U.S. Senate Fails to Support U.S. Military Personnel

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

If you read the posts, I do not support the premise of this thread. Since you claim your vocation is being a pastor, I hope your theological insights are better than insights into what is best for this nation. What did you say your background in this was?

What is clear from your posts is your view of what is best for this nation is your visceral hatred of the President. But because I do not share your view you now want to attack me as a Pastor. This shows a weakness of your position. I disagree with Ken but it is kept to the posts. background in what?

 

[saturneptune]

What is clear from your posts is your view of what is best for this nation is your visceral hatred of the President. But because I do not share your view you now want to attack me as a Pastor. This shows a weakness of your position. I disagree with Ken but it is kept to the posts. background in what?

You are great at misquotes and misconclusions. You said the word "hate." There is a vast difference between hate and blind alligence to something that is obviously not in the best interests of our troops, that is, inept leadership.

No attacks on you as pastor, but hope your insights into Scripture are better than your political and national instincts.

Backgound in what you ask. Exactly.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You are great at misquotes and misconclusions. You said the word "hate." There is a vast difference between hate and blind alligence to something that is obviously not in the best interests of our troops, that is, inept leadership.

Your hate is exposed in your rhetoric. such rhetoric is not an example of anti-allegiance but goes much deeper than that.

No attacks on you as pastor, but hope your insights into Scripture are better than your political and national instincts.

Since my being a pastor has no bearing on the topic it is clear that you have gone out of the way to bring it into the conversation which is unnecessary and clearly an attack. This seems to be uncommon of you never the less it is inappropriate.

Backgound in what you ask. Exactly.

You make a convoluted post and expect me to know which subject you are referring to. If you feel that is appropriate then you have the freedom to remain vague.

 

[saturneptune]

It seems very odd, very odd indeed, that all of the time you spend raking Ron Paul over the coals, a man that has at least some similance of leadership and morality, plus at least knows what he believes in, and all the time you spend defending the leadship of the present administration in this war, that you could accuse anyone of hate rhetoric. This speaks volumes about insight.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The troops won a long time ago. They deposed Saddam Hussein and handed the Iraqi people a representative democracy on a silver platter paid for with American blood and treasure.

They have not yet handed them the democracy. Don't you read the papers? Right now, the government is in the process of forming and working out a governing structure. That is one of the objectives that we have not won. I am not for doing a job halfway. Let's finish it.

I think that anyone who claims that our troops are losers by coming home now is plum wrong and unpatriotic and anti-U.S. military.

You think wrong. And callling names and questioning others patriotism is a flimsy wall to hide behind.

I also think that anyone who refuses to support giving our hardworking, life-risking troops the necessary R&R and time with their families that they deserve and need is plum wrong and unpatriotic and anti-U.S. military.

So you think FDR was wrong and unpatriotic? In WWII, soldiers did not get vacations to come home and see their families. They fought because they understood something was at stake. Today, the problem is that we have too many people so narrowly focused, that they don't see the big picture of what is at stake.

Furthermore, Congress has no authority to manage troops. The President alone can do that. Congress can only fund or defund. Webb's attempt was an unconstitutional act. Which again shows us that for all your trumpeting about the Constitution, you don't really believe in it, or at least don't understand it.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It seems very odd, very odd indeed, that all of the time you spend raking Ron Paul over the coals, a man that has at least some similance of leadership and morality, plus at least knows what he believes in, and all the time you spend defending the leadship of the present administration in this war, that you could accuse anyone of hate rhetoric. This speaks volumes about insight.

What is a lack of insight is those who insist the President lied, started this war for oil and wants nothing but to start another one with Iran. That comes out of the tin foil hat club.

The other evidence of lacking in insight is that what goes on in the middle east in no way effects us. But this is a topic for another thread.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I might have used "fabricated", but I didn't know how to spell it.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[KenH]

1) They have not yet handed them the democracy.

2) Furthermore, Congress has no authority to manage troops. The President alone can do that. Congress can only fund or defund.

1) So all that voting the Iraqis did was not democracy in action?
2) You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution states:

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) So all that voting the Iraqis did was not democracy in action?

It was the beginning, not the completion of a safe, stable, and functioning democracy. You know that, Ken. What in the world are you playing these games for?

2) You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution states:

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

Article 2, Section 2 states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Clearly, this takes precedence since they are called into actual service. So it seems to me that the constitution declares that the commander in chief is in charge when the armed forces are called into service. In a constitution of "enumerated powers," it enumerates the power over the military in "actual service" to be delegated to the President, not to Congress.

Have you really not thought through this before?

 

[KenH]

Clearly, this takes precedence since they are called into actual service. So it seems to me that the constitution declares that the commander in chief is in charge when the armed forces are called into service.

Baloney. The president is not a dictator, not even during a time of war.

The Congress is the legislative branch. The legislative branch sets policy.

The presidency is the executive branch. The executive branch executes the policy that the legislative branch passes into law.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Baloney. The president is not a dictator, not even during a time of war.

Not only is it baloney. It is also irrelevant.

The Congress is the legislative branch. The legislative branch sets policy.

Yes, and with the military in action, that is the power of the purse. Cut off the funding if you want them home. But while in "actual service" they are under the direction of the president, it seems to me.

 

[KenH]

it seems to me.

Then you seem wrong. Article I, Section 8 trumps your argument.

 

[saturneptune]

What is a lack of insight is those who insist the President lied, started this war for oil and wants nothing but to start another one with Iran. That comes out of the tin foil hat club.

The other evidence of lacking in insight is that what goes on in the middle east in no way effects us. But this is a topic for another thread.

I will tell you exactly what a lack of insight is. It is not reading posts then quoting something that was never said. That is the third time you have done that in this thread. The point is not whether Bush lied or not, it is the fact he has not excuted the war in a manner to win. Iran? When did Iran come into the converstaion?

Yours is not a tin foil hat, more of an upside down cone.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I will tell you exactly what a lack of insight is. It is not reading posts then quoting something that was never said. That is the third time you have done that in this thread. The point is not whether Bush lied or not, it is the fact he has not excuted the war in a manner to win. Iran? When did Iran come into the converstaion?

Yours is not a tin foil hat, more of an upside down cone.

I responded to you but that doesn't mean I accused you of saying it. I used the word those not you. Read the post. And it is untrue that I quoted something you never said. You cannot come up with that one.

 

[carpro]

1) So all that voting the Iraqis did was not democracy in action?
2) You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. constitution states:

"To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces".

Democrats are lucky they didn't have the votes. They avoided losing a Constitutional battle over the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief in time of war.

 

[KenH]

They avoided losing a Constitutional battle over the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief in time of war.

You are wrong. Those of us who support defending the U.S. constitution and our military personnel would not lose to those who think that the president should be a dictator and who have little regard for the welfare of our military personnel.

 

[carpro]

You are wrong.

Just because you think so, doesn't make it so.

All we both have is opinions. It hasn't been settled in court, and won't have to be, unless democrats can actually get the legislation passed.

I believe the Commander-in-Chief would prevail.

 

[KenH]

Not if the U.S. Supreme Court followed the words in the U.S. constitution. Yes, I realize that is a rather iffy proposition.

 

[hillclimber1]

You are great at misquotes and misconclusions. You said the word "hate." There is a vast difference between hate and blind alligence to something that is obviously not in the best interests of our troops, that is, inept leadership.

No attacks on you as pastor, but hope your insights into Scripture are better than your political and national instincts.

Backgound in what you ask. Exactly.

Gee, I rather like his instincts and insights. :thumbs: 2 Timothy2:1-4's that is.

 

[hillclimber1]

never mind....worthless post...