@tweeter
Here, here.
(Ex U.S. Army Airborne, 2/173 ABN, An Khe, Vietnam 1969-70.)
Rory

Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
One of the main reasons many Europeans would like to see the Democrats win is that many Europeans would like to see a weaker America.

Yeah sure, like the Republicans at the moment do not contribute to a weaker Dollar and higher Fuel Prices.

Hal:

Did not the Democrats win control of Congress by saying they would lower the prices of oil? Losers. I really wish people would stop buying the pablum that the Democrat party has been successfully generating for so many years and look at the actual record which I can trace a long way back. Frto example, historically the Democart Party IS the racist party, even though they have managed to make people believe otherwise...look at the historical record. <sigh>

Skip

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
So what you're saying is that the head of your government has absolutely no say over what they do?
         

Yes, that's what we're saying.  The only thing the President can do is veto bills that Congress passes.  He cannot make laws or appropriations -- he can either agree to what Congress passes or veto it.  And even then, Congress can, with sufficient votes, overturn the President's veto.

Our President does have a lot of power, however, despite what other people might think, no US President has ever been a dictator.  He has always been subject to the rule of law.  Even Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War was ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court.  As was FDR in WWII.

I have always found it amusing how the liberal-leaning national media in the US is eager to blame the President and the Republicans for all the ills in the country when it has been the Democrats who have been in charge of Congress for these past years.  It will only get worse if Obama wins in November.  Then there will be no one to stop the mischief initiated by the Democrats.

I don't know much about Obama.  That's the problem.  He does not have much of a track record to point to when assessing his candidacy.  He certainly sounds good and looks good, but he also has a habit of associating with people whose political views and social views are not what one would consider mainstream.  I don't know if I agree with Skip that he's a liar -- but the problem is that no one until recently has been very good about questioning what he really stands for.  And it seems that his supporters think that merely asking those necessary questions mean that the questioner is racist.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Yes, that's what we're saying.  The only thing the President can do is veto bills that Congress passes.  He cannot make laws or appropriations -- he can either agree to what Congress passes or veto it.  And even then, Congress can, with sufficient votes, overturn the President's veto.

If he is so powerless as you say, why is it such a great deal whether he is Democrat or Republican?

And why do you try to impeach one when he was lying about a blow job, but when he started a war with a lie, than that's ok?

Karsten,

The point being made wasn't that the US President is powerless in fact it was noted he had quite a bit of power but not as much as many people believe.

To me the most important power of the President is to appoint judges to the Federal courts - including the Supreme Court (which are lifetime appoinments) - with the Senate only having the power to accept or reject the President's choices. These judges then are tasked with adjudicating some of the most important issues that our country faces. I much prefer judges appointed by Republicans because they are far less likely to decide a case based on personal preference and respect the right of the citizens to vote on the issue.

It is a loss of freedom everytime a court mandates a certain course of action that is at odds with the people's wishes - it should only be done when the people's will clearly contravenes a constitutional right.

As to your comment about the Clinton impeachment -- he was impeached for lying under oath about his blowjob (a felony) and trying to obstruct justice by sending people out to lie about the woman and trying to get her to sign a false statement (another felony). The blowjob was merely what he chose to lie about -- it was a relevant issue in a lawsuit against him and lying about it was a crime plain and simple.

As to Bush you can certainly criticize the decision to go to war in Iraq as being a mistake (and many people have) but to use the word "lie" is a very unfair statement. There is ZERO evidence that Bush actually knew that our inteliigence (and that of many other countries I might add) was wrong about Saddam having stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (and believe me there were numerous unsuccessful efforts to prove that they did know and concealed that fact). A lie is a deliberate falsehood and there is no evidence suggesting that Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in the Administration was actually aware of how wrong our intelligence was. All of the investigations suggest that all they did was rely on inaccurate information. How much you blame them for that depends on your personal opinion but they didn't LIE about anything.

The notion that they went to war knowing their major reason for it was wrong is kind of absurd to me -- if Bush and his people were really so disgusting as to lie about the issue and send our troops into harms way anyhow they certainly would have planned to plant evidence of these stockpliles to bolster their case for war. The fact that no stockpiles were found and no effort was made to suggest there were suggest to me they were completely unaware of how wrong our projections were.

In my opinion the war was justified in any case -- Saddam's many mass graves of innocent civilians and torture chambers that were found are plenty of reason for me. NATO went to war against Serbia (which hadn't attacked any of the countries that attacked it) in the late 90's to stop and genocide and bring the perpetrators to justice - and most of NATO (and many other countries) went to war in Iraq to do the same. The only difference I can see is that one war was launched by a Democrat and the other by a Republican.

Brian

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
The only difference I can see is that one war was launched by a Democrat and the other by a Republican.

I can see a lot more on this page on the internet.

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
Karsten,

The point being made wasn't that the US President is powerless in fact it was noted he had quite a bit of power but not as much as many people believe.

To me the most important power of the President is to appoint judges to the Federal courts - including the Supreme Court (which are lifetime appoinments) - with the Senate only having the power to accept or reject the President's choices. These judges then are tasked with adjudicating some of the most important issues that our country faces. I much prefer judges appointed by Republicans because they are far less likely to decide a case based on personal preference and respect the right of the citizens to vote on the issue.

It is a loss of freedom everytime a court mandates a certain course of action that is at odds with the people's wishes - it should only be done when the people's will clearly contravenes a constitutional right.

As to your comment about the Clinton impeachment -- he was impeached for lying under oath about his blowjob (a felony) and trying to obstruct justice by sending people out to lie about the woman and trying to get her to sign a false statement (another felony). The blowjob was merely what he chose to lie about -- it was a relevant issue in a lawsuit against him and lying about it was a crime plain and simple.

As to Bush you can certainly criticize the decision to go to war in Iraq as being a mistake (and many people have) but to use the word "lie" is a very unfair statement. There is ZERO evidence that Bush actually [b]knew that our inteliigence (and that of many other countries I might add) was wrong about Saddam having stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (and believe me there were numerous unsuccessful efforts to prove that they did know and concealed that fact). A lie is a deliberate falsehood and there is no evidence suggesting that Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in the Administration was actually aware of how wrong our intelligence was. All of the investigations suggest that all they did was rely on inaccurate information. How much you blame them for that depends on your personal opinion but they didn't LIE about anything. [/b]

The notion that they went to war knowing their major reason for it was wrong is kind of absurd to me -- if Bush and his people were really so disgusting as to lie about the issue and send our troops into harms way anyhow they certainly would have planned to plant evidence of these stockpliles to bolster their case for war. The fact that no stockpiles were found and no effort was made to suggest there were suggest to me they were completely unaware of how wrong our projections were.

In my opinion the war was justified in any case -- Saddam's many mass graves of innocent civilians and torture chambers that were found are plenty of reason for me. NATO went to war against Serbia (which hadn't attacked any of the countries that attacked it) in the late 90's to stop and genocide and bring the perpetrators to justice - and most of NATO (and many other countries) went to war in Iraq to do the same. The only difference I can see is that one war was launched by a Democrat and the other by a Republican.

Brian

In point of fact EVERY major intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq had the WMD which precipitated the war. The CIA going back to the Clinton administration, MI-6(or is it 5), The Russian Security Agency, the french, the Germans EVEN arguably the finest intelligence agency in the world Israel's Mossad. Bush lied, people died? Hardly. Sadaam Hussein lied and people died, he was a poker player without peer and managed to mislead everyone including his own Generals...and he paid for his poker skills, his bluff was finally called.

What don't people understand about this? Over the years since Persian Gulf War I Iraq had violated no less than 17 UN mandates, was she supposed to be able to continue this ad infinitum...I think not. At some point  there is enough talk and threats and it is time for action. Do I like that the US has been cast, as some has called it, in the role of the world's policeman. No, I don't, but the rest of the world appears to have been neutered and will talk a dictator's ear off, while he doesn't hear anything that is being said...nor does he care. The world is satisfied to try to appease or contain him, this will only work for so long, to the dictator appeasement is merely a sign of weakness and attempts to contain him will only work as long as he allows it. See Adolph Hitler. Time to wake up and smell the coffee...he who will not learn from history is doomed to repeat it...again and again.

Skip