US of A Presidential Elections 2012

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Going into Libya is bad for the same reason going into Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were bad reasons. Believing these people are too stupid to run their own countries is a disastrous ethnocentric world view. Not everyone is ready for democracy, rebels can be just as bad or worse than the dictatorships they fight against, there are never purely good and bad guys (sorry we don't live in a comic book or the Bible).

If it is a good idea to kill poor Africans in Libya why isn't the U.S. doing the same in Sudan and Ethiopia? We must be a load of cunts to let those people suffer. We should bomb the shit out of them too.

Policing the world for "humantitaism" is the new White Man's burden.

And no, the President shouldn't be able to kill poor Africans without the legislator allowing it. The reason the Constitution says he must ask the legislator is so he doesn't go out and kill poor Africans.
 
Last edited:

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
And no, the President shouldn't be able to kill poor Africans without the legislator allowing it. The reason the Constitution says he must ask the legislator is so he doesn't go out and kill poor Africans.
Actually it was to stop another Vietnam.

Didn't really work though because Bush did ask congress to go to war in Afghanistan.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Actually it was to stop another Vietnam.

Didn't really work though because Bush did ask congress to go to war in Afghanistan.
The Constitution predates the Vietnam war a bit, but yes that is why it is there. It isn't perfect, but it does help.

The problem with Afghanistan was emotions took over. If you look back it is clear "Al Qaeda" was nothing more than a few extreme radicals, who didn't even refer to themselves as Al Qaeda until after the attack (the concept of the Al Qaeda group was conjured up by the F.B.I. so they could put Osama on trial without him being present).

After 9/11 it was easy to believe for many that Al Qaeda was a massive organization with Doctor Evil like super bases in the mountains of Afghanistan. For fun I suggest anyone look up "Team B CIA". The same lot who convinced us that Al Qaeda is a massive force of evil had pointed at Russian satellite dishes and reported them to be super lasers.
 
Last edited:

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,252
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
I'm sorry, what year is it? The candidates in Iowa are using the following to draw the interest of the locals: Dairy Queen ice cream, Conway Twitty and The Crickets. Yes, Buddy Holly's band.
 

jmsprovan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,192
Location
Alba
The Constitution predates the Vietnam war a bit, but yes that is why it is there. It isn't perfect, but it does help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Its from 1973, before then the President could do what he liked with the armed forces. The only part of the constitution which is relevant to this is the War Powers Clause which requires congress to declare War, but a War declaration is not required before deploying the armed forces.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Its from 1973, before then the President could do what he liked with the armed forces. The only part of the constitution which is relevant to this is the War Powers Clause which requires congress to declare War, but a War declaration is not required before deploying the armed forces.
It's a matter of interpretation. I consider bombing a nation, destroying buildings and killing its citizens war. The war powers act just reaffirms what is in the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution had no faith that one man should be allowed to bring a nation to war with another.
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,134
Location
Michigan USA
Why do American elections drone on for such a long time before the actual election takes place?

Because the parties are to dumb to pick the prettiest one that will strike the right chord with voters, so they make the voters do this before the elections.


And as promised, some weird election stuff.


 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
The guy at the bottom left makes that picture all the better. :p
 

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
If Congress doesn't want the US involved in NATO action in Libya, then stop funding it. Congress has the power of the purse, not the President. If they are serious about not wanting part in Libya, then take the money away or stop bitching about it on TV. And as noted, this money being used had already been set aside.

But the reality is that no one actually seems to care. The GOP only went against Obama to try and make him look bad. Notice how the War Powers deadlines are long gone, and no one talks about it anymore. Obama stood up to those going against them (oh wait, I thought he didn't have a sack), and the GOP folded without even trying to do something about it. Opposition was all show.

Finally, I have a feeling the above had to do with the questionable Constitutionality of the War Powers Act. The administration said it was prepared to argue against it, and I imagine there are many in Congress who wouldn't hedge their bets against that argument succeeding.

Dogbert summed the rest of my thoughts up well.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I'm not defending Congress (I hate both parties). I am defending the system. A president shouldn't be able to declare war without the consent of the people. And yes bombing and killing people in another country is declaring war.
 

Vette Boss

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
5,250
Location
United States, Britain, in time
Car(s)
2006 Volkswagen Passat 3.6 VR6
The problem I have with all the Republican/Teabagger candidates is, that they're all crazy in some form or other. Obama has been disappointing mostly, but not a single other candidate appeals to me.

If the Republican party is battling for who can be the most crazy, it has to be Rick Perry. Praying for various issues to improve without actually doing anything, is just about as crazy as you can get. I think so, anyway.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
Going into Libya is bad for the same reason going into Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were bad reasons. Believing these people are too stupid to run their own countries is a disastrous ethnocentric world view. Not everyone is ready for democracy, rebels can be just as bad or worse than the dictatorships they fight against, there are never purely good and bad guys (sorry we don't live in a comic book or the Bible).
This is absolutely not the same thing. We're not trying to stuff democracy down some country's throat.

Libya's rebellion already has a legitimate government set up, and have proven that they're quite capable of being self-sufficient, to the point where they've said that they don't want NATO troops there after the dust has settled. It's just that they're so vastly outgunned by Qaddafi that they're being slaughtered... even moreso than they were as normal Libyans, which is why this is a humanitarian atrocity in the first place.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
The U.S. has no business helping these rebels. There is no proof that these rebels won't be worse than the current government. The U.S. has a long history of helping the underdog only to see it become worse than the regime it replaced.
 

Dogbert

Helsinki Smash Rod
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
6,458
Location
N38? 43', W90? 22'
Car(s)
Roger Dean's Rocks
The U.S. has no business helping these rebels. There is no proof that these rebels won't be worse than the current government. The U.S. has a long history of helping the underdog only to see it become worse than the regime it replaced.
As a member of NATO, as a matter of fact, we absolutely do have business helping those rebels.

And I won't discount your latter point, because it's certainly true... but again, this is a totally different scenario than the ones you cited in your previous post. We're not trying to create a new regime. We aren't there to start an uprising. We're there to prevent the mass slaughter of a sizable revolt against a despot.

If we succeed, and the rebellion overthrows Qaddafi, then we have an ally in the region... for a questionably finite amount of time, granted, but an ally nonetheless... and a better standing with most of the rest of the world, who are also vested in this operation. If we fail, we're no worse off than we were before with regard to our relations with Libya, we will likely have lost no lives, and we won't have spent a dime on the operation.

I fail to see where this is such an issue, aside from differing opinions on the War Powers Act.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,995
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
It is hard to say that a rebellion government that has existed only for a few months is a strong one. The fact that it has popped up so quickly makes it looks suspiciously like a C.I.A. operation (which if it is it is doomed to horrible failure). C.I.A. replaces non friendly regime with new one, new regime ends up being far more horrible, new regime is over thrown decades later. See the references I made above for examples of the C.I.A.'s work.
 
Last edited:

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
It is hard to say that a rebellion government that has existed only for a few months is a strong one. The fact that it has popped up so quickly makes it looks suspiciously like a C.I.A. operation (which if it is it is doomed to horrible failure). C.I.A. replaces non friendly regime with new one, new regime ends up being far more horrible, new regime is over thrown decades later. See the references I made above for examples of the C.I.A.'s work.
Yes, a rebellion popping up has nothing to do with a long standing oppressive regime that began shooting down peacefully protesting civilians looking for government reform as had been occurring in neighboring nations. It stinks horribly like CIA :rolleyes:.

And I believe the US spent something like a week dropping bombs before dropping back to a purely supportive role to NATO allies, primarily France.
 

shellygrrl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
3,678
Location
Maine
Last time I voted third party. If more people would do that instead of "picking the lesser of two evils" we'd be better off.
THIS. :nod: I've done this for every Presidential election I've voted in so far (2004 and 2008. Missed 2000 and have regretted it ever since.).

Am I the only Christian left here who's deeply offended by the willingness of politicians to use the name of God for personal and political gain? Surely not, but if that's the case, the rest of us sane folk need to step forward and make ourselves heard.
I'm "Christian left". I hate it, too.

I do not care how religious (or not) my politicians are because it simply does not matter. The USA is not, should not be, and should never be a theocracy. I don't care if you worship pants in your spare time as long as you're competent at what you've been elected to do. Your private life--and that should include your religion--is none of my business.
THIS times eleventy million.

It's always fascinated me that while the US has no national religion, you can't get elected without being outwardly religious. Prefrably protestant.
Insane, isn't it?

I really wish Obama got a set of balls for his birthday, the way he constantly caves is really pissing me off.
The entire Democratic Party could do with some balls. And some spines. At least IMO.

Bachman is a homophobe, is WAAYYYY too social conservative for my taste and I think she is flat out crazy. I also despise the Tea Baggars so I won't vote for any of their favorites, I have no desire to associate with racist, fat baby boomers.
Pawlenty is boring and really stands no chance.
Herman Cain stands no chance and I don't think he likes to read (the whole small bill thing, idiotic), plus Godfathers Pizza is terrible.
John Huntsman has been doing horrible in the debates so far.
Santorum... About the only thing I like about him is that he pissed off the gay community enough that they came up with an awesome definition for his name. He stands no chance, oh and in Iowa he is giving out home made jelly at his tent, combine that with above definition, awesome.
Romney, I MAYBE can see voting for him but I really don't like what he did at Bain Capital, I feel that is the type of business experience our executive branch can do without.
Rick Perry, no, no, NO! I will not vote for someone who said Texas should leave the union. I also will not vote for that type of holier-than-thou-I'm-better-than-you-Christian. Also last time we had a Texas governor we wound up in two unpaid for wars and the rich pay virtually no taxes.
Bachmann ~ Crazy town. Her husband's even worse. He thinks LGBTQ are barbarians. I'm thinking "STRUGGLING WITH SEXUALITY!" Because, you know, the ones that yell the loudest about such a subject tend to be the ones who struggle with it the most.

Pawlenty ~ Meh.

Cain ~ Again, meh.

Huntsman ~ Meh the third.

Santorum ~ Yeah, no way in hell he'll get nominated.

Romney ~ He also signed the recent pledge to make sure marriage = one (cis) man + one (cis) woman. Gah.

Perry ~ Ugh. Definitely holier-than-thou, not to mention he has connections to quite a few involved with New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) theology, quite a few of whom (if not all of whom) believe in Dominionist/"Kingdom Now" theology (look all that stuff up; you really don't want any of those types anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I say). Virtually everyone invited to speak at The Response last week is connected to NAR somehow. The Response was also sponsored (if you like) by the American Family Association, which is classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fact-sheet-gov-rick-perry’s-extremist-allies
 

Topgearfanatic

is a Queen
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
6,353
Location
MA
Car(s)
2002 Audi A4 1.8t
Romney gets shot down purely for his "corporations are people too" line. No way he'll live that line down.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,134
Location
Michigan USA
As a member of NATO, as a matter of fact, we absolutely do have business helping those rebels.

And I won't discount your latter point, because it's certainly true... but again, this is a totally different scenario than the ones you cited in your previous post. We're not trying to create a new regime. We aren't there to start an uprising. We're there to prevent the mass slaughter of a sizable revolt against a despot.

If we are there to stop a mass slaughter, why aren't we in the other countries that are actually slaughtering their protesters?
 
Top