Jump to content

Desperate Iraqi Refugees Turn to Sex Trade in Syria


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Again we double back into the tired argument of not doing what we CAN do because of the other things we can do nothing about.

Bush can't do anything about holding hands and kissing the leader of the nation where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from?

Bush can't do anything about the Saudis who got flights out of the U.S. without being questioned - even though it turns out Bin Laden may have directly financed and arranged their departure according to the FBI?

Bush can however invade a nation that never attacked us, never threatened to attack us, and never possessed the capability to attack us. Bush can spend hundreds of billions of dollars dumping into a nation to set up a theocracy.

Right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how the people that have never been to Iraq, do not know people that have been to and are in Iraq, completly mistate what we are doing there.

Your ignorance is astounding, I actually thought you knew better.

Oh well.

History repeats itself, the media has brainwashed you with the nonsense and lies they have been spewing and convinced you that it's the truth.

Sad, just sad.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I love how the people that have never been to Iraq, do not know people that have been to and are in Iraq, completly mistate what we are doing there.

Your ignorance is astounding, I actually thought you knew better.

Oh well.

History repeats itself, the media has brainwashed you with the nonsense and lies they have been spewing and convinced you that it's the truth.

Sad, just sad.....

I know you aren't talking to me. I know multiple people - my best friend who was the best man at my wedding has been to Iraq for over a year and was shot there. My cousin has been to Iraq 3 times and will soon be going back again. He is going back because it is his duty - both of them think the whole thing is b.s. and that the Iraqis do not want us there.

They don't buy into the misinformation that is pushed out - they went because they signed contracts that said they could be called upon to defend the constitution and the homeland. They are doing neither in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Bush can't do anything about the Saudis who got flights out of the U.S. without being questioned - even though it turns out Bin Laden may have directly financed and arranged their departure according to the FBI?

Yeah, you're right - the president of the US has time to micro-manage every little detail of a nation of nearly 300 million people.

I know you can't help yourself but to be anti-Bush about EVERYTHING thusly overcoming your ability to objectively see issues individually, but I'm going to ask that you try.

quote:


Or IIRC, the current administration has also been caught publishing propaganda disguised as what appeared as real documentaries or interviews on US medias.

LOL! That's rich. If its BAD news its credible media at work, and if its GOOD news it MUST be mere propaganda...

I tend to know that the situation as a whole is somewhere in between.

I guess its hard to arrive at that conclusion if you have an agenda, however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


This list isn't exhaustive by any means: I dislike seeing the russians meddling in a few former USSR republics, I dislike seeing the chinese meddling in Tibet...

I agree on those two points. Considering the former, I especially find this meddling dangerous as Putin seems to be attempting to centralize control.

quote:


Btw I can give you a list of over 30 countries where the USA have intervened since WW2, and in some cases even induced the fall of DEMOCRATICALLY elected regimes, but why do I suppose that this does not interest you the slightest ?

There are things we have done that I have both agreed and disagreed with.

I'm more concerned with the right now.

Your list doesn't concern me in the slightest not because it is unimportant but because it is irrelevent to this discussion.

quote:


Therefore yes I do have an agenda: everybody at HOME. So, now your turn, what's your agenda ? "Free" the world, and as UNEXPECTED side effect induce the creation of a global order which circumstancially should be as sympathetic as possible towards US interests ?

Did you forget that there may be an unintended side-effect to "everybody at HOME"?

I support something in between. A global order would indeed be disastrous however to bury our heads in sand and xenophobia could be equally disastrous.

quote:


But they didn't, and there's a reason why they didn't: the foreseeable mess you are in today, and unfortunately, the mess you have caused not only in ONE country, but the direct destabilizing repercussions on the four other countries lying around.

Yeah, the French have forsight. Kinda like the forseeable mess their workers protection laws have thrust their economy into. Good one, buddy.

And isn't it amazing that when there are over 15 murders (IIRC) in Chicago over a recent weekend it makes 3rd page news. But where to do you think the headline "5 Iraqis Killed" was placed?

That's not destablization - that's media bias.

As to why France didn't go to Iraq, here's a quote from Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Minister of Foreign affairs: we didn't go militarily into Iraq because President Chirac clearly said that France will always be on the side of international law which has to be decreed by the international community and so by the United Nations. As we don't think that unilateralism is a way of responding to crises, he chose not to go into Iraq militarily.

Umm, care to explain to him what the term "unilateral" means? Furthermore, if we use his context wouldn't the conflict have been even "LESS unilateral" if France had signed on?

Even so, doesn't seem that foresight had a lot to do with it...

And if you're SO concerned about globalization, this kind of thinking out of France should frighten you - not make you feel vindicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

Bush can't do anything about the Saudis who got flights out of the U.S. without being questioned - even though it turns out Bin Laden may have directly financed and arranged their departure according to the FBI?

Yeah, you're right - the president of the US has time to micro-manage every little detail of a nation of nearly 300 million people.

I know you can't help yourself but to be anti-Bush about EVERYTHING thusly overcoming your ability to objectively see issues individually, but I'm going to ask that you try.


I find it curious that no other planes were allowed off the ground after 9/11 - but Bin laden's relatives had U.S. airspace to themselves without being questioned.

The F.B.I. further covered this up by redacting all information until Judicial Watch (a Conservative group) sued them under the Freedom of Information Act.

Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here." Where does the buck stop with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I find it curious that no other planes were allowed off the ground after 9/11 - but Bin laden's relatives had U.S. airspace to themselves without being questioned.

The F.B.I. further covered this up by redacting all information until Judicial Watch (a Conservative group) sued them under the Freedom of Information Act.

Harry Truman used to have a sign on his desk that said "The buck stops here." Where does the buck stop with you?


You're repeating yourself. It is a common and acknowledged fact that Bin Laden's relatives left the country after 9/11. It is also a KNOWN FACT that the FBI allowed this to happen.

Now unless you're STUPID enough to pretend that POTUS should be directly overseeing the operations of the justice department, ESPECIALLY during a time of INTERNATIONAL CRISIS, you should probably drop this point as it really has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

I mean, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - someone that somehow thinks the Iraq war is unConstitutional (while also not providing HOW after SEVERAL requests) WOULD probably be someone that thinks that the government works in such a way that POTUS would be able to oversee such an action by the FBI...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was covered up until now is that Bin Laden directly financed and planned his relatives exit from the United States... or didn't you bother reading?

I do indeed find it curious that this could happen considering Bush had ordered all planes grounded. The F.B.I. is a part of the executive branch.

The head of the executive branch is George W. Bush. He is responsible for those under his command - even if he couldn't stop it at the time - he owes it to the United States to find answers instead of piling up a huge denial to hide behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


What was covered up until now is that Bin Laden directly financed and planned his relatives exit from the United States... or didn't you bother reading?

Apparently YOU weren't bothering to read in 2002 when this was originally reported.

Good coverup.

You'd do better to stick to your actual logical libertarian arguments against the war than to go with Michael Moore-style talking points.

Oh yeah, and that report was later DEBUNKED by the same 9/11 Commission who's report you love to revel in: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

You should try researching your allegations a little more.

quote:


I do indeed find it curious that this could happen considering Bush had ordered all planes grounded. The F.B.I. is a part of the executive branch.

Umm, unfortunately for your argument, it didn't happen while all planes were grounded. Oops.

quote:


The head of the executive branch is George W. Bush. He is responsible for those under his command - even if he couldn't stop it at the time - he owes it to the United States to find answers instead of piling up a huge denial to hide behind.

Yeah, sure, buddy. Keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strawman Alert!

If you would read the original link I provided, FBI documents were recently released (After both the 9/11 Commission Report & the Snopes article) which were in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

I concede the point that the planes took off during a time in which general aviation was not fully grounded. However - that does not negate the point that bin Laden's relatives got out of this country virtually unquestioned and with this latest report it appears that Osama helped arrange it.

If true - this puts an interesting light on our friends the Saudis whom are your favorite terror sponsors to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are all your friends that have been to Iraq, hide in their rooms? Do they go out and actually meet the people? Did they actually attempt to make friends with them, or are they typical arrogant international travelers who believe they are better then the people that surround them?

I was in Turnkey for over 18 months, 80% of the guys in my unit were miserable, OMG, I'm in Turkey, what a cesspool, what a bunch of fanatics, ETC, ETC, I am miserable here, I wanna go back to the states, they don't want us here, ETC, etc.

I had a BALL in Turkey, I had so many Turkish friends, and spoke the language so well, that I was the ONLY soldier allowed off post during "High terrorist activity" alerts.

I have numerous friends that are IN Iraq, have been IN Iraq, and are going to BACK to Iraq, because they VOLUNTEERED to go back to Iraq, because they feel it is THAT important.

They have a job to do, and they wish to get on with it, the one thing they wish is that the politicians would get the hell out of the way and allow the military to actually DO IT'S FRICKING JOB!!!

Yeah, you're friends whine, but they sound like the typical American soldiers that I served with in Turkey, part of that 80%. That 80% will get you killed, I hung out with the other 20%, the soldiers that knew their job was just as much diplomacy and helping, as it was to make war.

I am sorry that they don't understand their duty, yeah, they signed a contract, but if they really cared about their country, instead of that GI college fund, they would actually understand what they were there for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


If you would read the original link I provided, FBI documents were recently released (After both the 9/11 Commission Report & the Snopes article) which were in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

I concede the point that the planes took off during a time in which general aviation was not fully grounded. However - that does not negate the point that bin Laden's relatives got out of this country virtually unquestioned and with this latest report it appears that Osama helped arrange it.

If true - this puts an interesting light on our friends the Saudis whom are your favorite terror sponsors to ignore.


*Kool Aid ALERT!!!*

If that was your whole point, $ilk, then why did you attempt to back it up with this:

quote:


I do indeed find it curious that this could happen considering Bush had ordered all planes grounded. The F.B.I. is a part of the executive branch.

Furthermore, where did you even GET that idea as in the documents backing up the very story you cited state otherwise?

Forget "strawmanning". Try, "grasping at straws".

Even IF there's something to this, it would be more of an indictment of the FBI and NOT Bush. To suggest so is pure silliness and shows a total lack of understanding on how the government and its agencies work.

...and this is particularly funny:

quote:


ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE
SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN
THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND

Must've been Bin Laden, right? Couldn't be the "OR", could it?

This is why it is important to maintain at least SOME semblance of objectivity. It would suggest that you're simply reading what you want it to say.

The sad part is that you really want it to say those things. Tsk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Must've been Bin Laden, right? Couldn't be the "OR", could it?

Couldn't be the fact that both times I mentioned it I said:

"may have" the first time and "if true" the second time.

Do you believe it is worth a closer look given that we have new information on the subject?

Judicial Watch is hardly a kool-aid organization like Newsmax.com.

Your knee-jerk defense to anything anti-Bush/anti-Republican is something you should look at. I fully admit that I have no faith in the majority of politicians in Washington. My personal feelings on the matter are that the vast majority of them are there for the acquisition and holding of power - and that the Washington climate breeds arrogance.

When I look at the tax system I don't shrug my shoulders and think that is the way it has to be. I believe we can do better and I will fight for those ideals even against deeply entrenched lobbyists. When I look at Social Security - I can do the math and know exactly how fast the system will bankrupt itself. I believe we can do better.

And yes - I look at the 'war' in Iraq and I believe we could have done better. When we go to war, we should declare war, fight it, win it, then come home - but we should not go into a war for political reasons or to enforce UN resolutions.

I despise Orwellian named legislation such as the 'Patriot Act'. I despise the immigration bill going through the Senate this week. I despise most of what goes on in Washington.

I love my country - but that love does not extend to the federal government. At best it is a necessary evil, at worst it is tyrannical.

I am saddened that people such as yourself believe deep within yourself that you hold Conservative principles - but you cilng for dear life to the one thing that reminds you of Reagan - the 'tough image' of Bush fighting terrorism - that you seem almost blinded to the virtual abandonment of every core issue that matters. Decreased federal spending? Sorry - Bush has spent more than the other 42 presidents combined. Decreased government size? Sorry - Bush has added more Federal Bureacracy than any President I can think of. Bush is the only President since Jimmy Carter to increase both discretionary spending and regular spending.

But... if you are an embryo scheduled for a trip to the dumpster - fear not. Bush will veto any bill that provides federal funding for research on you.

Not that I disagree really... less federal spending at least... it just seems to be the only part of his base that he courts are the fundamentalist pseudo christians who seem as bad as the race warlords at ginning up division to increase their wealth.

What grand vision did the G.O.P. give us other than "The Democrats won't be tough on terror!"? It isn't like things are really different now under the Democrats. You still have an open border policy, and bidding at the public trough.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

Don't worry though - my vote will be "wasted" on the only candidate who is consistent and stands by his principles. You claim he is 'consistently wrong' but other than the Iraq War what exactly do you disagree with him on?

If your choice is:

War with Iraq and abandonment of all conservative principles.

OR

No war with Iraq and fully embracing all conservative principles and implementing them as policy.

Why do you feel the need to choose the first?

I believe we should focus on the homefront first. The main reason I'm angry at Bush is that he squandered the opportunity to effect lasting change on the political landscape and cement conservatism for the next decade. Instead they planned how much money they could shuffle off to Halliburton in a war of choice.

Sad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Your knee-jerk defense to anything anti-Bush/anti-Republican is something you should look at.

Huh? Do you actually READ? Where / how am I defending Bush / Republicans?

I'm simply pointing out that your arguments and assertions of that, SOMEHOW, the Presidency would be involved in individuals leaving the country is ABSURD. In fact, YOU'RE the one leveling the accusations against Republicans / Bush; your sources are simply calling it like it is.

That would seem to indicate that the only "knee-jerking" here would be yours. Evidently, everything that *MAY* have gone wrong must be SOMEHOW related to Bush and Republicans, right?

Read what I wrote again. I'm in the middle - not you. Why is it that your only defense of your CLEAR errors always involves you attempting to malign someone else with YOUR follys?

I'll tell you what - I've read the rest of your rant and find it to be absurd as usual. So here's the deal: If your basing the Iraq War being flawed on that it is unconstitutional I'm just going to wait (and wait, and wait, and wait) until you show me how. And then I'll address the rest of these absurdities.

You think that I'm blindly a Bush backer, somehow. I've demonstrated several times that I am not and that I'm an issue-by-issue individual.

I think you're just hiding the fact that your BLINDLY anti-war.

So prove it. Show me how its unconstitutional and we'll carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I'll tell you what - I've read the rest of your rant and find it to be absurd as usual. So here's the deal: If your basing the Iraq War being flawed on that it is unconstitutional I'm just going to wait (and wait, and wait, and wait) until you show me how. And then I'll address the rest of these absurdities.


I'll condense the several times I've written this down so that you can comprehend (or ignore as usual):

1. Congress voted to give the President the authority to decide whether to invade Iraq in their Joint Resolution.

2. The Constitution clearly vests the power of commencing war with Congress - though it does not specify a legal declaration form, a declaration is consistent with a commencement of hostilities - i.e. Congress should decide in my (and others listed below) view. Each branch has its part to play - the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces wields too much power if he can commence and manage hostilities.

Thomas Jefferson called it "an effectual check to the Dog of war."

James Wilson said "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

James Madison said "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

3. The 'joint resolution' which transferred this power was consistent with the War Powers Act (public law 93-148) which all Presidents since Nixon have viewed as un-Constitutional (i.e. you seem to be the only person who believes it doesn't matter) and even Dick Cheney has said he believes it is unconstitutional (though for different reasons).

"Every President from President Nixon forward has taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on the authority of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to defend what he determines are the vital national security interests of the United States." - Richard F. Grimmett, a specialist in the National Defense at the Congressional Research Service

So - Presidents believe that they have the unfettered authority to make and manage wars. I (and the Founders/Constitution) believe that the power of commencing war rests with the legislature.

Presidents believe the War Powers Act is un-Constitutional because it impedes their rule by fiat.

I believe the War Powers Act is un-Constitutional because the legislature is passing the buck.

Once again I call on the Supreme Court to take up the War Powers Act and declare it un-Constitutional and list the Constitutional meaning that the legislature shall declare/commence war.

You believe constitutionality doesn't matter because it is a resolution and resolutions don't matter (negating the fact that the Iraq War was founded on two resolutions - the War powers Act was cited by President Bush and the Resolution to authorize force)

Perhaps you should read some books or studies outside of Newsmax.com and I wouldn't have to stop and explain basics when you get frustrated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again, trying to defend the indefensible:

quote:


2. The Constitution clearly vests the power of commencing war with Congress - though it does not specify a legal declaration form, a declaration is consistent with a commencement of hostilities - i.e. Congress should decide in my (and others listed below) view. Each branch has its part to play - the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces wields too much power if he can commence and manage hostilities.

And they did. Just because you don't like the form in which they did it or the language they used, doesn't make it unconstitutional.

There's a reason that only you and Ron Paul are arguing this silly point. Not even most on the left find it unconstitutional (and they're the ones that find that holding FOREIGNERS in Gitmo is unconstitutional so its not as if they are afraid of crying Constitutional "foul").

Look - you can quote whoever you want (oddly avoiding quoting the Constitution, however), but at the end of the day the Constitution says what it says and it doesn't say what YOU want it to say.

quote:


Perhaps you should read some books or studies outside of Newsmax.com and I wouldn't have to stop and explain basics when you get frustrated?

Yeah, funny. Sure buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$iLk,

This war is NOT Unconstitutional, Congress passed the buck to the executive branch.

That's what they did, it was NOT the right thing to do as far as I was concerned, but they were cowards, afraid of taking responsibility.

They worry more about getting reelected, then what is actually good for the country.

You may not like what they did, but it IS constitutional.

Nomad, have you noticed that your posts are being completely ignored?

I hope so.....

In other words, don't waste your time with responses, we are not going to read them, and we are not going to respond to them.

If I want your opinion on international stuff, and what the Eurowheenies are doing, I will ask you, when it comes to what is going on here, and in Iraq, I really don't give a flying, You know what, about what you think....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Look - you can quote whoever you want (oddly avoiding quoting the Constitution, however), but at the end of the day the Constitution says what it says and it doesn't say what YOU want it to say.

Yeah I don't feel the need to quote the same part over and over again.

The people who wrote the Constitution agree with me about what they wrote, so maybe they just didn't understand the meaning?

Seriously - I quote the people who wrote that part of the Constitution in question - you go "nuh uh" and we go around in circles. I quote Congressional historians, Presidents, etc. - you go "nuh uh" and we go around in circles.

Yes - it does get tedious.

I believe that Congress should take responsibility for the war. I think Jaguar agrees with that position - although he disagrees with my position that the war was incorrect.

We don't have the money to fund an endless undefined war.

It also makes no sense whatsoever to leave the border of this country wide open and then expect people to take you seriously when you say you are fighting terrorism.

I do have to be thankful that Jeff Sessions is my Senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

This war is NOT Unconstitutional, Congress passed the buck to the executive branch.

--snip--

You may not like what they did, but it IS constitutional.


un-Constitutional: not consistent with or according to a constitution; contrary to the U.S. Constitution

U.S. Constitution under Article I:

quote:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

While it is not specified what form a declaration should take - the Constitution is pretty clear that it is the legislature that is vested power to commence hostilities.

The founding fathers I listed believed that also as they were the ones who wrote it. They did not want a repeat of King George (ironic) being able to make war.

I think you and I can come to an agreement that in the future Congress should take responsibility for conflicts. This would be consistent with the Constitution - and it would also prevent them from ducking responsibility and creating political theatre.

Don't you see how it harms the Republic Jag? By allowing the legislature to pass the buck - they can then feel free to demonize the President for a choice that should have been theirs to make throughout his term.

Invading, occupying, and then setting up a government in the middle of what is turning into a civil war should have deserved a declaration of war by the Congress.

Because they did not declare war, they can also feel free to pull funding, and let Iraq descend into a terrorist safe-haven because they can always point the finger at Bush.

A single man should not be able to take us to war. I reject that idea as strongly as I reject the ideas of nationalized healthcare and social security. The very idea that the body of the Republic can be called to war at the whim of the head of state reeks of the Caesars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


While it is not specified what form a declaration should take - the Constitution is pretty clear that it is the legislature that is vested power to commence hostilities.

...and it is not in any way, shape, or form, forbidden for Congress to "pass the buck".

It is merely granted to Congress the ability to declare war. There is nothing regarding commencement of hostilities without a Congressional war declaration.

Article I Section 8 also provides:

quote:


To provide for calling forth the militia
to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

The fact is that the Constitution doesn't really cover the Iraq conflict. Constitutionality really isn't the issue which is why not even the Democrats are accusing it.

quote:


A single man should not be able to take us to war. I reject that idea as strongly as I reject the ideas of nationalized healthcare and social security. The very idea that the body of the Republic can be called to war at the whim of the head of state reeks of the Caesars.

Congress voting on a VERY SPECIFIC resolution regarding Iraq can HARDLY be categorized as a "whim" and is certainly nothing similar to the Caesars.

[ 06-29-2007, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

Guess you are right. The people who wrote the Constitution don't know what they are talking about. Neither does the executive branch since Nixon. Neither does the Congressional researchers into the War Powers Act.

I'll just point them to Milwaukee, WI for all the information.

There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution so we should go ahead and expect the government to screen our emails and phone calls.

The Constitution doesn't cover radio so the government should have the unfettered authority to regulate it.

The Constitution is a very flexible document which is why it has not been amended that much over 250+ years.

The founders vested the authority of declaring/commencing war with the Legislature. Anything not in accordance with the Constitution is by definition unConstitutional.

The reason the Democrats aren't using it is because they love the ability to pass the buck and blame Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by $iLk:

Guess you are right. The people who wrote the Constitution don't know what they are talking about. Neither does the executive branch since Nixon. Neither does the Congressional researchers into the War Powers Act.

I'll just point them to Milwaukee, WI for all the information.

There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution so we should go ahead and expect the government to screen our emails and phone calls.

The Constitution doesn't cover radio so the government should have the unfettered authority to regulate it.

The Constitution is a very flexible document which is why it has not been amended that much over 250+ years.

The founders vested the authority of declaring/commencing war with the Legislature. Anything not in accordance with the Constitution is by definition unConstitutional.

The reason the Democrats aren't using it is because they
love
the ability to pass the buck and blame Bush.


No, no - YOU'RE right! The people who wrote it DID know EVERY POSSIBLE contingency that would arrise.

Look, if you want to talk about the Constitution, you should REFERENCE the actual TEXT of the Constitution instead of quotes of people INTERPRETING IT. You notice how I quote ACTUAL TEXT from it? Would it be THAT HARD?

Oh yeah, the courts MUST be the authority, along with people who have a biased and vested interest in the Constitution meaning what they WANT it to mean. I mean, have you READ Roe v Wade?

Constitutional, right?

But know, you're right for sure - the framers who wrote the Constitution must have been WAY too stupid to clearly state what they meant.

Gee, I mean, it pretty clearly spells out the electoral processes ... they must have forgotten to clearly spell out the processes to take a nation to war...

...or wait, maybe they left it somewhat open to interpretation because... hmmm...

Oh yeah, in case you were wondering about that "right to privacy" that isn't in the Constitution, maybe you should try reading the Fourth Ammendment. Here, I'll even quote it for you (because I prefer to quote the Constitution itself):

quote:


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


That would be the right to privacy granted by the Constitution.

But I'm sure you knew that...

...or maybe you need to find someone to explain it for you in a manner acceptable and in line with what you believe. I mean, I GUESS it is pretty difficult and unclear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

The fourth amendment is not an express protection of privacy. It is a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of self and property during the course of an investigation and is the reason we have search warrants.

The people I quoted are the same people who wrote the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson? James Madison? James Wilson? They write it - they explain what it means - and then you say they had a wrong interpretation... right.

If you wanted to defend the right to privacy you should look to the IX and X amendments instead of the IV amendment which is very specific. Here is a long history of it:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

I find it amusing that you are rushing to find justification of a right that was created by 'activist judges' on the Supreme Court. (Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965) Even more amusing is that Roe V Wade was decided based on the findings in this case.

They relied on the IX and XIV amendments. The IV amendment has nothing to do with it.

In any event - I was illustrating myself that the Constitution doesn't tell us everything. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits beating your wife. There was nothing in the Constitution that apparently prevented you from owning slaves.

Trying to find justification in what it doesn't expressly forbid is a losing argument. What it does expressly state is that the legislature has the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Executive should hold this power.

Yet you are saying "well it doesn't prevent the Congress from passing the buck." while I argue that it does. The very fact that a government power is not listed is reason enough to deny government that power.

You are on a slippery slope pretending that if something isn't listed we can add it. Make way for Socialized medicine - courtesy of the General Welfare clause. Make way for 70% of your paycheck and cradle to grave welfare - courtesy of the General Welfare clause.

Give me a break. If we followed the Constitution - we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


The fourth amendment is not an express protection of privacy. It is a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of self and property during the course of an investigation and is the reason we have search warrants

I agree. That was my point all along. It is an essential right to privacy, however, it is NOT an absolute right to privacy (hence Roe V Wade in which activist judges extrapolated one meaning to mean something entirely different).

quote:


In any event - I was illustrating myself that the Constitution doesn't tell us everything. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits beating your wife. There was nothing in the Constitution that apparently prevented you from owning slaves.

Are you freakin' KIDDING me?

Umm, the XIII Ammendment states, CLEARLY: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Also try the XV Ammendment if that wasn't clear enough.

As for beating your wife, the Constition is NOT a legal document - it is a GUIDELINE by which legal documents must follow. Beating ones wife would fall under law, not rights.

quote:


Trying to find justification in what it doesn't expressly forbid is a losing argument.

Not in this case - read on...

quote:


What it does expressly state is that the legislature has the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Executive should hold this power.

No where in it does it say that the legislature cannot grant the power to make conditional judgements to the executive. Furthermore, when it was written, the legislature power to declare war was in reference to the capturing of lands and assets (which is why such is stated in the very same sentence).

Just because the Constitution doesn't provide and express guideline for EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE does NOT mean that we do nothing when those circumstances are encountered (the Constitution provides for this).

See, your examples to this oddly only take one side of the argument - beating wife being bad thing. There are many GOOD things that the Constitution doesn't expressly permit or forbid that one could use as an example as well. The Constitution doesn't expressly state, for example, that one has a right to, say, build hospitals.

Your argument rests solely upon the Iraq War being considered "bad". That particular point, I can see both sides of (although I do agree with the war). The Constitutionality of it, however, is, at best, a very LOOSE argument.

But, ULTIMATELY, your argument fails to recognize the 10th Ammendment which CLEARLY answers this entire discussion. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This would be a case of "power not delegated" as there is no guideline allowing or prohibiting a congressional action authorizing use of force. And since Congress represents the states...

quote:


You are on a slippery slope pretending that if something isn't listed we can add it. Make way for Socialized medicine - courtesy of the General Welfare clause. Make way for 70% of your paycheck and cradle to grave welfare - courtesy of the General Welfare clause.

I agree that it is a slippery slope and I also agree that the welfare state we are fast becoming is dangerous. But, unfortunately for your argument, the Constitution also EXPRESSLY allows such taxation.

However, I'm not a nut about taxation too much, because I see the larger picture. Cutting or raising taxes only a little makes FAR more impact than doing so a lot. Cost-of-living has far more of an impact on income than taxes do, and to completely cut out or even dramtically reduce taxes would cause inflation on a level that general incomes would have to compensate for. Therefore the net value of an individual would residually remain constant do to their contribution potential. Small increases or decreases, however, have very little impact on inflation therefore causing no real income impacts.

If you want to talk about healthcare in particular, though, what bothers me about the socialized system the most is that it doesn't allow for competition and therefore the cost-control of the free-market.

Socialism always causes costs to skyrocket. Under capitalism institutions compete for limited resources causing costs to drop. Under socialism institutions have a free reign in simply agreeing to raise costs as there is no benefit to having lower prices.

It's only a partial to the long explanation of why I don't mind taxation as much as most pretend to do, but if you extrapolate from it you'll get where I'm going.

quote:


Give me a break. If we followed the Constitution - we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

You're kidding, right? If we simply followed the Constitution without interpreting it or making calls based upon what it doesn't cover, we wouldn't have evolved past the 1920s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...