" war. Quite literally one of the platforms on the truly conservative platform is "No Nation-building Wars", not, it's all good if it's the WOT. Bush is not conservative by almost every measure that I know of. Not on the border, not in the war, not on constitutional issues in regard to individual rights and freedoms...

If you consider the radical agenda of the "religious right" to be conservative, can't be they aren't protecting laws they are working to get laws passed to enforce what they believe to be "right", that is radical, not conservative.... Only then could you call Bush a Conservative.
 
Darla said:
I don't know what he's talking about. I started thinking, that maybe what Damo meant was, I'm going to find you, tie you up, and slowly run my fingers...and then I don't even know what the hell else was going on here.
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
Damocles said:
We never signed that we would never go to war without permission from the UN. However, the wording of that inane "Serious Consequences" more than gives them wiggle room for that. The US did not give up their sovereignty in this matter to the UN, even in the charter. It is one of the reasons they have veto power.
Click to expand...

LOL, if we hadn't used the UN Resolution as a basis to go to invade Iraq, I'd entertain that argument. And furthermore:

"The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.""

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/uncharter.htm
 
Article 6 - Clause 2: 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.
 
Right....

LadyT said:
To some degree I do feel like a broken record. I've been warning everyone within an earshot about Bush since 2000 and I've been warning people about this war since 2002. Everything I've said about Bush & his policies have turned out to be true despite the conservative movement to put their fingers in their ears and be the apologist sheep they've been bread to be.

Once again: Operation Iraqi Freedom is an illegal war that will ultimately undermind the misnomered "war on terror". The WOT is not something that will be won with military might, only intelligence. Its not a war, but rather a heightened state of awareness and a measure of our nation's ability to obtain as much information on those that wish to do us harm.

Until we get someone in office that understands that, we're sitting ducks.
Click to expand...



Like you ever... I mean ever... went out and served your country..albeit you consider your Mommy and Daddy's Hippie movement the law of the land...give me a break here...'Charlie Manson' ring a bell??? He said he was for free love...callin' all you young ladies of the time into his cult of hate and destruction...maybe your Mom and Dad were not what you are portraying them to be...I sure hope not..if they were sorry be it unto them...if not ya are shaming their existence...the call is yours!
 
Damocles said:
Seriously, dude. This is no "Conservative" war. Quite literally one of the platforms on the truly conservative platform is "No Nation-building Wars", not, it's all good if it's the WOT. Bush is not conservative by almost every measure that I know of. Not on the border, not in the war, not on constitutional issues in regard to individual rights and freedoms...

If you consider the radical agenda of the "religious right" to be conservative, can't be they aren't protecting laws they are working to get laws passed to enforce what they believe to be "right", that is radical, not conservative.... Only then could you call Bush a Conservative.
Click to expand...

cons elected Bush thus enabling the war.....Just look a little deeper and you might see yourself there....
 
LadyT said:
LOL, if we hadn't used the UN Resolution as a basis to go to invade Iraq, I'd entertain that argument. And furthermore:

"The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.""

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/uncharter.htm
Click to expand...

I read this link twice, it does not prove your point. The US signed the Charter, but as I said, the resolution's vague wording gives them a ton of wiggle-room as well as our power to veto any action against us. As I said, specifically, the US and other permanent Security Council nations, specifically put that veto power in so that they could maintain full sovereignty under such conditions.
 
LadyT said:
Article 6 - Clause 2: 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.
Click to expand...
And you keep missing the point of the post. The resolution's vague wording gave them a ton of wiggle room, that coupled with their power of veto insures that their action will remain unpunished. The UN is only as effective as their executive power of punishment can make it... Which is relatively ineffective.
 
Okee Dokee then...

Damocles said:
Seriously, dude. This is no "Conservative" war. Quite literally one of the platforms on the truly conservative platform is "No Nation-building Wars", not, it's all good if it's the WOT. Bush is not conservative by almost every measure that I know of. Not on the border, not in the war, not on constitutional issues in regard to individual rights and freedoms...

If you consider the radical agenda of the "religious right" to be conservative, can't be they aren't protecting laws they are working to get laws passed to enforce what they believe to be "right", that is radical, not conservative.... Only then could you call Bush a Conservative.
Click to expand...

I truly misgudged you..you have drank the coolaid..I do not agree with GW on alot of issues...nor do I agree with alot of issues on the left...but hey I grew up in another era...all was good and people supported the USof A...no matter what the politcal ilk was...nor how easy a piece could be if one just caved into the mindset...sorry I was never that desparate for a Quickee...enough said!
 
uscitizen said:
cons elected Bush thus enabling the war.....Just look a little deeper and you might see yourself there....
Click to expand...
Not everybody in the R Party is a "Con", first of all. Secondly, regardless of who voted for him, it doesn't change the fact he is not "Conservative" by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Battleborne said:
I truly misgudged you..you have drank the coolaid..I do not agree with GW on alot of issues...nor do I agree with alot of issues on the left...but hey I grew up in another era...all was good and people supported the USof A...no matter what the politcal ilk was...nor how easy a piece could be if one just caved into the mindset...sorry I was never that desparate for a Quickee...enough said!
Click to expand...
Just because I don't think it is a "Conservative" war? Get real. You read much into a description of how much I don't think Bush is a Conservative.

I have never made it a secret that I don't think we should go to war without a declaration. That inevitably each time we do, and have, we end up with the same result.
 
Damocles said:
I read this link twice, it does not prove your point. The US signed the Charter, but as I said, the resolution's vague wording gives them a ton of wiggle-room as well as our power to veto any action against us. As I said, specifically, the US and other permanent Security Council nations, specifically put that veto power in so that they could maintain full sovereignty under such conditions.
Click to expand...

Article 6 - Clause 2: 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.

I don't think the constitution is vague in this instance.
 
Battleborne said:
I truly misgudged you..you have drank the coolaid..I do not agree with GW on alot of issues...nor do I agree with alot of issues on the left...but hey I grew up in another era...all was good and people supported the USof A...no matter what the politcal ilk was...nor how easy a piece could be if one just caved into the mindset...sorry I was never that desparate for a Quickee...enough said!
Click to expand...

You know, this is getting really weird.

And people say I post about sex too much! They have got to be kidding.
 
Damocles said:
And you keep missing the point of the post. The resolution's vague wording gave them a ton of wiggle room, that coupled with their power of veto insures that their action will remain unpunished. The UN is only as effective as their executive power of punishment can make it... Which is relatively ineffective.
Click to expand...

Can you please give me an example of this vague wording you speak of?
 
LadyT said:
Article 6 - Clause 2: 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.

I don't think the constitution is vague in this instance.
Click to expand...
And once more, the resolution that they cite was vaguely worded purposefully in order to be "read" that way.

And again, that does not prove the "illegality" of this war. They are now wreaking their "serious consequences" promised in the resolution.

I will again point out, specifically, that the veto power was included so that the UN could not, in these instances, dictate the actions of any of the permanent Security Council members, they added it because of this.
 
"Bull$hit it wasn't illegal. We were not granted authority by the UN Charter and the last time I checked the US is bound by treaties it signs."

1) Not if those treaties are deemed detrimental toward the safety of this country

2) We may not have had a new mandate from the UN, but we certainly had legal rights under the terms of the ceasefire agreement. Saddam had 12 years, did not live up to the terms... we removed him. The fact that Bush FUBARed the process does not change the legality of the situation.
 
"cons elected Bush thus enabling the war"

Libs elected Bush by putting up a tool like Kerry. It is ALL YOUR fault. Had you put up a moderate... no way would Bush still be in power. Instead you chose to nominate a far left tool... then you bitch and moan when he loses. You made your choice, now you have to live with it. The second term is all the fault of the libs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top