AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican, You're outdated like all your opinions and postings.

0 Replies

The Constitution of the USA as amended is part of the supreme law of the land, and remains currently the supreme law of the land as amended in accord with Article V.

Quote:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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, anything 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.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Presidents have gotten around this by not declaring war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistans are not wars.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Presidents have gotten around this by not declaring war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistans are not wars.

I think it more accurate to say that Congress did not declare those wars, but the Presidents unlawfully declared those wars instead. Clearly, the US did in fact wage war against Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but those wars were not declared by Congress as was required by our Constitution.

Personally, I despise that unlawful conduct by our federal government, whether perpetrated by Democrats or Republicans.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Your despise means absolutely zilch in this world.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Personally, I despise that unlawful conduct by our federal government, whether perpetrated by Democrats or Republicans.

LOL... That's a good one ican. You despised Bush's wars? I wonder what you said at the time?

Oh.. I bet we can find out here on A2k.

1 Reply

@parados,

ican711nm wrote:

BUSH'S THREE OBJECTIVES WERE AND ARE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ

http://able2know.org/topic/85361-4#post-2353799

Would you look at that. Ican even attempts to rewrite his own history let alone that of the rest of the world.
'

ican711nm wrote:

The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens.

http://able2know.org/topic/27940-536#post-1340313

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Again, I am not disagreeing with your premise.

However, when you said that the President can DECLARE war, you were wrong.
I 100% agree that the POTUS can send troops into an UNDECLARED war Korea, Vietnam, etc), and I am not arguing that fact.

But a declaration of war MUST come from Congress.
There is a difference.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Your play with words doesn't make any sense.

0 Replies

@parados,

I continue to agree with what I wrote:
1. BUSH'S THREE OBJECTIVES WERE AND ARE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ
2. The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens.
3. Personally, I despise that unlawful conduct [I.E., FAILURE BY PRESIDENTS TO WAGE WAR WITHOUT CONGRESS DECLARING WAR] by our federal government, whether perpetrated by Democrats or Republicans.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

So.. it is logical but you despise it?

I guess that pretty much explain much of what you say here.

0 Replies

@parados,

bush's objectives?

1.) Showing his Daddy that he, #43, is a man!

2.) Getting cheap oil.

3.) Writer fell asleep after reading ican's latest post and there is no number three.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I continue to agree with what I wrote:
1. BUSH'S THREE OBJECTIVES WERE AND ARE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR INVADING IRAQ
.........

And do not forget that Congress approved of Bush's waging of war in Iraq to take out a brutal and dangerous dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein. And do not forget also that probably the most prominent Democrat of that time, Hillary Clinton, told us that she checked out on her own security experts and she agreed with Bush including in regard to the threat of WMD by Hussein.

And it is worth noting that Democrats like Joe Biden are right now claiming Iraq could end up being one of Obama's top achievements, which indicates two things, one being Iraq is a success, and two - Biden is a total blowhard full of you know what - because Obama had nothing to do with the success in Iraq - in fact his entire mantra was that it was a waste of time and he opposed every effort to make it successful. History will record the fact that Bush stayed true to his convictions and commitments in the face of criticism after Congress approved of his actions only to turn on him and stab him in the back in one of the worst cases of political backstabbing in my entire life of observing politics. And the case of backstabbing also applies to a lousy press that does a lousy job of actually reporting news accurately. In fact, they are largely willing tools of the Democrats to demagogue conservatives and Republicans.

1 Reply

@okie,

It wasn't only Hillary that believed Saddam had WMDs; most of the world believed it. Do you know why? Because our government claimed Saddam had WMDs, and Colin Powell swore in front of the Security Council that Saddam had WMDs.

The important issue is that Saddam did not have WMDs. GW Bush chased out the UN inspectors to start his war.

Your memory isn't only bad, you don't remember the salient information of the times.

1 Reply

The information Hillary had was what the Bush government supplied her, and they wrote it so it said what they thought it should say, not what was really there.
Bush frontstabbed America. If you want to call what happened to him backstabbing, it was no less than he deserved. It's probably going to cost us somewhere around 3 trillion dollars and 5000 American lives before it's done, and Bush still screwed up getting Osama Bin Laden and let him get entrenched in Pakistan. m Was it worth the cost in blood and lives and dollars? No.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Our government pulled the same wool over the nation's eyes once before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened was the equivalent of WMDs. I was in college and grad school during Viet Nam and I remember how many rumors swirled around Viet Nam and the conduct of the war. One of them was that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. By 1976, a series of revelations demonstrated that the left was right.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

And it was a dem President that created that lie and got untold millions killed because of it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

And, in that, LBJ was a conservative. A conservative man commits a conservative act. As you surely must remember, unless you are less than 40, that left wing students were committed to fighting the war as early as 1964.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Tell me, was Kennedy a conservative?
After all, he sent the first US troops to Vietnam.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

And, in that, LBJ was a conservative. A conservative man commits a conservative act. As you surely must remember, unless you are less than 40, that left wing students were committed to fighting the war as early as 1964.

LBJ was a conservative you say. How come he instituted one of the most liberal policies ever tried in the last century, the Great Society? I have news for you in case you are that ignorant, that the Great Society was no conservative policy, nor was LBJ even remotely close to being conservative. LBJ and his Great Society was supposedly going to eradicate poverty, and exactly the opposite has happened which of course is typical of most liberal policies.

Last point, LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin incident was total and outright deceit, whereby Bush's WMD fears were in no way deceit at all, in fact Bush merely took what the CIA gave him and made decisions from that. What was Bush supposed to do, go in his spare time besides being president and do his own spy work in Iraq? The backstabbing job done on Bush over WMD by the Democrats and the press has been one of the biggest cases of political backstabbing that I have ever witnessed in my entire lifetime of watching politics, and I have been around well over half a century.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know