-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The President Is Not Above the Law
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Ken,
Bush is not doing much anything different to my knowledge than what he did the first term. He was correct, to my knowledge, then and he still is. I think this whole deal with you is all about you doing the two step back to your isolationist anti-war roots. You have flip flopped so many times on that one issue, it is hard to know if you have any real convictions at all about it. Deep down, however, I suspect you are an isolationist political opportunist who will wait for the right time and issue to smear the president. Just my observation.
Joseph Botwinick
Bush is not doing much anything different to my knowledge than what he did the first term. He was correct, to my knowledge, then and he still is. I think this whole deal with you is all about you doing the two step back to your isolationist anti-war roots. You have flip flopped so many times on that one issue, it is hard to know if you have any real convictions at all about it. Deep down, however, I suspect you are an isolationist political opportunist who will wait for the right time and issue to smear the president. Just my observation.
Joseph Botwinick
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
If the dems take control of the Senate in 2007 you can kiss any Bush appointees to the Federal Courts goodby.
jstrickland1989
New Member
I can't tell if you're conservative or not by this statement. You wanted the democrats to gain control of the Congress? Please tell me why.
James
poncho
Well-Known Member
Maybe it would have been better not to tinker with the laws in the first place. As Ron Paul alluded too in his Texas Straight Talk.
You have been influenced by the Dixiecrats who are anti-war. This is a continuation of the Frank Church idea that spying itself caused wars so we did away with our spies and we got Nine Eleven because we didn't know what was going on.
What you want, Ken, and the CP types, and the usual liberal malefactors of America is an effeminate, weak President. You want a President who has to beg some obsecure justice of the peace for the right to fire a bullet in self-defense. You want some Jimmy Carter who would rather sell us out than exercise any power to defend us. You want Jimmy Carter with even less powers than Carter had.
The Democrats are not going to keep tabs on the Islamofascists. That is the reason that the Democrats can say that they would go to the judge no matter what, etc. They have no intention of continuing the war against Islamofascism and they have no intention of keeping tabs on domestic traitors who happen to be or not to be American citizens.
As for the CP, they also want a weaker President. And indeed, their candidates for President have all been weak men who had ice water instead of blood in their circulatory system. The CP has made it clear that they will not continue the war against Islamofascism. Their slogan is the same as Imperial England--Forget you, Jack; I'm all right.
The problem with your idea, Ken, is that not only does it weaken the President but it also weakens the country because no strong man elected will have the power to act. I am wondering if the South just doesn't want a strong President?
Actually, this thread should be entitled "Ken is not the law (Thank God)and the President has acted 100% legally."
KenH
Well-Known Member
I am a conservative on social issues and I try to be a moderate/centrist on other issues. And I am very much pro-protecting our God-given, constitutional liberties.
I think that, unfortunately, the Republicans have been in power too long in the House and have fallen victim to the same arrogance of power that caused the Democrats to lose control of the House in the 1994 midterm elections.
I think that the Bush administration showed incompetence in handling the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina(as did the governments of Lousisiana and New Orleans), did a terrible job in trying to explain the need for Social Security reform and promoted a plan that had no chance of going anywhere, did a terribly slow job in formulating a plan to finish the effort in Iraq and bring our troops home, and then has been shown to have engaged in legally questionable surveillance activities.
Therefore, for 2007-08 I would like to see better Congressional oversight of the Bush administration than a Republican-controlled Congress would provide.
jstrickland1989
New Member
I am a conservative on social issues and I try to be a moderate/centrist on other issues. And I am very much pro-protecting our God-given, constitutional liberties.
I think that, unfortunately, the Republicans have been in power too long in the House and have fallen victim to the same arrogance of power that caused the Democrats to lose control of the House in the 1994 midterm elections.
I think that the Bush administration showed incompetence in handling the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina(as did the governments of Lousisiana and New Orleans), did a terrible job in trying to explain the need for Social Security reform and promoted a plan that had no chance of going anywhere, did a terribly slow job in formulating a plan to finish the effort in Iraq and bring our troops home, and then has been shown to have engaged in legally questionable surveillance activities.
Therefore, for 2007-08 I would like to see better Congressional oversight of the Bush administration than a Republican-controlled Congress would provide. </font>[/QUOTE]So, your solution to arrogance is to want them to lose control of the house? That doesn't make much sense.
Wait..... See this is where you get off on something thats not true. Bush showed the leadership in Katrina. Bush showed ALL the leadership he could, but you can't blame Bush for peoples ignorance of staying in New Orleans.
About the war, they just had elections. It's not always about bringing the troops home. It's about finishing the job that we started in the first place. Do this for me. Name one valid reason why we should pull our troops out now.
And you said it yourself about the surveillance. It's still yet to be determined if thats illegal, so thats irrelevant.
So,in 2007-2008 you want to see the House turned to the Democrats?
James
KenH
Well-Known Member
We should pull our troops out over the next year or so because they have been there for almost three years and in another year it will have been almost four years. I do not want to see us stuck in Iraq for decades as we have been in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The Iraqis need to assume responsibility for their own security as rapidly as possible.
The Bush administration made a tactical error in disbanding the Iraqi army, and then was slow in reforming it.
Here is a great plan: www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf
The Bush administration made a tactical error in disbanding the Iraqi army, and then was slow in reforming it.
Here is a great plan: www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf
jstrickland1989
New Member
Is there something special about the 4 year mark of a war that means we will be there for a decade? I say get the job done, and don't bring them home till they do. Do you understand the impact of withdrawing our troops before the job is done? While some don't like to admit it, we are the worlds police. It always has been, and it always will be that way.
James
James
jstrickland1989
New Member
Yep. And I also know how having a deadline tends to focus one on finishing the job. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep. And we also know how having a deadline can encourage the terrorist to do even more.
James
jstrickland1989
New Member
Nobody is, but the fact is that we have to finish the job. I don't think the terrorist are "jerking" our chain one bit.
First of all, the casualties are very very low in this war. And who said we would be there in 20 years? My goodness, we have gone from a decade to two decades in 30 minutes.
Also, a little off the point, but if you sign up to be in the military, you sign up to go to war. And if you go to war, you could die. It's just life! I'm so tired of soldiers coming back and wondering why they had to go to war. Please, get over yourself!
James
Frank Church was concerned that our spies did a lot more than spying - assassinations, torture, coup d'état and such with little or no oversight. He was right.
We did not do away with our spies, but even the best spies are useless if they are paid little heed. </font>[/QUOTE]The Democrats gutted the CIA and that is why we were caught flat-footed when India denonated the atomic bomb and we were caught flat-footed on Iraq and on Nine Eleven. It takes years to build a good intelligence network. We had the best one in the world and our reliance on other countries after Frank Church proved to be a disaster.
The President acted legally and properly. Bush's enemies right and left want to either destroy him for some personal reason of theirs or else they want a weakened chief executive for some personal reason of theirs.
To the Democrats, I would say that under FDR you wanted a President who did black bag jobs and you did not even protest when FDR put American citizens in guarded camps without due process. So you have no right to complain about Bush unless you complain about FDR in the same sentence.
To the isolationists, your view of America died at Pearl Harbor and the corpse of your view of America was blown to smithereens at Nine Eleven. This is no time for an effeminate president.
To the Democrats, I would say that under FDR you wanted a President who did black bag jobs and you did not even protest when FDR put American citizens in guarded camps without due process. So you have no right to complain about Bush unless you complain about FDR in the same sentence.
To the isolationists, your view of America died at Pearl Harbor and the corpse of your view of America was blown to smithereens at Nine Eleven. This is no time for an effeminate president.
