I didntvoteforthem - Bush's election was not legal in what respect? the official
count (and third effort) showed Bush won by a wider margin. The supreme court
ruled in his favor with a majority liberal supreme court. Pray tell how the
election was not an election. I guess if you believe the lying media it makes
sense to you.
Shinkoskey has it mostly right. He made the error that Bush is the only one at
fault. Congress authorized Bush to go to war. They failed in their
constitutional duty as it is this body that has to declare war. The president
cannot.We are at fault for not expressing our absolute outrage
at our "representatives".
Mike Richards tells us about our gradual moral decline.I don't know about
him but my life is nowhere near this declined state that he is obviously living
in.When you live a happy, non-judgemental, and non-sanctimonious life life
is great!I feel for these sad, paranoid, and negative conservatives that
seem to be so prevalent in our world today. The know not what they do.
Mr. Shinkoskey, Well done and well said. Our gradual,
but constant moral decline has left its imprint on our nation. I fear that
we've become a nation of unthinking, uncaring, "fun" craving "children" who
don't know how to think, who don't know how to work, and who want someone else
to solve all their problems. The words, "Eat, drink and be merry ... ", keep
coming to mind, over and over and over again.
Thomas -The words of the New Testament's Jesus Christ are not filled
with metaphor or symbolism when it comes to war, killing, and shock-and-aweing
civilians.I don't know what they taught YOU in Sunday School, but to
us mainstream Christians, the message is crystal-clear.I'm afraid
your conscience has been tainted with political partisan BS.
Thomas wants us to believe the word liberal has not been demonized by them.Thomas must also know where the WMD's are hiding.
*sigh*What part of Christ's teachings don't I understand? Quite a
bit, actually -- they're far more profound than a mocker like you could
appreciate. I do understand -- as have generations of theologians far wiser
than either of us -- that while Christ proclaimed peace, He certainly wasn't a
"pacifist" in the modern, let-the-aggressor-win sense.By the way,
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is from the Old Testament you profess to despise. And
it's followed a couple of verses later by commands to impose the death penalty
for a variety of offenses, so I think you might want to consider whether you're
being a bit simplistic in your analysis. Pop quiz: Where in the
Bible is there an express command for Christians to "beat their swords into
Anon, how is it that conservatives have supposedly "demonized" the word
"liberal"? You can't give a word negative connotations in a vacuum.
No matter how good you apparently think we AWFUL NEOCONS (speaking of
"demonizing") are at manipulation (what we call "logic"), we couldn't give
"liberal" a bad name if actual liberals didn't do the job for us. The reason
liberals (including the presumptive Democratic nominee) are so anxious to run
away from the label "liberal," instead of wearing it proudly like conservatives
wear their name, is that the gap between the (positive) connotations of the
dictionary definition of "liberal" and the reality of what
post-Kennedy-assassination American liberals have become is just too glaring to
ignore. You've abandoned the concept of equality before the law in
favor of race-conscious ethnic tribal politics. You've abandoned the classical
liberal Jeffersonian concept of limited government in favor of European-style
statism. You've abandoned economic liberalism in favor of unwieldy
command-and-control economics. You've abandoned open-minded free inquiry in
favor of a sneering dogmatism, speech codes, and political correctness. You've
gone from respecting the little guy to declaring him a stupid dupe of false
consciousness. Bottom line, you just aren't truly liberal.
Thomas -What is about Christ's teachings that you don't understand?A quick review:Thou Shalt Not KillPut away your
swordsLove your enemiesTurn the other cheekBeat your swords
into ploughsharesPeace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.
"... basically pacifist approach."You are a never-ending source of
Thomas tells us about criminalizing political differences.Does that
include the incessant demonization of a perfectly good word liberal by our
Republican brothers and sisters for political reasons?
"Education" -- With respect, it's not any such thing.The New
Testament mandates that *individuals* have a basically pacifist approach.
However, what little counsel the New Testament gives to civil authorities
definitely does not include a command that they, also, are commanded to abstain
from using force. "The magistrate beareth not the sword in vain." It was not a sin for Churchill to decline Gandhi's advice to let the Germans
win in World War II. (Gandhi also advised the Jews to allow the Germans to kill
as many of them as they wanted, trusting in the Nazis' compassion to make them
ultimately stop. A decent guy, Gandhi was, but ultimately a bit naive.)
Willie -- This lust to criminalize political differences and throw one's
opponents in jail is what kills republics. Happened to Athens, happened to
Rome, and if you guys have your way, it'll happen here.
The New Testament is quite clear on pacifism.But with warmongering hawks
that come into power every now and then, the words of Christ are thrown out the
window. It's always an economic thing. Always.It takes a revamped
educational program to return to the words of Christ. This will never happen on
a website. It's starts with the young.Perhaps the antiquated,
"...rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air" might be reevaluated.
Old Testament (Yahweh)- "an eye for an eye."New Testament (Jesus) - "love
your enemies."Sorry Thomas, I'm always on the side of progress.
"Hanging on" -- Sir, you're entitled to whatever personal theology you want to
dream up for yourself, but the fact is that virtually everybody who accepts the
authority of the Bible recognizes that the God of the Old Testament and Jesus
Christ are the same God. Traditional Trinitarians say they're the same Being,
while Mormons believe the God of the Old Testament *was* Jesus. Again, you're entitled to take whatever away from the Bible you want, just
realize that you're not going to convince many people with an argument from
scripture when you're so out of your depth as regards actual familiarity with
it.If we're just limiting ourselves to the New Testament, that book
also declares that the civil authorities "bear not the sword in vain." The
civil authorities are expressly permitted to use force, if necessary, to fulfill
their responsibilities.If you are taking the pacifist position that
war is never justified, then am I correct in presuming you opposed the war in
Afghanistan, along with Bill Clinton's wars in Yugoslavia? Can't have it both
ways, you know. The scripture doesn't say "Put away your swords, unless you're
a Democrat," after all.
Our Republican Kings, Nixon, Reagan, and especially Bush II, have committed more
illegal acts than we can imagine. All have lied to congress and the American
people about it. All have tried to usurp our rights, with Bush II being the
worst.Bush II believes that he doesn't have to answer to anyone,
that he can use executive powers to cover up his illegal acts. He refuses to
honor judges, subpoenas, or questions from congress.Once Bush is out
of office, I hope the investigations begin, the subpoenas go out, and the trials
begin. Let's see if he is so brave when faced with jail time if he refuses to
cooperate.All hail King George the Bush.
I understand your argument, Thomas. We disagree on how compliant the Supreme
Court has been with the wishes of administrations, and that could be argued at
book-length. I think maybe you're parsing just a little too much about major
wars, though. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not anywhere in the same league
with the expedition against the Barbary pirates that didn't result in an
extended invasion and occupation for several years. I know I don't have the
current interpretation on my side about the legality of the AUMF, I just
disagree with it. It's much too easy for the president to start a major war,
and I think that's the very thing the founders wanted to avoid. Giving the
president the AUMF is wimping out, in my own humble opinion. Congress is too
cowardly to step up and take the responsibility for declaring war when troops
are engaged for extended periods of time in a major way.
Hey, all you neo-con detractors WHEN are you finally wake up from your "obey and
follow-the-leader" mantra and see what's REALLY going on in America? Your are
writing the same old mush and baloney we are hearing from the "dear leader in
Thomas, the Holy Bible expert, in his in-your-face allegiance to his hawkish
political party, conveniently forgets the King of Kings, aka Jesus Christ (from
the New Testament) who is the ultimate pacifist, trumps the OLD Testament God
with:Thou Shalt Not KillPut away your swordsLove your
enemiesTurn the other cheekBeat your swords into ploughsharesPeace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.Sorry, Thomas.I prefer the NEW Testament King of Kings
Thomas, that's my point. Those founders didn't engage in major wars. I'm
talking about wars in which we engage for several years at a time, which result
in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the displacement of millions,
and cost hundreds of millions of dollars (adjusted for inflation, of course). I
really believe that's what they were talking about, not the comparatively little
international disagreements engaged in by the founders.
I am afraid our neocons have made the drastic mistake of putting their political
party before the words of Jesus Christ - The Ultimate Pacifist.This is
somewhat understandable due to the wave of patriotism that occured just after
9/11 -but to "stay the course" after all that we know now (including a
nearly bankrupted nation) is - nuts!
"Holy book," you smart (animal similar to a horse), keep in mind that the same
God who said those things had absolutely no problem opening several cans of
major-league whupp-(same animal) all over various Canaanite tribes. The God of Israel was absolutely, positively no lily-livered peacenik.I never got to ask you, amigo -- what's your opinion of the war in
Afghanistan? Justified or not?
Earl -- If the Supreme Court just rubber-stamps executive-branch decisions, why
does it so often rule against the executive branch?The distinction
between "minor engagements" and "all-out wars" is subject to debate. I wouldn't
put Korea, Vietnam, the Yugoslavian campaigns, the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan
in the same league as an "all-out war" like World War II. In fact, a greater
percentage of America's military (i.e. pretty much all of it) was sent to fight
the Barbary Pirates than has been deployed to Iraq.In any event, the
war in Iraq was based on an express Congressional authorization to use military
force. There's nothing in the Constitution that says Congress's authorization
of war has to use the actual words "We declare war." The AUMF more than
satisfies the Constitution's requirements.
Peperlake obviously watches "RedEye" on Fox, with the classic line "And if you
disagree, then you, Sir, are worse than Hitler."Earl -- Isn't your
argument that the Founding Fathers intended that war should be waged only
pursuant to a formal declaration of war suffer a bit from the fact that two of
the big-league Founders -- Adams and Jefferson -- both authorized undeclared
Thomas loves to talk about the Bible.Speaking of monarchy, here's
from the King of Kings:Thou Shalt Not KillPut away your
swordsLove your enemiesTurn the other cheekBeat your swords
into ploughsharesPeace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.Unfortunately, our neocon friends would label the author of these words "a
Thomas, bringing up minor engagements is a far cry from all-out wars like Korea,
Vietnam and Iraq, don't you think? I don't think anyone is quibbling about the
small stuff. There's a big difference between a skirmish and total war in which
millions are killed. As for the Supreme Court putting their stamp of approval
on executive decisions, when has that become a real test. Their stamp is
nothing more than rubber.
One might be better off under a monarch who owns the state's assets than
democratically-elected administrations incentivized to use political power to
waste and loot the state they rent and the nation they rule for four-year terms,
but no more than eight.See Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God
That Failed" for further explanation.
We conservatives agree the president has taken the country in the wrong
direction.He has taken it to the left! It is insane that McCain is a
republican presidential nominee! He is the most left wing radical RINO in the
party, a butt of all our jokes but it is no longer funny. The republican party
must repeat the mantra TO THE RIGHT TO THE RIGHT TO THE RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT!!!
Till these morons in Washington get the message. If not we will rebuild from the
ashes of what was America before Obama gave a group hug to our enemies and then
bush is a criminal. and everyone that voted for him is too. anyone who did not
pay attention enough to see that is responsible. I remember telling everyone I
knew in 1999 to be ware of that man. It was obvious to me that he never had any
intention of representing anyone but himself and his oil companies. I told
people that he was going to find a reason to attack Iraq. I only have a high
school education but I was smart enough to recognize Cheney and Rumsfeld as a
continuation of executive power that was responsible for the lies that America
was told about vietnam! was I the only one who paid attention in American
history in high school? at this point even if you consider yourself to be a
conservative republican you must admit that Bush has distorted what that means
to the very core. if you haven't acknowledged that you might as well be a fan of
"What's up with them" -- It's because we disagree with you. As citizens in a
democratic republic tend to do. And because we believe that for all our
representatives' faults, your side is likely to be worse -- starting with its
promises to repeat Herbert Hoover's disastrous response to the 1929 recession
(protectionism and tax hikes), which turned that recession into the Great
Depression.Also, because we believe that when so much of a person's
argument consists of mockery and so little of substance, he hasn't thought
things through.Re: the letter, it's been awhile since I slogged
through the Old Testament, but danged if I can remember reading about the
ancient Israelite prophets spending much time quibbling about education budgets.
And if engaging the armed forces in military conflicts means the
President has become a "king," then America has been a monarchy since the John
Adams administration. (Read up on the naval war with France in 1798.) Or the
immediately-following Jefferson administration (the wars against the Barbary
pirate-jihadists). The vast majority of American military conflicts have been
waged without a formal declaration of war, and repeated Supreme Court cases have
upheld the practice.
Why do our neocon brothers and sisters have such an agonizingly difficult time
accepting the fact that their party at large has taken this country in the wrong
I can't agree that Israel in the time of Judges was a republic. It was more like
a loose confederation of tribes who found it useful to unite when faced with a
common threat. The book of Judges even hints that it was a poor system at the
book's conclusion.But having said that, I think the writer is
correct in directing our attention away from frivolous matters to serious ones.
Power vacuums don't last long, and the executive branch has rushed in to fill
them all too quickly. Reining it in will be a tough, but necessary task.
We can argue over the war-making power and its legality, but while many things
may be legal, that doesn't make them moral. If you've taken the time to
understand the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding war-making powers, you'd
know the much effort and time was taken to make sure the president would never
have the ability to make war. They railed against monarchies specifically
because monarchs can go to war whenever they wish, without the consent of the
people or their representatives. The spirit of the Constitution is to limit the
power of the executive to take us to war. If anyone is to blame in giving the
president so much latitude in involving us in military conflicts without a
declaration of war, it is the congress. The U.S. congress has become a
rubber-stamping, grandstanding arena that has been self-emasculated. Only they
themselves can restore the congressional duty of declaring war and prohibiting
the president from engaging in military adventures. The Supreme Court is not
going to help them, they're another rubber-stamp branch. We just seem to keep
electing weak-kneed representatives who cower at the demands of the presidency.
@Mike R. 9:02.I disagree (rare...I usually agree with you). It
cites recent "presidents." And the executive branch IS much more powerful today
than it was in, say, George Washington's time. It is true that many of the
founders favored a strong executive; but most did not, and the constitution was
framed with enumerated powers, checks, and balances that arguably favor the
legislature. Now, Congress has lost power to the other two branches. I believe, and this just occurred to me, so feel free to comment, that
Congress can only blame itself for it's weakened state. Namely, the filibuster
rule in the Senate constricts their power to much. And they do it voluntarily!
As I understand it, the filibuster rule is the Senate's own procedural process,
NOT based on any constitutional provision. And this one rule is probably the
biggest factor in the gridlock mess we call a Congress.In one fell
swoop, we could perhaps drastically improve and empower our Congress by
eliminating the filibuster rule and putting in term limits (I can be generous,
maybe as much as three terms in the Senate, five in the House).
Not only is it becoming a monarchy, but we have our own royalty, as well.
Kennedys, Rockefellers, Bushes - and even in Utah - Romneys, Leavitts, Cannons
and Huntsmans. People born with platinum spoons in their mouths who have no
concept of what the "common man" deals with on a day-to-day basis. If fact, if
it's "common," they want nothing to do with it. They flaunt their superiority -
they are above the law - and if not, they change the law to be sure that they
are. They buy power. With that power, they manipulate what needs to be
manipulated to get more money, with which they buy more power. Next time you
get mad at the cost to fill up your vehicle, just remember - these prices are
brought to you by GW and Chenney - and don't kid yourself into thinking they
aren't they making a sweet penny off the skyrocketing fuel prices. But, then,
when is the last time you or anyone ever saw Mitt filling up his Mercedes at the
local Tesoro station?
Another typically liberal anti-Bush diatribe, with attending historical
Why the modern American conservative movement would embrace the master/slave
ideology is beyond me.It is the way the country was founded however.But, it's good to be the King.Are you a King?
:The Declaration of Independence:"But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."Fifty plus years of abuses and usurpations producing the same object, is
enough to invoke this marvelously turned phrase, and make it a reality again.Let the revolution begin.
Libertarian, Steve and Chad - can you guys get your stories straight. Is this a
pro-liberal or anti-liberal post. Don't you guys get a monthly newsletter with
all the conservative mantras attached. Come on. I lttle coordination is
necessary for us to be able to identify the liberal messages from the
This might explain how the monstrous administration we have in power today got
elected (if you want to call that last debacle an "election")But real
American is finally waking up.
We can be an empire or we can be a republic, we can't be both. America has over
800 military bases and facilities around the world. That sounds more like an
empire to me.
The letter writer lost all credibility when he noted that the president declared
war without consent of congress. This is a bald-faced lie. Congress and the
senate both voted in favor of military action in Iraq, and indeed war was never
declared in Iraq nor Afghanistan. This has precedent in other military action
we have taken including Korea and Mr. Hillary Clinton's bombing runs in Serbia,
Kosovo, and in attacks in Iraq (yes, Clinton tried to take out WMD factories in
Iraq...did we all forget that?).Also, he makes it sound like Saul
forcibly took power and he implies that is what the president is doing now:
forcibly turning our country into a monarchy. Nothing is further from the truth
in either area. We have a general election coming up this year, and in ancient
Israel, the judges voted to hand over power to Saul.At least do 3
minutes of research before spouting off. Try searching wikipedia for
declaration of war in america. All of the truth is available in black and
white. More liberal panic-rhetoric without substance, just what we all needed, a
directionless voice with no ideas, just hot air. An wrong hot air to boot.
Liberal diatribe, Libs just love spreading lies.
Do you mean that an organization that fights to protect our rights, like the
ACLU is NOT the biggest threat that our country faces?Michael Savage
says they are, Jerry Falwell said we were attacked on 9/11 beacause of "the
pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays..., the
ACLU...".It appears that at this point in our republic, that there
are people who seek to gain power by removal of individual rights speaking out
against the very organizations dedicated to preserving those rights.
Unfortunately, their attacks have become accepted by those on the political
right.There was a time when the saying "Give me liberty or give me
death" meant something. Now it seems it should be "give me my Idol or I'm going
to do something else"
Robert - perfect reasoining! Thanks for this frightening but accurate
Spot on!Who can argue this? Im sure some one out there is going to try.
Probably a liberal in denial. It's time for another revolution! RON
PAUL REVOLUTION!!BACK TO THE CONSTITUION!
Hit the nail on the head!!!!
Amen to that!!!