Theaetatus

Likewise. The Commander-in-Chief is hired to defend the country and uphold the laws. Since he's mismanaged this war (too few troops, as has been said by nearly all of the generals), he's failing at his major job.
His job is not to create tax breaks, set budget levels, protect teh embryos, etc. So, why hire him on those policies? With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, if Kerry had been elected and suddenly wanted to push for ghey marriages everywhere, would it have even been introduced, much less gotten through committee? No.

I'm sorry some people don't understand the powers of the executive versus the legislative. :)

Oh, snap!

Article 2 section 2 enumerates the presidents powers. While he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the people who actually prosecure war, by means of their written opinion, the principal officer in each of the executive departments. He doesn't command the armies by himself.

Further, while he isn't supposed to be the source of tax breaks and the like, he is supposed to vote on them. He may not set budget levels, but he needs to sign off on them. As all the powers enumerated in article 2 require congress at some point, the powers in article 1 (establishing the legislaute) require, at some point, the approval of the president. Any law put out by congress must be approved or dissaproved by the president. Congress can ram home a law regardless of the president with a two-thirds majority vote following a veto.

If Kerry were elected and wanted to push for gay marriage, it would have been introduced. I doubt a law the president wants ever really dies in committee. It just gets worded a bit different and then reintroduced. That is neither here nor there.

The president's major jobs, the ones that only he can do, without the other executive offices and congress, is say yes or no on law and fill vacancies during the recess of congress.

Anyhow, congress passed this act, and yes, President Bush wanted a war. However, outside of the War Powers Act, which really wouldn't have been an issue here, the president needs congress to say "sure, lets go bomb ourselves some Baghdadis."

Now, you gotta dance back!

lilplatinum: Thanks, I forgot how many people made stupid decisions

My point was TheRealShadowspawn said i think people are biatching about what amounts to nothing.
I don't think the loss of life is "nothing" do you?

Regarding your "stupid decision" remark. I am not really sure where you are coming from with that?
I question the direction our present administration has and is going. Is that what you are referring to?

Pipe down, marsupial. You win something

lilplatinum - Yeah, there are no bible-thumping hillbillies in the north. Oh wait, we call the Amish.

Theres plenty of white trash up north. I should know, I come from a bunch of it in upstate New York.

Its funny that you decry rural people as uneducated hillbillies, but when they decide to go to war and get killed you act like their death offends you.


The people who think this president is doing a good job, are fools. the people who are getting killed are victims.

Dear President Bush,

Mommy Rachel died and Mommy Alice couldn't see her in the hospital, and Grandpa just died of old timers. Mommy Alice says you made it so that she couldn't see Mommy Rachel and people like Grandpa wouldn't have a chance to get better. One of my friends even said you lied and because of this his cousin is getting shot now, and my pastor says lying is wrong.

Why are you hurting us?

Sincerely,
Contrived Example

Cormee [TotalFark]

So if your Government lies to you and you die as a result it's your own fault not theirs?

You signed up, not them. Im not saying propoganda is a particularly good thing, but it has happened since the beginning of time. If you buy into propoganda and run to the recruiting office and lap up everything some idiot with a buzzcut tells you, then yes, it is your fault.

If there was a draft, I would be crying in outrage, but I am not going to whine and moan because some people made a bad choice.

School kids have no opinions of their own. They are just parroting what a parent or a teacher says.

smeegle [TotalFark]

Regarding your "stupid decision" remark. I am not really sure where you are coming from with that?
I question the direction our present administration has and is going. Is that what you are referring to?

I was referring to enlisting in the military based on propoganda.

"could you lower taxes and make smoking illegal? My dad is addicted to smoking and I tell him to quit."

Lower taxes? No 7 year old understands taxation. Plant alert.

As for the making smoking illegal, that's sort of cute coming from a kid. When she grows up she'll understand why that would be wrong.

2005-08-24 10:23:09 AM RockCrawler


I hope you anti-bush types plan on voting next time around.


They tried that...they lost...get over it.

**douchebags...you're all a bunch of useless liberal douchebags

Dear Mr President.

Can I have my cheque for promoting you so much during the election on Fark.com that some people almost thought I was a real person instead of one of Karl Roves little information Pawns?
I left the site as soon as you won so I wouldn't seem like I was gloating and also found out that their are pictures of hundred and thousands of boobies on the internet.
I will send you the links in my next letter, its 300 feet below this one.
Its the one with the stain.

I love you...
OldButFast.

lilplatinum: I was referring to enlisting in the military based on propoganda.


Oh okay. Well understand your perception. Consider this though- some folks in the lower economic echelon see joining the armed forces as an opportunnitty for an education and to rise up out of poverty. These are the ones who really loose, and there are many because thats who uncle sam targets.

peepee mcpoop
The people who think this president is doing a good job, are fools. the people who are getting killed are victims.

No, the people who think the president is doing a good job have different beliefs than you. They believe in some magical overlord in the sky that deliniates between right and wrong.

Wow, your right, that is pretty stupid.. Okay, ill agree with you for once.

The people getting killed may be niave, but not victims. A victim gets hit by a drunk driver unexpectedly, he doesn't sign up a paper promising to drive around in a big parking lot full of drunkards speeding around for 2 years.

smeegle

Clever Neologism: ike the outlawing smoking suggestion.

Give it time. Future things on the "outlaw" list
smoking, thinking and speaking out.


I am just waiting for the oxygen tax...

I hope they unroll the letter upside down, so George can read it.

You win something

Probably an award for pretending that I expect people to notice my post among the thousands of 3 page essays on every political thread. But thanks for thinking I was really bothered, dude.

2005-08-24 10:52:58 AM marsupial

When comedy gold like my last post garners no attention, I know for sure this political stuff has gotten too serious. Its not like this the Council on Foreign Relations forum, jerks.


Translation: "Wahhhhhh...I'm not funny and I don't like the President."

**get over it douchebag

Winston Smith Junior: **douchebags...you're all a bunch of useless liberal douchebags



more intelligent statements from another "Great American"

Dear Mr. President-

I didn't know how to write my book report so I started a fight in the playground, told the principal that the teacher was gay, and recited a prayer loudly while saying the pledge. My friends beat up and verbally asaulted the other kids that wanted to read their reports to the class.

What other diversionary tactics can I use to hide my lazy tendancies and general lack of intelligence?

bad_ed:
Oh, snap!

Article 2 section 2 enumerates the presidents powers. While he is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the people who actually prosecure war, by means of their written opinion, the principal officer in each of the executive departments. He doesn't command the armies by himself...

Now, you gotta dance back!


Oh, you didn't just go there!

Section. 2.
Clause 1: 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;

According to clause 1, he is the C-in-C (but not the Music Factory), and though he has his Generals advise him, and most often defers to their judgement, he has the ultimate responsibility - the military buck does stop there.
Keep in mind that this was designed around Washington, who was indeed a General.

Also, as you mentioned, the President does get a pass/fail signature on every law, but that can be overruled... as in the case of a Republican house/senate who cram the bill through.
And yes, a bill the President wants is unlikely to die in committee, but that's historical - it doesn't have to be that way. Consider Massachusetts, with a Republican Governor and a Democratic house/senate - many of the Governor's bills never see the light of day.

So step off!

Clever Neologism: I am just waiting for the oxygen tax...



Oh you didn't get the memo did you, we've been paying that at the gas pumps.

smeegle [TotalFark]
Oh okay. Well understand your perception. Consider this though- some folks in the lower economic echelon see joining the armed forces as an opportunnitty for an education and to rise up out of poverty. These are the ones who really loose, and there are many because thats who uncle sam targets.

I suppose it sucks and is another one of lifes economic injustices, but I am just baffled as to how someone could be convinced that signing your life away when you know your going to a warzone for a salary around that of a buger king manager is a good idea?

"Since you are so educated why dont you elucidate me a bit? Or is an ad hominem attack all you have?"

"elucidate me"? Get a dictionary.

The reason I choose not to debate you about WW2 is because A) I'm secure in the knowledge that I have a far better understanding of what happened than you and don't feel that I need to justify it here of all places, B) I don't believe you're even slightly open to my view of events and C) I don't particularly enjoy spending time talking to idiots.

Smeegle , doublesecretprobation

Wow, I'm in a post with Smeegle. Welcome to the big time, Ed.

Whether or not the intelligence was faulty, it doesn't change the fact that it takes congress to declare war, or sort of declare war, as is the case right now.

I can see your point, I really can, but there are people on capital hill who should have said more. This wasn't a narrow victory. If there was a doubt in the intelligence, if the pictures showed either weapons of mass destruction or ice cream (god bless Lewis Black), it is the role of congress to bring it up. They failed in this role. There was no great debate. In a 50-49-1 congress, if the dems truly didn't want a war, they had the ability to force Dick Cheney to make the vote. We would have still gone to war, but it would have been something to complain about.

If you don't like that we are at war, and want to do something about it, attacking the president is not of any real use. Instead, you should be railing against your representative and your senator. You don't have to singlehandedly beat them down, but that is where you, as a citizen of the United States (and I am assuming you are) have the power to get real change done. Removing them from office will get you one step closer to what you want. Hell, congress can even bring the troops home.

Bush is certainly not the best president, but he gets whatever he wants because of congress. Want to stop him? Change congress.

2005-08-24 11:02:17 AM smeegle

That's probably the most accurate thing anyone has postyed in this useless libfest thread...minus the quotation marks.

**I love you too...
**now let's hug, save a tree, and tell "chimpee mcflightsuit" how much we hate him...(because he reads Fark right?)
**sarcasm - it's what's for breakfast!
**The asterisk is your master.

lilplatinum: baffled as to how someone could be convinced that signing your life away



Youth is easily converted to take up a cause in either direction.

Winston Smith Junior: Wow. You sir sound like a man who needs to have a really, really good crap. Have some strong coffee and a steak or something, then settle in with a good magazine and just enjoy it!

Stupid liberal elite welfare moms sitting in their ivory towers at the top universities cranking out bastards and telling us real Americans how to wage our wars with their children.

What they don't understand is that this war is against terrorism and that is something these elite people in places like New York City just don't get. They are so out of touch they would have us work with our freedom hating allies to pursue people like Osama Bin Laden to the ends of the Earth and work with local governments and law enforcement to stamp out global terrorism.

Another thing these tax and spend deficit reducers can't seem to grasp is that a war on terrorism is hard. Terrorists are hard to find so sometimes you have to make them by invading countries without terrorists and killing thousands of people. Then there are plenty to work with.

Wow, pretending to speak Republican is fun.

They tried that...they lost...get over it.

WinstonIf you think the current administration stands for Republican values, or even conservative values, I invite you to lick the salty emminations from my taint and wash it down with my mysteriously viscous and chunky post-digestion coffee. You are a digrace to Republicans and I question your patriotism.

stonent: Signed all us kids without healthcare

//This is not Canada


Damned right it's not.
We knew enough to stay out of your war.
/flame away.

Phone_Answering_Monkey

I did that already...I named it "libtard".

**then flushed it.
**It's the only way to be sure.

Thank You, Mister Bush:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_marshlands;_ylt=Anaut3 MCyso7tVqx6jjeIo5vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

U.N.: Iraq Marshlands Rebound Quickly

TOKYO (AP) - The marshlands of southern Iraq, said to be the inspiration for the biblical Garden of Eden, have recovered rapidly since the fall of Saddam Hussein, whose regime turned much of the lush waterscape into arid salt flats, the United Nations said Wednesday.

New satellite imagery shows a rapid increase in water and vegetation cover in the past three years, with the marshes rebounding to about 37 percent of their 1970 extent, from about 10 percent in 2002, the U.N. Environmental Program said.

"The evidence of their rapid revival is a positive signal, not only for the environment and the local communities who live there, but must be seen as a contribution to wider peace and security for the Iraqi people," UNEP executive director Klaus Toepfer said in a report on a multimillion-dollar restoration program.

Saddam drained much of the Mesopotamian waters between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers by building dams, dikes and canals after the Marsh Arab inhabitants supported a Shiite Muslim rebellion following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He also ordered thousands killed.

Of almost 3,600 square miles of marshes in 1970, the area shrank by 90 percent to 304 square miles in 2002. As recently as 2001, some experts forecast the marshlands would disappear by 2008.

But restoration efforts since the fall of Saddam reversed much of the damage, bringing the current area to 1,400 square miles. The expanse swelled to 50 percent of the 1970 range in the spring but dwindled due to summer evaporation rates.

Still, re-flooding the marshes requires a delicate balance of salt and plant life.

"It will be very difficult to restore the entire marshlands," Iraq's minister of water resources, Abdul Latif Jamal Rashid told The Associated Press on the sidelines of a conference on global water management in Stockholm.

Calling Saddam's decision to drain the marshlands "a crime against humanity," Rashid said he hopes 80 percent of the marshlands will be restored in three years.

The UNEP warns that more detailed field analysis of soil and water quality is needed to gauge the exact state of rehabilitation.

"While the re-flooding bodes well for the Iraqi marshes, their recovery will take many years," Toepfer said. "We must continue to monitor the situation carefully and make the necessary long-term investment in marshlands management."

Rashid noted, however, that the project also has other benefits, including symbolic value for the Iraqi people and the potential to reduce migration to cities by improving agriculture.

"It will help Iraqis return to a traditional way of life," he said. "Even people in the capital, who have never seen the marshlands, are really proud of the project."

Iraqi engineers and tribes began re-flooding parts of the wetlands by cutting gashes in dikes in the euphoria of Saddam's ouster in 2003.

Last year, the United Nations announced an $11 million project funded by Japan to help restore the marshes and provide clean drinking water and sanitation for 100,000 people living there. The program is providing settlements with water treatment systems and restoring reed beds that act as natural water filters. It is also training 250 Iraqis in wetland management and restoration.

At one time, the wetlands were the largest in the Middle East, filtering polluted water from northern cities and purifying it before it reached the southern rivers and the city of Basra.

As Shiite Muslims in the region revolted, Saddam ordered thousands killed and built new dams, canals and pipelines to dry up the marshes - the source for fishing, boating and small agriculture that once sustained a population of up to 500,000 people.

Azzam Alwash, director of non-governmental organization Eden Again, which is working to restore the marshes, said one of the difficulties facing the project is that dams built in the surrounding region, particularly Turkey, since the 1990s have disrupted natural water cycles that helped nourish the wetlands.

Trying to replicate that was critical, he said.

"We don't want to just have marshes for the sake of marshes. We want to return the biodiversity to the way it was and the biodiversity is not going to increase unless we actually replicate that," Alwash said in Tokyo as he traveled with the U.N. delegation.

bad_ed:

Bush is certainly not the best president, but he gets whatever he wants because of congress. Want to stop him? Change congress.



I did use the all encompassing word "Administration". While I am not a Bush supporter for many many reasons, I believe the burden of responsibility lies over a larger area.

I will say that I do believe that our illustrious leader may have worked to contcoct a believable story out of the crumbs of intelligence given to him, for Congress to bite on.

Howz it goin noob?:)

bad_ed:
If you don't like that we are at war, and want to do something about it, attacking the president is not of any real use. Instead, you should be railing against your representative and your senator...

Aw, can't it be both?
Yes, Congress and the Senate got us into the war. But now the war is being executed poorly too. That means both branches have failed.

However, I will stipulate that I think acting appropriately on intelligence that turned out to be faulty is more of an error of investigation than an error of judgement. Had the intelligence been true, there would have possibly been enough justification to go to war.

Hell, congress can even bring the troops home.

Not so sure about that.
Article 1, section 8 ("Congress shall have the powers..."):
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I'm not sure that anywhere in there says that they can decide when a war ends, once declared. There's nothing about "declaring a cesation of hostilities" or the like.

Winston Smith Junior: Alright, then have a good long wank or something. You need to settle down, or God Willing, you'll die an early death.

How does somebody become so screwed up and hateful?

Theaetetus

Iraq Unit Refuses Risky Mission
Oct. 15, 2004

You get one point because I foolishly said "haven't seen any news" when I should have said "haven't seen much news", because I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the media. You have provided one instance. Do you know how many other different instances there have been, if any? I'm genuinely curious, and since you're more interested than I am in looking it up, I thought I'd ask.

Legalize It

The difference, harry, is that the political reasons for, and the military prosecution of, the Iraq war is very similar to Vietnam. Both Chuck Hagel and John McCain say so, and they were there.

One "minor" difference: we're accomplishing much more than we ever did in Vietnam, from what I understand. That might be one reason people compare it to WWII: results.

Cormee

You really have your finger on the pulse eh.

I have aboot as good an idea as any other normal person in America right now. I don't pay much attention to media, but even my casual contact would have noticed something if there was real unhappiness over there. Certainly they'd rather be home, but I'm not seeing much news about riots, demonstrations, or similar problems with troops over there.

/yes, that spelling was on purpose, eh

dukefluke

"elucidate me"? Get a dictionary.

Elucidate: to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis

Yes, kind of bad grammar there, I suppose I should proofread my posts, but I am a bit lazy.

A) I'm secure in the knowledge that I have a far better understanding of what happened than you and don't feel that I need to justify it here of all places

Whats the point of even posting on boards? We're all here to kill some time. Or do you just enjoy making arrogant statements?

B) I don't believe you're even slightly open to my view of events

I asked your point of view, have I been openly hostile as you have? I don't think so.

C) I don't particularly enjoy spending time talking to idiots.

Yes, and you speak volumes of your intelligent when your only response to any arguement is calling someone stupid and asserting your encyclopedic knowledge of a topic without so much as putting forth a single shred of evidence.

So I suppose I will stoop to your level and end with a classic retort from the good Dr. Dre:

"Deeeeeeeeez Nuts"

canyoneer

Are you with that article suggesting that President Bush is the Kwizatz Haderach?

Phone_Answering_Monkey: How does somebody become so screwed up and hateful?

Various and sundry reason including but not limited to the oh so fruity juicy Karl Rove Kool-aide.
or Mom drop on the head syndrome.

smeegle

Given that the original post occured right at the top of the thread, I think most people would see that eye-catching post. We didn't need the re-post.

/using the royal "we"?

harryjrf: using the royal "we"?


Sorry.
Should I bend over here or...?

Danlpoon

Where did you get that? I said:
"They tried, they lost, get over it."


That means:

"The democrats ran a campaign with an alternate candidate and they were rejected by the majority of the voters. Please move on with your life."

When did I ever say I supported everything the republican party every came up with? You're the most useless douchebag in this thread. Please save your family some time and money and precremate yourself.

**libtards are supposed to be well educated but most of them are dumber than posts.

hillbillypharmacist

my grandpa told me a story about FDR. he heard FDR saying in a radio address (and told in my grandpa's best FDR voice): "I do not want wah. Elanoah does not want wah. Therefoah, there will be no wah."

and then we were at war just a week later.


Sounds like Woodrow Wilson. Re-elected on a platform to keep us out of the war. Didn't work out so well.

What's really stupid is saying that all conservatives are for the war and all liberals are against it. I'm sure you could root up some pro-war libs, and I'm a conservative that's against the war.

At any rate, Bush didn't win either election ('00 or '04). From the way I see it, America lost.

And yeah, I remember OldButFast from Election Night. Talk about a tool.

danlpoon: You are a digrace to Republicans and I question your patriotism.


"I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel."

Theaetetus


lol.


/lol

marsupial,

I didn;t really think you were bothered, but I did think you were teh funnay. And you did it again.

Winston Smith Junior - neocon

Bush is certainly not the best president, but he gets whatever he wants because of congress. Want to stop him? Change congress.

To be fair, the President put the Congress in a prisoner's dilemma. The congress, like Madison Avenue, have to appeal to the LCD (see Winston, supra). At the time, a vote gainst the war was a vote against "freedom". Not all of us fell for it but enough certainly did.

Congress represents, and is elected by, People
People are stupid (see Winston)
Therefore Congress is stupid.

Alexandra:

What's really stupid is saying that all conservatives are for the war and all liberals are against it. I'm sure you could root up some pro-war libs, and I'm a conservative that's against the war.



I gotta hand it to you, there are times when say the most logical things.

You are such an enigma to me.