-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm not stopping anybody from posting. i'm just tired of the right-left wing bickering... (from both side) our nation is in worse trouble right now than it was right after 9-11. we have made little progress in the so-called "war on terror". if anything? the VaTech situation should put an exclamation point on the fact that there is no defense against terrorists, all you can do is build a society that creates as few nuts as possible and that can only happen when everybody addresses serious/difficult issues head on without flinching... last week everybody was claiming Imus had done serious harm to some kids... toady? we are reminded again what real harm is...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Great Seal Remarks and Explanation – June 20, 1782
The Escutcheon is composed of the chief & pale, the two most honorable ordinaries. The Pieces, paly, represent the several states all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union. The pales in the arms are kept closely united by the chief and the Chief depends upon that union & the strength resulting from it for its support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America & the preservation of their union through Congress.
The colours of the pales are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valor, and Blue, the colour of the Chief signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice. The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The Constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other sovereign powers. The Escutcheon is born on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own Virtue.–
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i hope everybody noted this: The Olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress.
for right and left wingers? this is what the founding fathers intended. the President Executes War. the congress is the "Decider" of war(not Dubya). if we aren't going to wage war in Iraq? Congress will have to pass a clear resolution.... I haven't looked it up yet? But i suspect that if Congress passes a resolution on withdrawing from Iraq? Dubya has no veto power. Since they are only working thru budgetary means right now? Dubya does have veto power.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...."
I think you may be misreading the Constitution, as it specifically awards to the Congress, not the President, the power to "To raise and support Armies", "To provide and maintain a Navy", "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.
I see no provision there for any veto power by the president in funding or providing troups at war.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no provision there for any veto power by the president in funding or providing troups at war.
that's why the funding is thru a budget supplementla and not a war-funding bill...
what i'm trying to point out is that BOTH sides are playing a political game with each other..
if Congress really decides to pull out? all they have to do is vote on that...
as i've stated dozens of times before? we can't just pull out, just for starters? there are 10 million or so middle-class Iraqi depending on US to fix this... i don't hear people talking about normal people anymore, just terrorists and fanatics.
the political gamesmanship needs to stop and these folks need to have some serious dialog in search of a rational solution.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Congress has the sole power of "maintaining" the navy and "supporting the army". Maintaining and supporting include financing. Even Washington was not aqllowed to supercede the Contenental Congress on funding, which, I am sure he would have had he been able. Those guys were quite jealous of the power they allowed for war.
By the wording of the Constitution, the president is restricted to acting as commander in chief of the military and then only provided 2/3rds of the senate present agree. There is no Constitutional veto power for the president on maintaining, supporting, or funding the military. Any that is assumed is exactly that, assumed ..... not Constitutional.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
not Constitutional. that's what i'm trying to point out bdgee.
Reid and Pelosi know this too..
they are NOT trying to pull out of Iraq.. they are trying to send a message to the Iraqi's that US time and patience is running out. It's a complicated dance, and the US politicians are playing a turf-war game of their own... Cheney comes right out and openly says that his goal is to increase the power of the Prez...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheney's eventual goal is to alter the form of government of the Country by morphing it into fascism. Empowering the Presidency so as to make it independent and superior to Congress and the judiciary is only one step toward that goal.
The Party first hijackers of the republican party that now control the Administration, with a belief that they can construct (by hook or crook) "permanent" republican Party control of the Government, stand shoulder to shoulder with Cheney in efforts to undermine the Constitution and alter our form of government.
Party before Country they cry.
It is the same formula they used in Germany to achieve that goal in 1933.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it started well before Cheney got into office bdgee... when i lived in SE VA in the 90's i spent alot of time around spec force teams from the marines and the navy...
a lot of CAREER people were not re-enlisting because they were being required to sign forms that they considered to be contrary to the posse camitatus laws... since i left the area? i have no idea what they are signing these days. the rumors today are not good, but they are only rumors...
Civilian and uniformed military lawyers said provisions in several federal statutes, including the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Department Authorization Act, Public Law 106-65, permits the secretary of defense to authorize military forces to support civilian agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the event of a national emergency, especially any involving nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
In 1998, the Pentagon's top policy official, Walter B. Slocombe, acknowledged that the military had covert-action teams.
"We have designated special-mission units that are specifically manned, equipped and trained to deal with a wide variety of transnational threats," Mr. Slocombe told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "These units, assigned to or under the operational control of the U.S. Special Operations Command, are focused primarily on those special operations and supporting functions that combat terrorism and actively counter terrorist use of W.M.D. These units are on alert every day of the year and have worked extensively with their interagency counterparts."
this was going on under Clinton too... that's why i say this right-left stuff is hog-wash..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This country needs someone who cares about the U.S.
Not their POS campaign and how much money they can raise.
Its all a pathetic...
I am voting for who promises least.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen state adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."
"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
Oh by the way..... Did you know the fastest way to get service in the E.R at your local florida hospital.
Wear a border patrol shirt.... The room generally clears in less than a minute.
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i agree with most everything in your post but this:
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Bush may have "won land" but he didn't win the areas with the most and highest taxpayers... the "blue" states pay higher taxes by a very large margin.....
for instance? Texas and Fla don't even pay state income tax...
Taxes paid in the northeast are the highest in the nation...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This map of the most recent census data (for 2003) shows an interesting divide: Blue States are those whose median income for a family of four exceeds the U.S. median of $65,093, while Red States are those whose median income is less than the U.S. median: [IMG]http://www.lawprofessor** **s.com/taxprof/linkimages/redblueincome.gif[/IMG]
Note the eerie similarity with the 2004 presidential election map: [IMG]http://www.lawprofessorbl ogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/redblueelection.gif[/IMG]
you'll have to go here ands see them: the word B log is censored out:
The thing I have a problem with and this is not a bash on dems or rep. is that this country is giving, giving, giving.....
What happens to a child when you give them everything they want???
Thats right they get spoiled. As americans we expect to much from our govt.
Its time to earn a living not ask for a living.
Many ask why support Bush?
My #1 reason is because he is the president of the greatest nation on earth.
This bipartisan B.S is great and understood but comprehending the goal of each and coming to mutual agreements that better the nation as a whole should be the focus for the future.
If the next prez. is dem than so be it. I will support them as well.
Its time to look past the political vantage point and focus on America as a child that needs rearing to embrace the supreme qualities of life.
This is our baby----we must honor and treat her with respect.
PS. I love this country!
Posts: 6410 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
and with all due respect (to you and other thoughtful, polite people)? if the next president is Dem? i will still point out what i think is wrong with their job... unless? Congress actually does declare war on another country...
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149 May 7, 1918
Theodore Roosevelt
i bet i woulda had something nasty to say about him too, once inawhile
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey Surfer, it appears your surfing in shark infested waters.....
I voted for the guy and no longer support him...thats my right in this country...thats patriotism...what youre saying sounds more like romantic nationalism
please keep in mind, Dubya is a public servant....not a king. He works for us..he has to answer to us...not the other way around
WOW...How the hell did he do that??
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Tain't the niceness of the water that's in question, but that of the creature therein.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing is for sure, the garbage is the same on the left and right wing threads
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are both takin' the golden rule and beatin' we the people over the head with it. They don't care about U.S., they only care about their pockets.
Posts: 2634 | From: The highway | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
