Good question, and I will try to give you answers.
One act of war...9/11 specifically.....cost the United States 3100 people killed, billion in damages and reconsturciton cost, a city and region of the country in upheaval.
Constitution of the United States has a war powers act, that gives the Command in Chief of the country the power to conducts such wars in the defense of the country and its people.
For the second part of your question.
The Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing in it regarding health care, it would have been a foreign idea to the signers and writers of the Constitution to have it included some 200 years ago. Our government is not powered for this.
Some one did plan to take a shot Bush. Sadam had a hit team in Norway for Bush senior. Was compromised and foiled.
The country really does do funny things when either sitting President or past President has a assignation attempt. Things like defcon changes as the US prepares to go to nuclear war. Things like that. Think about it.
The way I see it Dude has gotten involved with his first Presidential Election.....it is heady stuff, Opal, the first time. I have been clerking polls and working on geopolitic stuff since the mid 80s. I like his enthusian for America and Obama. Just cannot understand his logic on some....on a lot....on most....ok his logic aludes me.:-)
I try not to use the word 'wrong' with Dude. I might have.....if I have I should not.....everyone has a right to an opinion. Where I come from bring your hat and your shovel for the debate though. Someone is going to give you one. I do like the fact he bring out the side that want to get into the debate and hash it out. Reminds me of college days......sitting there group trying to solve the world problems...while there was two guys so zoned they were picking lint out their navels.
I also have to apologize to you. The correction comment was out of line. I know it was a typo. Have said the mea culpas......
Hillary and Obama are deadlocked in the polls as to who should drop out at 22% each. Also McCain support among Dems is picking up stream. Present polls indicate that some 30% would vote for him, if they cannot get the Dem party in order.
You wish to know the way I really see this? OK here it is.
For the past years the Democratics have been the out of power party in the country. They have thrown rock after rock at a wartime (conflict time for some) President and his management of the war. In doing so, they developed a taste for this kind of political theatre. They want the stage of getting headlines and getting media attention thinking that it will do them and their position good, to promote it.
They come to election and its campaigning......habits are hard to break. The rocks are again being thrown......now not at a sitting duck President. At each other. Guess what? The American public is now watching the rock throwing via the same press that they tried to promote with.....and does not like what it sees.
Throwing rocks is not going to win them the Presidency. It will cost them the Presidency. Throwing rocks and getting into the rock thowing habit with President Bush, was unAmerican and divisive during a time of war (conflict). They should not have done it. But choose to. If they lose this election with the popular vote lead that they had during the primaries, it is totally thier own fault. That fault began when they failed to back a wartime (conflict) President of thier own country.
For that I don't feel sorry for them. Loyalty to one country in a time of war (or conflict) by leaders of 'all' parties has always been a paramout importance to getting the conflict ended with the fewest number of deathes as possible When they showed divisiveness, it was like handing Islamic terrorists the ace hearts in the game of hearts. Or both bowers in Euchre. Or the get out jail card in monoploy.
When they breached that, opal, they broke tradition with many minority wartime American parties and leaders that had stood by Democractic Wartime Presidents. So yes, I am against them. And do support McCain for President. It was a question of both loyality and past minority party support that had been respectfully given to them. They failed to honor now when the country needed them to.
I don't know, Democratics seem to be doing pretty well with it. Ever see a three legged sack race? Maybe they can tie Hillary and Obama together....put them into a sack.........see if they can beat old McCain to the finish line.
I nominate Indy. Any seconds? Yeas? Neas?.......Indy wins by a single Electral College Vote Difference. Swearing in early January Indy. It is cold in DC that time year. Better dress warm.......
I hope having swung this in your favor, I do get invited to the Presdiential Ball.
The point I make here in the post was that media and internet sources give thier own slant to coverage. That if you use a bias source your conclusion/opinion will be bias. Smart online researchers both qualify thier sources and use sources that are as reputable as possible.
They then double and triple check them, if they can.
Dude comes at us as if he has a complete knowledge of United States at times. And the only viable solution to our troubles is Obama.
I am not against online research or to find good sources in it. Knowing those sources and thier vericity is important. Also knowledge of the topic and using solid source is important to have a fair and honest opinion developed.
Would you take alot info from say the Cosh site or from another 'hate' site? Or say from a Nigerian web site knowing the net scams that develop in Nigeria? How about Russian sites? If you do, you run some real risk to getting burned badly.jmo
It seems to me that the point of the Amendment was a limitiation on Congress, as to how it passes laws to establish a religion. The Judge and his court room are in the judical part of our government, than the legislative side....of which the Amendment was directed. The Judge was not establishing a religion, he was taking key thoughts of the countries major faith to ornate his court room.
Could it not be construed that in placing the Ten commandement on his court walls, he was exercising his religion? Making a declaration to it, in a peaceful and open manner? That also falls in the next part of peaceably assembly.
He was not going to use the placed Ten Commandment to create any public havoc or disruption. Or even point to them as Judge Roy Beam (the Hanging Judge) did with the Bible and sentence a man to a hanging death. They were there both as a respected ornate symbols and as his free right to exercise his religion as he saw fit.jmo
I think that the courts got it wrong for what ever reason.
We had a similar issue here in my city. With a cross atop a city water tower. ACUL law suit were filed and the city forced to remove it. It seems to me that organizations that do use the courts to enforce thier 'view' of America have it wrong. They want the country to be nuetered to religion and faith, in ornate display, in spoken and written manner, in public place and even in private place. They wish it taken from public schools and end the open debate on the many issues and area of faith and religion bring in the academic area.
The constitution amendement was directed at the Congress. The elected voice of the people. When local parties raise a cross or place commandment up in such a manner they are using thier free will and voice directly and without the direction of the Congress. They are saying this is what we stand for.
The ACLU or other groups comes...and says....but that is not what we stand for. Congress via this amendment never was empowered to debate such a issue. The writers of the Constitution gave freedom of speech in the public setting a very open range. Locals that do place such religion smybols in my opionon are exercising thier right to free speech and freedom of religion.
Groups like ACLU are imposing court and government actions to hinder stands for a personal declaration. Does the ACLU have the right, via law or Constitution to direct what others stand for? Not in the Constitution or laws that I have read.
Each individual is open to embrace or reject a public or private religious symbol, as he chooses. But when a group says, that the display cannot be made, they take away the choice of embracing and they leave only a absence of choice. They silent the debate in America to the issue of faith and religion in class room, public building and private house.
Most here see this vastly different than Vet Nam. We have had the will and resolve to stay in South Korea, for over 50 years....to achieve what has been done there.
It Iraq would ever calm to such a state as the Korean conflict did, sure we would have to be there longer for both real reconstruction and real change in Iraqi society to occur from the democratic institutions now in place. Like you, I have the feeling that car bombs and suciede bombers will keep that from happening. There are other parties that don't want that calm to occur.
For many here, after 9/11..time is not a real factor to achieving our National Security again. What needs to be done, needs to be done. If one take Iraq and Iran into a combined regional perspective, the threat of Iranian possible coming nuclear devices. The existing threat of dirty nucs with the nuclear material program of Iran. Having US Forces nearby makes a lot of sense.
Many are saying it is time to get out. Look at Vet Nam and the cost there. Vet Nam cost us 58,000 lives in that time span....Iraq has cost us 4,000 in the near the same. A very big difference. We know our cost here. That kind of cost, tragic as it is, we can sustain for a very long time.
Many say the war cannot be won. So again get out. We leave, a vacumm in Iraq opening it for Islamic terror bases. The very thing that gave us 9/11. We leave, a potential middle east democracy can fail, and a major victory for Pan Islam occurs. A major victory to AlQeada occurs. One is not is habit of winning wars or conflicts by giving victories to the enemy.
You say they are not your enemy. I listen to binLaden words, to the Iran president's words, I see the Mosque chants on America, I see the AlQeada video of bombings in Iraq. If that is not being both hostile and an enemy of the United States, you tell me what is?
Vet Nam was never coming to the streets of the United States with with people jumbing of buildings from the acts of planes being flown into them. Since 9/11 literally globally 100s of terrorist attacks have been failed, against both European and American targets. These attacks are on your streets in Europe as they are on our streets here. So there are some very big differences between Vet Nam and Iraq.
One is that with terrorism, civilians are the targets. Vet Nam was a nation state conflict for the large part. Vet Nam terrorism did occur against the S.Vet Nam people. But never struck at American homeland. The common to both Iraq and Vet Nam, that terrorism does strike at the civilians of both countries. Bringing our troops home to soon, will only encourage and vacialite terrorism in Iraq and here and there.
Many words that have been spoken and written, only give hope to terrorists, that they will have a free hand someday in the world to attack as they please and how they desire. Those words encourage them, rather than condem them. Comparing Vet Nam and Iraq unless done objectively and honestly, only gives hope to them that day draws near.jmo
Come on Lucious, it was done in good humor and in good taste. To make a point to Dude. The same point Conrad has been trying to make. On a different thread, I think that I got Dude understand the point. Only it took me to talk about 'grippies' on a baseball bat, for him to understand. That point is there are many thing about the United States, its lifestyles, its gov't, and our political process that he does not understand. If you want to know what 'grippies' are I will tell you.:-)
Saying this is not condem Dude, but simply to lead him to ask intelligent questions that we can answer and openly discuss. To not make the quick judgements on us that he tends to do. Also, it was honest. The difference between the United States and Denmark are substantial...and in those areas....is just how I wrote them up.
I don't pretend or precieve to know everything of Denmark. Heck I was there only a week. A weeks visit, one gets a thin flavor of the country and its people. But history...lifestyles...politics...and many other areas of Denmark, I would be clueless on. So I don't comment much on things going on in Denmark.
Unless Dude has spent some substantial time in the US, he should take the same position. But he goes by what he picks up in the media. He needs to know with a Presidential campaign going on.....that media is involved in the discourse that is going on here. There are media that give it a slant this way and there are some that give it a slant that way.
For me to give opinion on Denmark politics by the most political thing that I have read of Denmark politics..Shakespeare's Hamlett...would hardly be fair. That would be quiet a dishonest opinion to Denmark's modern day politics, yes? Just the same to give opinion on the United States by a Micheal Moore documentary, one cannot give a fair or objective opinion from either. The souce material has a real biased slant.jmo
Al Gore and Micheal Moore would love the idea. Now there is a name that has not come up recently in the Dem politics that are going on.
You would have thought that after winning the Noble Peace prize...he might be able to get the two Dem camps shaking hands and smiling at each other again.
Then again, he steps into the Obama camps....they are going to look at him like a 'old Dem' and if he steps into the Hillary camp....they are going to consider him with Richardson. Maybe he should become a Republican or consider running with Nader?
Maybe, but if they had snipers in the tree line....I guarantee you they would not be looking at Hillary and inside the perimeter. They would be scanning for them.
Watch the military....if they had snipers....they would be looking into the perimeter and have thier weapons unslung. None seem to be concerned in any of the video I have seen.
He is not running against President Bush ladies....but McCain.....McCain has him by several points in most of the polls and he is sinking with the Wright issue.
It just does not go away. His intellect and judgement for sitting there for 20 years all come into issue and play here.
I think that she had some kind of momentary lapse here. The pressure for running for the office is very high......I just trying to put it together to come close to an understanding of it.
Haven't you heard the old American saying......"They can pry my gun out my hand, as I lay dieing in the sand."? For Cheney to give up his gun collection, would be like asking a Samari to give up knives.
But back to the target of focus (a horrible choice of words considering the thread)......Hillary.
I just cannot imagine what she was thinking about here. There had to be a 1000 people at the airport, to disput her story of events. It just does not make sense.
Hillary kill someone? Gesh she is anti war........plus consider all the secret service around.......you are safer on a date with Hillary than than a walk in the park, specially if Central Park, NYC.
With my luck with women, I might. But I would wear my bullet proof vest......just in case the Bosnia sniper has gotten a hold of her passport information and figures out where the date is.
Let him out of place after the Democractic convention, after the fur and feather have been striped or pluked completely. Dude will get out........look across the pond............see both of them on thier knees throwing bunches at each other (ala WWW Wrestling Match Style) and ask to go back in.
Just to get comments on the other Canidates into our Political blogs. Hillary Clinton a few day ago says that on a trip to Bosnia, she and Chelsea wre met with sniper fire as they landed.
Now we have video of a Bosnia girl handing Hillary flowers, a calm walk accross the airport tramac, hand shaking of soldiers that were not facing outside the permiter with weapons on shoulders and Sinbad and the reporters that traveled with her.......not remembering or reporting any such happening.
My point is this. There is law....in our military laws...about wearing a medal or rank that has not been properly issued. Also there is the something about giving false reports to a commmanding officer.
Both are pretty serious offenses. Admirals have been forced to resign from the Navy for merely wearing a battle ribbon on thier uniform that had not been issued. Army members that place false rank on, face serious brig time and dishonorable discharge.
Hillary is running for Commander in Chief. Does her claiming to be shot at, and then to have her aids to hold to that occuring, untill evidence was overwhelming to that the comments were inaccurate or worse.....
Lastly, if you ever been shot at. You do remember it. Hillary showed some really bad judgement here. Thoughts?
TTom50 Forum Posts (1,301)
RE: Free Atlast !!! will President O.bama provide Free health care Free Atlast
Good question, and I will try to give you answers.One act of war...9/11 specifically.....cost the United States 3100 people killed, billion in damages and reconsturciton cost, a city and
region of the country in upheaval.
Constitution of the United States has a war powers act, that gives the
Command in Chief of the country the power to conducts such wars in the defense of the country and its people.
For the second part of your question.
The Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing in it regarding health care, it would have been a foreign idea to the signers and writers of the Constitution to have it included some 200 years ago. Our government is not powered for this.
Thanks for the question.