Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Eldon on January 18, 2008, 07:06:02 AM
-
Decker wrote the following :
'I don't support the troops either. I don't support their mission so how on earth could I support them. That doesn't mean I wish them harm. '
Yet Decker says that John Edwards is the person he is supporting, and John Edwards vote was part of what authorized sending our troops to Iraq.
So lets see, You support John Edwards, his vote helped send our troops to Iraq, and now that they are in Iraq, you don't support them.
You are a hypocrite. :o
-
How do you know that I support John Edwards?
I never posted my choice of candidate on the public forums.
I only told Ozark that I supported Edwards in a private message.
Eldon, do you know Ozark?
On to the matter at hand. Edwards did give the president authority to use force against Iraq if necessary. (We can go into the cooked evidence of Iraq's threat if you like)
Since any use of force wasn't necessary against Iraq, it stands to reason that Bush misused the authority granted to him by the Congress.
I mean you just can't declare another country a threat and attack it without justification, can you?
Edwards acknowledged that giving this criminal president any authority was a mistake.
So much for your charge.
-
Fact : John Edwards vote helped send the troops to Iraq
Fact : Now that the troops are their, they just can turn in their hat, and walk home.
Fact : You support John Edwards
Fact : You don't support the troops,, who in part, are over their because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker is a Hypocrite !
-
Fact : John Edwards vote helped send the troops to Iraq
Fact : Now that the troops are their, they just can turn in their hat, and walk home.
Fact : You support John Edwards
Fact : You don't support the troops,, who in part, are over their because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker is a Hypocrite !
How did you know that I supported Edwards?
"Fact : John Edwards vote helped send the troops to Iraq"
Wrong-O Mary Lou. Edwards cannot as a matter of law authorize Bush to do something illegal.
Congress gives the Commander and Chief of the Military the authority to use force and Bush breaks the law to use that force.
You have lost Eldon. Your argument does not hold up.
-
"i didnt vote for the war, i just gave the president the authority" is such a bullshit answer.
did you listen to the hearings? president Bush made the case very clear that they were going to war. he didnt tell the senate, MAYBEE we'll go. he said we WILL go. Edwards and every other senator knew exactly that they were voting to go to war.
the president wasnt asking for permission. but like good politicians they spin the words to make it look that way.
-
"i didnt vote for the war, i just gave the president the authority" is such a bullshit answer.
did you listen to the hearings? president Bush made the case very clear that they were going to war. he didnt tell the senate, MAYBEE we'll go. he said we WILL go. Edwards and every other senator knew exactly that they were voting to go to war.
the president wasnt asking for permission. but like good politicians they spin the words to make it look that way.
Only the president, as commander and chief of the armed forces, can order an attack.
He made the case (total BS) that Iraq was a threat and that use of force may be necessary.
He was given the authority to use force if necessary in a legal manner.
The only way Bush is exculpated from breaking the law is if the UN Charter does not exist and the Nuremberg holdings never happened.
Cmdr. and Chief Bush misused his authority to use force in ordering the attack.
Why is that so hard to understand and why do Bush supporters look to spread the blame for that crime?
-
Only the president, as commander and chief of the armed forces, can order an attack.
He made the case (total BS) that Iraq was a threat and that use of force may be necessary.
He was given the authority to use force if necessary in a legal manner.
The only way Bush is exculpated from breaking the law is if the UN Charter does not exist and the Nuremberg holdings never happened.
Cmdr. and Chief Bush misused his authority to use force in ordering the attack.
Why is that so hard to understand and why do Bush supporters look to spread the blame for that crime?
the president didnt say the force may be necessary. he said it WAS necessary.
he made it clear there wasnt a possibility of war, that a war was in fact going to happen.
edwards didnt even read the intel report. he went on the advice from his advisors and from clinton and his group. so saying bush convinced him is wrong. he said he didnt even listen to bush, only his people.
-
Eldon, have you ever found a candidate you agree with 100% I never have. What is one to do if the best matching candidate meets 8 of 10 requirements you have and the next in line is 6 of 10 requirements? Do you just not vote? With what you're saying, if you don't agree with an item on that candidate's resume, you're a hypocrite voting for him. I have a feeling that's going to make for a lot of hypocrites out there.
-
"i didnt vote for the war, i just gave the president the authority" is such a bullshit answer.
did you listen to the hearings? president Bush made the case very clear that they were going to war. he didnt tell the senate, MAYBEE we'll go. he said we WILL go. Edwards and every other senator knew exactly that they were voting to go to war.
the president wasnt asking for permission. but like good politicians they spin the words to make it look that way.
He WAS asking for permission - but - since 83% of Americans at the time beleived Bush was going to use this power for war... and congress is supposed to be smarter than the average joe schmoe... well, congress knew.
so kh300, you're right in this aspect.
But eldon's argument about decker is very poorly constructed. Edwards is a snake lawyer. Is he better than a man (rudy) who bragged to CNN he knew the WTC towers were falling when no one else knew, then later denied ever saying it on camera?
-
He WAS asking for permission - but - since 83% of Americans at the time beleived Bush was going to use this power for war... and congress is supposed to be smarter than the average joe schmoe... well, congress knew.
so kh300, you're right in this aspect.
But eldon's argument about decker is very poorly constructed. Edwards is a snake lawyer. Is he better than a man (rudy) who bragged to CNN he knew the WTC towers were falling when no one else knew, then later denied ever saying it on camera?
ok, but bush was saying -you are voting for an invasion.
first of all rudy didnt say that. second of all i could care less about him. he takes credit for cleaning up ny? what the fuck did he do. he didnt get shot at, he didnt get into gang fights, he didnt go undercover, he didnt go after the Mafia.. he gives the pd no credit, we did all the work then hands out a pay cut. Bernard Kerik and Ray Kelly should be the only ones taking credit for anything. but that doesnt stop rudy from running as the savior of ny, and 911.
-
kh300-
Bush never said 'youre voting to invade' - but everyone knew it. The dems are being deceptive when they say they thought he wouldn't use it. 80+% of America, and all of Congress, and certainly all the military moving into position, knew war was inevitable. Dems suck for that.
You're absolutely wrong on the Rudy 911 thing - he was interviewed on CNN and told the reporter that he was in the lobby of the south tower, and that a voice came over his walkie and told him the tower was coming down, get out. He did. 10 min later it fell. Officially, that call was never made, according to 911 commission. scorew of firefighters rushed IN, during those last 10 minutes. So please, google it. You can watch the clip of Rudy, in his own words, telling CNN. Then you can watch the clip from 2007 where he is confronted by 911 truthers and denies what he said, even as they hold up laptops playing his words on youtube, from CNN.
RUdy did a great job as mayor, I agree completely. But you're not talking facts - if you want to challenge me, make it worth my time. Promise you'll post 500 porn pics on the politics board, and i"Ll look up the rudy clip myself for you :)
-
are you talking about tower #2.. because theres a big difference between tower and tower's..
if you are talking about #2 ya, they knew it was comming down. i remember the call after the first went down. "everyone evacuate the south tower"
im at an airport. no porn
-
are you talking about tower #2.. because theres a big difference between tower and tower's..
if you are talking about #2 ya, they knew it was comming down. i remember the call after the first went down. "everyone evacuate the south tower"
im at an airport. no porn
they dont allow porn in airports? That is sad :(
Yeah, one of the 911 truthers' big pieces is the fact that Rudy somehow knew the south tower was coming down when no one else did. He said his walkie talkie told him. For 5 years, he's been peppered with "How did you know when no one else knew", and no doubt he slipped by telling CNN he was warned.
Denying he ever said it... why would he do that? There is video evidence of him on CNN that morning. Why deny it in 2006?
-
they dont allow porn in airports? That is sad :(
Yeah, one of the 911 truthers' big pieces is the fact that Rudy somehow knew the south tower was coming down when no one else did. He said his walkie talkie told him. For 5 years, he's been peppered with "How did you know when no one else knew", and no doubt he slipped by telling CNN he was warned.
Denying he ever said it... why would he do that? There is video evidence of him on CNN that morning. Why deny it in 2006?
you can have porn, but theres people around
how many people died in the south tower? not many. maybee you didnt see what i wrote so ill say it again. we all got the call over the radio. the first tower went down, they assumed the same thing was going to happen to the 2nd. it was evacuated, so i dont know what the secret is
-
the president didnt say the force may be necessary. he said it WAS necessary.
he made it clear there wasnt a possibility of war, that a war was in fact going to happen.
edwards didnt even read the intel report. he went on the advice from his advisors and from clinton and his group. so saying bush convinced him is wrong. he said he didnt even listen to bush, only his people.
It is not relevant how or what Bush said to Congress about the use of force. It is the president’s responsibility and sworn duty to discharge his duties legally. That, he did not do.
Anyways, here is Bush’s resolution language to Congress re his request to use force for the armed meteor that was Iraq:
The resolution reads, in part: "The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region." http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2002/September/20020919182724mkellerh@pd.state.gov0.751034.html
Bush ran to the UN to ask permission to enforce the disarmament resolution. When that fell through b/c Iraq had no WMDs since the WMD inspectors were finding nothing, Bush resorted to “regime change” for Iraq.
Regime Change may have been US policy and that’s fine, but the US cannot attack another country to change the regime. That’s a war crime. Iraq didn’t attack us, an ally or our interests, yet Bush attacked anyways.
These calls were made by Bush…not Congress and not Edwards.
-
Fact : John Edwards vote helped send the troops to Iraq
Fact : Now that the troops are their, they just can turn in their hat, and walk home.
Fact : You support John Edwards
Fact : You don't support the troops,, who in part, are over their because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker is a Hypocrite
Which of the fabove facts are untrue ?
John Edwards voted to send the troops into Iraq, anyone on here that says different is full of shit.
whether John Edwards, Decker, or Santa Claus think's they should be their is not the question, the fact is they are their, an thanks in part to John Edwards vote, this is a fact.
You don't like the war, fine, great, but Decker is a hypocrite, plain and simple, as you cant say you support the candidate that voted to send the troops to Iraq but now that they are their, that you don't support them.
If Decker wants to support Edwards,and not be a hypocrite, then he should say : " I am against the war, I think Bush is a liar, and in doing so, my man John Edwards voted "yes "on sending the troops to Iraq, and I would like the troops out of Iraq asap, but until then I support the troops, and will continue to, as the soldiers over their, had no say in this, and in part are over their because for John Edwards vote.
Decker is a Hypocrite.
-
It is not relevant how or what Bush said to Congress about the use of force. It is the president’s responsibility and sworn duty to discharge his duties legally. That, he did not do.
Anyways, here is Bush’s resolution language to Congress re his request to use force for the armed meteor that was Iraq:
The resolution reads, in part: "The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region." http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2002/September/20020919182724mkellerh@pd.state.gov0.751034.html
Bush ran to the UN to ask permission to enforce the disarmament resolution. When that fell through b/c Iraq had no WMDs since the WMD inspectors were finding nothing, Bush resorted to “regime change” for Iraq.
Regime Change may have been US policy and that’s fine, but the US cannot attack another country to change the regime. That’s a war crime. Iraq didn’t attack us, an ally or our interests, yet Bush attacked anyways.
These calls were made by Bush…not Congress and not Edwards.
the inspecors didnt find anything because they wernt allowed to enter.
we didnt, nor are we at war with iraq. we are fighting with iraq. the enemy we are fighting happens to be in iraq.
-
Fact : John Edwards vote helped send the troops to Iraq
Fact : Now that the troops are their, they just can turn in their hat, and walk home.
Fact : You support John Edwards
Fact : You don't support the troops,, who in part, are over their because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker is a Hypocrite
Which of the fabove facts are untrue ?
John Edwards voted to send the troops into Iraq, anyone on here that says different is full of shit.
whether John Edwards, Decker, or Santa Claus think's they should be their is not the question, the fact is they are their, an thanks in part to John Edwards vote, this is a fact.
You don't like the war, fine, great, but Decker is a hypocrite, plain and simple, as you cant say you support the candidate that voted to send the troops to Iraq but now that they are their, that you don't support them.
If Decker wants to support Edwards,and not be a hypocrite, then he should say : " I am against the war, I think Bush is a liar, and in doing so, my man John Edwards voted "yes "on sending the troops to Iraq, and I would like the troops out of Iraq asap, but until then I support the troops, and will continue to, as the soldiers over their, had no say in this, and in part are over their because for John Edwards vote.
Decker is a Hypocrite.
How did you find out that I supported Edwards?
Could you answer that question?
Now we'll address your asinine argument with the assumption that Edwards authorized Bush to break the law and murder Iraqis.
When you support a candidate, do you support everything that candidate's done or every plank in his platform?
You might, but rational people generally don't.
Do you support Ron Paul's support of White Supremecist Literature?
I support Edwards b/c he has the best healthcare plan which is currently our #1 domestic issue.
-
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.
"
-
what gets me is these people that say we need to get out of iraq, and i dont support the troops.
if thats how you think, then how is it possible that you like to hear good news out of iraq? you want out, so what helps support your case? -more dead soldiers. does it make you happy when that number goes up?
you cant tell me that more dead soldiers doesnt help support your agenda of getting out of iraq.
maybee thats why edwards voted against raising the budget for body and truck armour. the more deaths you get the better your case is. unfortunately isnt that why you want out, to save the soldiers? if no more soldiers die, then why the urge to get out?
thats hypocrisy
-
the inspecors didnt find anything because they wernt allowed to enter.
we didnt, nor are we at war with iraq. we are fighting with iraq. the enemy we are fighting happens to be in iraq.
"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
"This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences."
http://216.219.216.117/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html
That's from Blix's report to the UN.
He's the expert WMD inspector.
"The justification for the war - the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was without foundation," Blix said. "The military operation was successful, but the diagnosis was wrong.
"Saddam was dangerous to his own people but not a great, and certainly not an immediate, danger to his neighbors and the world," he added.
Again on Tuesday he criticized the United States and Britain for trusting their own intelligence more than that of the weapons inspectors, who had not found "a smoking gun."
-
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.
"
Hearsay and Irrelevant.
Bush had no legal avenue to attack Iraq.
Of course he had the authority to use force.
You are confusing issues to fit your prejudice that Congress shares equal blame with Bush for the Iraq invasion crime.
-
"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
"This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences."
http://216.219.216.117/news/2003/bfeb/20_blix.html
That's from Blix's report to the UN.
He's the expert WMD inspector.
"The justification for the war - the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was without foundation," Blix said. "The military operation was successful, but the diagnosis was wrong.
"Saddam was dangerous to his own people but not a great, and certainly not an immediate, danger to his neighbors and the world," he added.
Again on Tuesday he criticized the United States and Britain for trusting their own intelligence more than that of the weapons inspectors, who had not found "a smoking gun."
whats your point. were talkin pre invasion
-
what gets me is these people that say we need to get out of iraq, and i dont support the troops.
if thats how you think, then how is it possible that you like to hear good news out of iraq? you want out, so what helps support your case? -more dead soldiers. does it make you happy when that number goes up?
you cant tell me that more dead soldiers doesnt help support your agenda of getting out of iraq.
maybee thats why edwards voted against raising the budget for body and truck armour. the more deaths you get the better your case is. unfortunately isnt that why you want out, to save the soldiers? if no more soldiers die, then why the urge to get out?
thats hypocrisy
Thank you for making my argument for me and then dismantling it.
That is called a straw argument.
I don't support the troops in Iraq b/c I don't support the mission.
From that you mistakenly conclude that I wish harm on the troops.
That's bush league on your part.
For the record, there is no good news coming from Iraq. The dead are still dead.
-
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/17/222725.shtml?s=ic
John Edwards says he voted for the War !:
John Edwards: Wrong Vote on Iraq War
Former Sen. John Edwards said Thursday he made a mistake in 2002 when he voted to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.
Edwards was the keynote speaker at a rally with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, the Democrat who defeated U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in last week's primary. Edwards said Thursday he also believes the U.S. needs to withdraw its troops from the war-torn country.
"I voted for this war. I was wrong," Edwards, of North Carolina, told a crowd of about 300 people gathered outside the Yale University School of Medicine. "I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that."
Lamont was able to defeat Lieberman by criticizing his support of the war. Many Democrats also believe Lieberman, a well-known centrist, has been too supportive of President Bush and the Republicans.
Lamont defeated Lieberman, an 18-year-incumbent, by 10,000 votes. Lieberman is now running in the general election as an independent.
Now that we see even John Edwards says that he "voted for the War "
Fact :John Edwards himself says he voted for the war
Fact : The troops are their, and in part because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker supports John Edwards
Fact : Decker does not support the troops, ( that are over their risking their lives in part because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker is a hypocrite !
-
whats your point. were talkin pre invasion
This is painful and frustrating.
You don't know the basic facts re the Iraq war and you've lived through the experience.
Nov. 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.
Mar. 20, 2003 The war against Iraq begins 5:30 AM Baghdad time
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html#header_2002
-
Thank you for making my argument for me and then dismantling it.
That is called a straw argument.
I don't support the troops in Iraq b/c I don't support the mission.
From that you mistakenly conclude that I wish harm on the troops.
That's bush league on your part.
For the record, there is no good news coming from Iraq. The dead are still dead.
it is bush league, but its the truth.
i used to be a relief pitcher. i would sit there and say, i hope this guy fucks up so i get into the game.
if a guy is on the mound and dominating, how does that help me? if he does bad, i get in and get a bigger pay check.
same thing. you want out, so why would you want us to do good in iraq? that doesnt fit into your agenda.
so why do you wsnt out of iraq? is it for the soldiers?
-
This is painful and frustrating.
You don't know the basic facts re the Iraq war and you've lived through the experience.
Nov. 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.
Mar. 20, 2003 The war against Iraq begins 5:30 AM Baghdad time
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline2.html#header_2002
ok, this timeline doesnt say shit. its doesnt mention the fact that the inspectors wernt allowed to enter. thats what started this shit.
whatever, i dont have time for this shit,my flights boarding soon
-
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/17/222725.shtml?s=ic
John Edwards says he voted for the War !:
John Edwards: Wrong Vote on Iraq War
Former Sen. John Edwards said Thursday he made a mistake in 2002 when he voted to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.
Edwards was the keynote speaker at a rally with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, the Democrat who defeated U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in last week's primary. Edwards said Thursday he also believes the U.S. needs to withdraw its troops from the war-torn country.
"I voted for this war. I was wrong," Edwards, of North Carolina, told a crowd of about 300 people gathered outside the Yale University School of Medicine. "I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that."
Lamont was able to defeat Lieberman by criticizing his support of the war. Many Democrats also believe Lieberman, a well-known centrist, has been too supportive of President Bush and the Republicans.
Lamont defeated Lieberman, an 18-year-incumbent, by 10,000 votes. Lieberman is now running in the general election as an independent.
Now that we see even John Edwards says that he "voted for the War "
Fact :John Edwards himself says he voted for the war
Fact : The troops are their, and in part because of John Edwards vote.
Fact : Decker supports John Edwards
Fact : Decker does not support the troops, ( that are over their risking their lives in part because of John Edwards vote.)
Fact : Decker is a hypocrite !
-
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/17/222725.shtml?s=ic
John Edwards say's he voted for the War !:
John Edwards: Wrong Vote on Iraq War
Former Sen. John Edwards said Thursday he made a mistake in 2002 when he voted to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.
Edwards was the keynote speaker at a rally with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, the Democrat who defeated U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in last week's primary. Edwards said Thursday he also believes the U.S. needs to withdraw its troops from the war-torn country.
"I voted for this war. I was wrong," Edwards, of North Carolina, told a crowd of about 300 people gathered outside the Yale University School of Medicine. "I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that."
Lamont was able to defeat Lieberman by criticizing his support of the war. Many Democrats also believe Lieberman, a well-known centrist, has been too supportive of President Bush and the Republicans.
Lamont defeated Lieberman, an 18-year-incumbent, by 10,000 votes. Lieberman is now running in the general election as an independent.
I guess you got me there. Here we go again.
Do you understand the political dynamic at work for use of force by the US or do you just cut and paste soundbites?
Congress gives authority to use force under the War Powers Resolution. It's up to the president to pull the trigger.
Just b/c Edwards makes the facile statement that "he voted for the war" does not change the factual underpinning.
And if you want to get technical Eldon, there is no war b/c Congress never declared war on Iraq.
-
it is bush league, but its the truth.
i used to be a relief pitcher. i would sit there and say, i hope this guy fucks up so i get into the game.
if a guy is on the mound and dominating, how does that help me? if he does bad, i get in and get a bigger pay check.
same thing. you want out, so why would you want us to do good in iraq? that doesnt fit into your agenda.
so why do you wsnt out of iraq? is it for the soldiers?
I want the US out to stop the illegal killings. The law matters. Pretending that international law is a joke is nothing but law of the jungle itself.
I have no stake in Iraq. I'm just tired of seeing Wisconsin men and women dying every week b/c of Bush's lame war crime. I'm tired of seeing billions wasted to line the pockets of war profiteers. And I'm tired of the lethargy of the american public who roll over and just accept this murder done in our name with our tax dollars.
That's just the way it is.
-
Question : Did John Edwards vote for the War in Iraq ?
Answer: "I voted for this war. I was wrong," John Edwards
Question: was it a vote for a War in Iraq ?
Answer : "I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that." John Edwards
So, in his voting for the War ( John Edward's words ) the troops are sent to Iraq, and are now risking their lives, in part because of John Edwards vote.
Decker is a Hypocrite
-
Question : Did John Edwards vote for the War in Iraq ?
Answer: "I voted for this war. I was wrong," John Edwards
Question: was it a vote for a War in Iraq ?
Answer : "I should not have voted for this war and I take responsibility for that."
So, in his voting for the War ( John Edward's words ) the troops are sent to Iraq, and are now risking their lives, in part because of John Edwards vote.
Decker is a Hypocrite
All right son. I do share some similarities with Edwards: we are both lawyers, we are both handsome dogs, our wives both have breast cancer and we both believe in populist politics.
If you want to see monolithic support for any candidate, that's your problem.
B/c even if we accept your argument that Edwards is responsible for Bush's call to invade, I do not support Edwards for that reason. I support him for the other reasons.
Did Edwards vote enable Bush to use force? Yes. Did it mean Iraq would be attacked? No. That was Bush's call to make.
-
Decker,
The troops are over their risking their lives, in part because of John Edwards (and other democrats), and whether you think they were mislead or not, John edwards still voted for the war (his words), and that is the fact.
And the soldiers just can't turn in their hat, and walk home.
So hate Bush all you want, but support the troops !
-
The troops are over their risking their lives, in part because of John Edwards (and other democrats), and whether you think they were mislead or not, John edwards still voted for the war (his words), and that is the fact.
I have admitted as much. And Bush did withhold from Congress countervailing evidence of Iraq's compliance with the UN's effort of disarmament. Funny how we never here about that. We sure heard of Curveball. But that's secondary to the Absolute Power of the President as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces to order an attack or abstain from the exercise of that constitutional power.
And the soldiers just can't turn in their hat, and walk home.
We all have free will. There were conscientious objectors during WWII and that was a legal war.
Personal responsibility means accountability. Sometimes that's unpleasant. Sometimes it's jailable. We always have a choice in the direction of our lives.
So hate Bush all you want, but support the troops !
I hate Bush for many valid reasons. But you and I part ways on supporting the troops. You do and I do not.
-
We all have free will. There were conscientious objectors during WWII and that was a legal war.
Personal responsibility means accountability. Sometimes that's unpleasant. Sometimes it's jailable. We always have a choice in the direction of our lives.- Decker
Let me get this straight, so you want every soldier to disobey their orders, turn in their guns and come home ?
and only then they would have Decker's support :o
-
Let me get this straight, so you want every soldier to disobey their orders, turn in their guns and come home ?
and only then they would have Decker's support :o
Doing the right thing is not always in one's immediate interest. The strong ones don't need my help. They can stand alone. For the others, it's easier to go along with things as is. There have been a few that have objected to their service in this conflict.
-
You really want every soldier to disobey their orders, turn in their guns and come home ??? ???
-
So you want every soldier to disobey their orders, turn in their guns and come home ?
Yes.
Did you tell Eldon about my choice of Edwards as a presidential candidate?
-
Forget it. I got to get back to work.
-
Fact: We ALL support the troops, like it or not. By the statement, "supporting the troops", do you mean "supporting the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan"? And really, even if you disagree with the war or have an actual seething hatred of the US Military, you still support it with your TAX DOLLARS.
Here's a question for ya: To what degree will it take that the US military largely will outright disobey a direct order? What circumstances have to take place for this event to happen?
-
Fact: We ALL support the troops, like it or not. By the statement, "supporting the troops", do you mean "supporting the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan"? And really, even if you disagree with the war or have an actual seething hatred of the US Military, you still support it with your TAX DOLLARS.
Here's a question for ya: To what degree will it take that the US military largely will outright disobey a direct order? What circumstances have to take place for this event to happen?
We live in a democratic republic. I don't like some of the things my tax dollars fund but I can't have things my way. I am part of a society.
If the gov.'s executive branch is corrupt and misuses the military, then it falls on the individual conscience of each soldier whether to follow orders or not.
-
We live in a democratic republic. I don't like some of the things my tax dollars fund but I can't have things my way. I am part of a society.
If the gov.'s executive branch is corrupt and misuses the military, then it falls on the individual conscience of each soldier whether to follow orders or not.
You realize you're advocating anarchy, right?
-
You realize you're advocating anarchy, right?
Beach Bum,
On one hand Decker is against this war sooooooo strongly, that he wants every single soldier to disobey orders, turn in their gun, and walk home - Anarchy :o
and
On the other hand, Decker wants John Edwards (who voted for the war) to become our next President, in part because Edwards reminds Decker of himself.
Decker is a hypocrite !
-
You really want every soldier to disobey their orders, turn in their guns and come home ??? ???
Yep, more like disobey orders and go to jail for a very long time.
Guess all those kids that signed up in 2002-03 hoping for some college money, are evil people, now that they have to go fight..because their countries executive branch called them to duty?
-
Decker, "We all have free will. There were conscientious objectors during WWII and that was a legal war."
You said we live in a pluralistic society, humanistic, and existentialism have no place in a pluralistic society.
These kids have two options, 1) go to war, do all they can to survive and come home to see their families, 2) don't go and go to prison for many years putting financial strain and burden on their families.
Well that's not a shell shocker.
You can rebel against a cause that society deems unfair, or unfit for the cause but the larger effect is those inocent people that are affected by it....1 being the soldiers.
But if you really want to rebel, since you believe in humanistics, then quit paying your taxes that support in part the war.
-
Beach Bum,
On one hand Decker is against this war sooooooo strongly, that he wants every single soldier to disobey orders, turn in their gun, and walk home - Anarchy :o
and
On the other hand, Decker wants John Edwards (who voted for the war) to become our next President, in part because Edwards reminds Decker of himself.
Decker is a hypocrite !
Eldon I don't think he's necessarily a hypocrite for supporting Edwards. If he wants to support a candidate who has not supported the war in one form or another, he'd probably have to sit this one out. I don't always agree with all of the positions of the candidates I vote for.
But his belief that troops should desert is absurd.
-
Wrong Beach Bum,
Their are candidates running who were never for this War.
So if Decker is so passionately against this War, that he wants every soldier to commit Anarchy ! ! ! ! !
Then he should at the very least , not support a candidate that voted for the war.
He is a hypocrite.
-
Decker, "We all have free will. There were conscientious objectors during WWII and that was a legal war."
You said we live in a pluralistic society, humanistic, and existentialism have no place in a pluralistic society.
These kids have two options, 1) go to war, do all they can to survive and come home to see their families, 2) don't go and go to prison for many years putting financial strain and burden on their families.
Well that's not a shell shocker.
You can rebel against a cause that society deems unfair, or unfit for the cause but the larger effect is those inocent people that are affected by it....1 being the soldiers.
But if you really want to rebel, since you believe in humanistics, then quit paying your taxes that support in part the war.
I like this post if your so against the war and think that every soldier should go awol than quit contributing yourself and stop paying your taxes
-
Wrong Beach Bum,
Their are candidates running who were never for this War.
So if Decker is so passionately against this War, that he wants every soldier to commit Anarchy ! ! ! ! !
Then he should at the very least , not support a candidate that voted for the war.
He is a hypocrite.
Like who? I think they have all supported the war in one form or another. (The legitimate candidates anyway.)
I somewhat agree with you that if you are passionate about an issue you shouldn't support a candidate who opposes that issue. But we have to agree to disagree that when all candidates oppose your issue you have to sit out an election or that makes you a hypocrite. I simply disagree with that rationale.
-
You realize you're advocating anarchy, right?
Wrong. Disobeying illegal and/or immoral directives is what a good soldier should do.
Pure anarchy results in a situation where each individual looks out only for himself, and it's kill or be killed. Nothing stops murder rape, and theft; only the strongest survive. That is definitely not what I'm advocating.
-
Wrong. Disobeying illegal and/or immoral directives is what a good soldier should do.
Pure anarchy results in a situation where each individual looks out only for himself, and it's kill or be killed. Nothing stops murder rape, and theft; only the strongest survive. That is definitely not what I'm advocating.
Oh please. If thousands of soldiers desert the military in time of war that is pure anarchy.
-
Wrong. Disobeying illegal and/or immoral directives is what a good soldier should do.
So are you going to start being a good citizen now? By doing your part to reform the political system, and stop paying taxes....
Ekk god man stand up for your opinion, write the IRS today and tell them you don't support the war so you will withhold 20% of your taxes to yourself and donate it to protests.
-
Decker, "We all have free will. There were conscientious objectors during WWII and that was a legal war."
You said we live in a pluralistic society, humanistic, and existentialism have no place in a pluralistic society.
These kids have two options, 1) go to war, do all they can to survive and come home to see their families, 2) don't go and go to prison for many years putting financial strain and burden on their families.
Well that's not a shell shocker.
You can rebel against a cause that society deems unfair, or unfit for the cause but the larger effect is those inocent people that are affected by it....1 being the soldiers.
But if you really want to rebel, since you believe in humanistics, then quit paying your taxes that support in part the war.
Like I said before, I have no stake in Iraq. I'm sick of the dying and the killing. I want it to end.
Why should I stop paying my taxes? How does that defund the war? Congress and Bush are borrowing billions from the Chinese to pay for the war.
In fact, I'm going to do all that I can to help our country by shopping as per the President's request.
On the practical and legal side, the US and allies from WWII did not go after the Axis citizen taxpayers. I am not pulling the trigger in Iraq, the soldiers are.
There is no statute of limitations for murder/war crimes.
The choices left to these kids are these:
1. Serve and quite possibly participate in the killing in Iraq, leaving a cloud of murder over their heads for the rest of their natural lives,
2. Object to the war and refuse service on grounds of conscientious objection. After a trial, the soldier may win or lose.
It's a tough a call and I as I said before, it's up to the individual's own conscience.
I just saw another Wisconsin kid was reported killed in Iraq. He was 30.
-
So are you going to start being a good citizen now? By doing your part to reform the political system, and stop paying taxes....
Ekk god man stand up for your opinion, write the IRS today and tell them you don't support the war so you will withhold 20% of your taxes to yourself and donate it to protests.
Read my prior post. Your request to stop paying my taxes is obfuscative drivel.
-
Oh please. If thousands of soldiers desert the military in time of war that is pure anarchy.
We are not in a time of war.
War has not been declared.
We have a military action that is illegal.
You speculate that chaos or 'anarchy' will ensue. I don't.
-
Read my prior post. Your request to stop paying my taxes is obfuscative drivel.
yeah that request is drivel ::)
lol
-
yeah that request is drivel ::)
lol
20% Withholding does not finance our war efforts. It pays for SS, medicare, etc.
Like I said, withholding my income tax payments is foolish and counterproductive and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
It's a good thing you posted the little smiley-face so I can see your side of the argument.
-
20% Withholding does not finance our war efforts. It pays for SS, medicare, etc.
Like I said, withholding my income tax payments is foolish and counterproductive and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
It's a good thing you posted the little smiley-face so I can see your side of the argument.
20% is just a number you can start off with, once your movement catches on then you can raise it.
And yes income tax does pay for Iraq, congress wants to put a surcharge on income tax, and during WWII income tax rose up to 70%
Do your part Decker.
War tax resisters balk at paying for American militarism
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2004/589 (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2004/589)
-
We are not in a time of war.
War has not been declared.
We have a military action that is illegal.
You speculate that chaos or 'anarchy' will ensue. I don't.
Pure semantics. A declaration of war is completely irrelevant to an armed forces member's service. The order to go into combat still comes from the Commander in Chief.
I can't believe you're trying to justify something like this. Service members cannot simply walk off the job. People's lives are at stake.
Headhunter where are you? :)
-
20% is just a number you can start off with, once your movement catches on then you can raise it.
And yes income tax does pay for Iraq, congress wants to put a surcharge on income tax, and during WWII income tax rose up to 70%
Do your part Decker.
War tax resisters balk at paying for American militarism
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2004/589 (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2004/589)
youandme just loves symbolism over substance--that's exactly what tax resisters are about. It's a losing proposition that has never been viable. No shit income taxes pay for the military.
As I said, I am not the one pulling the trigger in Iraq.
I pay my taxes but I pay them under protest. I believe the military should be funded with my tax dollar. I believe the military needs my support. I am no free rider. But I also believe the military is being misused in Iraq. So I submit my taxes with a letter of protest.
Equating my situation with that of the soldiers in Iraq is foolish.
-
Pure semantics. A declaration of war is completely irrelevant to an armed forces member's service. The order to go into combat still comes from the Commander in Chief.
I can't believe you're trying to justify something like this. Service members cannot simply walk off the job. People's lives are stake.
Headhunter where are you? :)
No it is not pure semantics. The Constitution requires the Congress to declare war on another country before military force can be used.
The War Powers Resolution permits the president as cmdr n chief the power to use force on a limited basis where a formal declaration of war has not been issued.
The US never declared war on Iraq. And Bush misused his authority as cmdr n chief by attacking Iraq for no good reason.
"...simply walk off the job..." When you put it that way you grotesquely misstate my point.
Why are they walking off the job? Is there a good reason for laying down their arms and forgoing the Iraq mess?
Yes, the invasion is illegal.
HH is watching the game. And I am going home to watch it as well.
Enjoy the football game Beach Bum.
-
I pay my taxes but I pay them under protest.
Thank you.
My point, your still paying them under protest. Soldiers are still going to war in protest. Some gearing up their dislike for the war by use of blogs, and talking to the media. Some soldiers may come home and protest on "their own time" since they signed a contract, a contract to serve the US, and obey commanders in ranking order under no questions.
-
No it is not pure semantics. The Constitution requires the Congress to declare war on another country before military force can be used.
The War Powers Resolution permits the president as cmdr n chief the power to use force on a limited basis where a formal declaration of war has not been issued.
The US never declared war on Iraq. And Bush misused his authority as cmdr n chief by attacking Iraq for no good reason.
"...simply walk off the job..." When you put it that way you grotesquely misstate my point.
Why are they walking off the job? Is there a good reason for laying down their arms and forgoing the Iraq mess?
Yes, the invasion is illegal.
HH is watching the game. And I am going home to watch it as well.
Enjoy the football game Beach Bum.
So we weren't at war in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq? You can call it whatever you want, but the missions, bullets, missiles, etc. don't change because Congress didn't issue a declaration of war. Combat is combat. War is war. I know the technical differences, but it really is semantics when it comes to the boots on the ground.
Walking off the job just shows how absurd the proposition is Decker. You can walk into your office and quit your job tomorrow. If a solider decides to quit on the battle field, people can die, and he goes to prison. You're advocating total chaos.
-
Like I said before, I have no stake in Iraq. I'm sick of the dying and the killing. I want it to end.
Why should I stop paying my taxes? How does that defund the war? Congress and Bush are borrowing billions from the Chinese to pay for the war.
In fact, I'm going to do all that I can to help our country by shopping as per the President's request.
On the practical and legal side, the US and allies from WWII did not go after the Axis citizen taxpayers. I am not pulling the trigger in Iraq, the soldiers are.
There is no statute of limitations for murder/war crimes.
The choices left to these kids are these:
1. Serve and quite possibly participate in the killing in Iraq, leaving a cloud of murder over their heads for the rest of their natural lives,
2. Object to the war and refuse service on grounds of conscientious objection. After a trial, the soldier may win or lose.
It's a tough a call and I as I said before, it's up to the individual's own conscience.
I just saw another Wisconsin kid was reported killed in Iraq. He was 30.
wernt you just arguing the fact that its the soldiers choice to sign up and be there? i believe you said they have to deal with the choice they made.
but all of a sudden your sick of them dying and you want them to come home? which is it?
-
All right son. I do share some similarities with Edwards: we are both lawyers, we are both handsome dogs.
let me take a wild guess -defense attorney.
and no you not a handsome dog. liberals are ugly. your whole believe system is based on this fact. you want what isn't yours. you want things to be equal. you think nothings fair.. republicans say your stuck with what you have. guess who isn't complaining about what there stuck with? not the ugly ones.
and we all know good looking people get advantages in life, something you ugly liberals hate. thats why you hate us so much
think about it
-
Decker has to pick his battles ... he could stop paying taxes and go to jail, but he decides not too - does that mean he supports the war?
-
Thank you.
My point, your still paying them under protest. Soldiers are still going to war in protest. Some gearing up their dislike for the war by use of blogs, and talking to the media. Some soldiers may come home and protest on "their own time" since they signed a contract, a contract to serve the US, and obey commanders in ranking order under no questions.
But I do not shop at Walmart and I do not buy Chinese foreign goods. So I am undercutting the people really financing the war--the Chinese.
My tax dollar funds the entire military not just the parts I want it to fund.
Equating my payment of taxes with US troops killing people in Iraq is weak and a perversion of reason.
Killing someone and paying a tax are two different things. Did the US lock up the german and japanese taxpayers for warcrimes?
No, only those pulling the trigger.
-
So we weren't at war in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq? You can call it whatever you want, but the missions, bullets, missiles, etc. don't change because Congress didn't issue a declaration of war. Combat is combat. War is war. I know the technical differences, but it really is semantics when it comes to the boots on the ground.
Walking off the job just shows how absurd the proposition is Decker. You can walk into your office and quit your job tomorrow. If a solider decides to quit on the battle field, people can die, and he goes to prison. You're advocating total chaos.
You call it "walking off the job" and I call "not killing people who have done nothing to the US".
You are advocating a more orderly killing and brutalization of the Iraqi people.
And why? B/c we are there. We might as well just get used to it. Roll over and continue the killing.
It doesn't matter the reason, the morality, or the results...we are there and we must keep pulling the trigger.
"people can die"....are you serious?
Have you seen the fatality numbers? 70,000 to 650,000 deaths depending on the source.
-
wernt you just arguing the fact that its the soldiers choice to sign up and be there? i believe you said they have to deal with the choice they made.
but all of a sudden your sick of them dying and you want them to come home? which is it?
I wasn't aware that these things are mutually exclusive.
-
let me take a wild guess -defense attorney.
and no you not a handsome dog. liberals are ugly. your whole believe system is based on this fact. you want what isn't yours. you want things to be equal. you think nothings fair.. republicans say your stuck with what you have. guess who isn't complaining about what there stuck with? not the ugly ones.
and we all know good looking people get advantages in life, something you ugly liberals hate. thats why you hate us so much
think about it
Thinking about your half-crazed, half-assed estimations about what a liberal is will do nothing but cause me to laugh a little bit harder at your critical abilities.
-
Decker has to pick his battles ... he could stop paying taxes and go to jail, but he decides not too - does that mean he supports the war?
I didn't start this topic. I guess my opponents have given up trying to discuss the war on its own merits b/c that would force them to acknowledge the whole unsavory illegality of the Iraq disaster.
So now they come after me personally. Attacking me instead of the political issues at hand.
I like that. I like to see my opponents scramble.
Read my response about not supporting the Chinese government by not buying chinese products, i.e. shopping at Walmart...they are the ones paying for our Iraqi disaster.
Wasn't this war supposed to fund itself through Iraqi oil?
What's with the Chinese then?
-
I didn't start this topic. I guess my opponents have given up trying to discuss the war on its own merits b/c that would force them to acknowledge the whole unsavory illegality of the Iraq disaster.
So now they come after me personally. Attacking me instead of the political issues at hand.
I like that. I like to see my opponents scramble.
Read my response about not supporting the Chinese government by not buying chinese products, i.e. shopping at Walmart...they are the ones paying for our Iraqi disaster.
Wasn't this war supposed to fund itself through Iraqi oil?
What's with the Chinese then?
Hey, I'm not attacking you I'm just saying there is more than one way to oppose the war.