jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (108 posts)

We Have a King

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Hey all,

    I just wanted to point out that BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY ALONE, our president has carried out an assassination (numerous times).

    Our executive branch went to war without permission from Congress (and thus was a legislative act), and proceeded to find a man guilty (a judicial act), and then proceeded to execute him.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have a king.

    Sure, the face of the king changes every 4 to 8 years, but we have a king who is above the law.

    And the worst part is, Our king has done this more than once.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/ … 4920110604

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image82
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Talk about overreaching.   Did it take you all day to think this up?lol

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You have to be disconnected from reality to be libertarian.

        That's what this post proves.

        President Obama was authorized by Congress. See KK Trainers post further down.  That aside, do you think if Obama had requested a debate, with C-SPAN and all, OBL would not have been there by the time everyone in the TP was finished grandstanding.

        I cited an article months ago. Presidential use of force without a declaration of war has happened before - over 170 times.

        The libertarian view is that government should do nothing and tax the same. Fools nod their heads and shout 'hear, hear'. But the vast majority want public services, schools, roads, water, safe food, Medicare, Social Security, etc.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It has happened, you're right.

          But it is for limited times only. These "Wars" have lasted over a decade.

          That isn't a "disconnect from reality", it's "reading the Constitution".

          So... I guess... to be a liberal, you have to be illiterate?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            To be a liberal or even a moderate regarding this issue, you have to understand that one lone whack-job...say Ron Paul does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution for the entire population. An entire court system has been set up for that purpose.

            You continue to prove that one can read the Constitution, yet disregard the meaning of it to suit one's own bizarre beliefs.

            Your ongoing frustration with the process says more about you than about the country that most of us love.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, you're right.

              The Tenth Amendment and "English" don't mean anything any more.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Supreme Court rulings aren't in English?

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you want to be God, then you have to have some earthly kings to enforce your rules.  What the H E double hockey sticks are you worried about?  (I was recently banned for supposedly using a profanity in a post.  I was not told which word was supposedly objectionable, so I guess I have to either be extra careful, or waste a great deal of time teaching forum moderators the importance of context when they are trying to determine whether a word is an obscenity or not.  In my post I used a term that can either mean a supporter of the TEA party, or a man who lowers his scrotum into his partner's mouth and allows it to steep for awhile; my usage related to the first definition.  I also used a word that can either mean a snivelling coward, as in "Those HubPages moderators are such a bunch of [non-obscene word deleted]s or as a reference to a woman's naughty bits as in, "hey that's a nicely coiffed [expletive deleted]; is that what's known as a semi-Brazilian?)

      Anyhoo....

      What the frick were we talking about?

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The prez is judge, jury, executioner, and legislator.

        It's disgusting.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I find the actions regarding Bin Laden far less disturbing than those revolving around Barry's overt hostility to a hallmark of liberal military policy since the early 70s - the War Powers Law.  Barry is in contravention of a legal limit on his authority to make war but has deemed his will to be greater than a law to limit it.

          If that is not an imperial attitude I am not sure what is.

          Does this rise to the level of impeachment?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh pulleeeze...If 9/11, Iraq and torture didn't....who you kidding?

            Let me guess.....Bush did NOTHINg wrong. Poor misssunderstood fella.

            38 articles of impeachment drawn up....your guys just laughed.

            You have 0 credibility to suggest it now. Snooze you lose! Your party gave us the Imperial Presidency....Deal with it!

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Is GWB president?  Seems like that is long past history.  This is now and Barry is one of the perfect party who authored the Law.  So Barry murdering poor Libyans without a declaration or war and in violation of the War Powers Law is good for you.  Okay, you are a partisan even under all circumstances.  Good to know.  I suppose anyone else Barry gets a wild hair to go kill better watch out. Apparently we live in an age of the rule of men not the rule of law.  It took over 225 years but the American Revolution is finally over, thank god.  We can now reinstall the divine right of kings just in time to make sure your messiah rules forever.

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No he's not president.
                But his crimes were dismissed and he is a free man.
                Don't come around NOW and act like you care what a president does.....none of you gave a hoot what Bushco did.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What did he do that Barry hasn't continued?  The pretense that presidential conduct doesn't matter is a liberal thing.  Barry attacks Libya, a nation even more removed from 9/11, one that actually has been fighting Al Qaeda but no complaint from liberals.  Barry is murdering Libyans but silence from liberals.

                2. American View profile image61
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Get over it, It is Obamaco in case you needed an update

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Bush was evil. He was one of the faces of our king

            3. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well...Here's a very interesting and hugely well researched article surrounding 9/11!!

              It's called the Black Eagle Trust Fund. Came into being in 1991...interestingly--that is when HW Bush announced the New World Order......On Sept. 11th of that year......

              Some snippets:

              "In November 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected to the White House. Sixty-nine days after the inauguration, John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan. Eight days prior to that attempt, there were a series of unprecedented policy changes that put George Bush in charge of Foreign Policy and National Security. That conferred new roles and powers on Bush, including "unprecedented powers for a vice president." Vice President George Bush was named the leader of the United States "crisis management'' staff, as a part of the National Security Council system. Then, on March 30, 1981, just eight days after these powers were conferred on Bush, President Reagan was shot.

              The father of the assassin that put Bush in power was John (a.k.a. Jack) Hinckley, Sr., the owner of Vanderbilt Oil."

              "Emboldened by the lack of consequences for subverting the U.S. constitution and breaking international law during the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, a Bush administration group known as “the Vulcans” planned a bigger drive to crush Communism once and for all. They waged war against the Soviet Union and Iraq under George H.W. Bush, and against Iraq and Afghanistan under George W. Bush. Belonging to this group were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice."

              http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/black_eagle_trust_fund

              ******--Mos Def reading this when I get home!!!

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's, y'know, Kind of what I'm talking about.

            Almost all of our presidents since FDR have gone to war without a declaration from Congress.

            ... that's what I'm talking about - the presidency is a King, but the face of the king changes every 4 years.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Untrue.  There was a declaration for Afghanistan and Iraq.  Crazy Ron Paul may not say so.  Force was authorized and there is no specific language in the Constitution for a war declaration.  Regarding Iraq there was never a peace following the 1991 Gulf War.  The first time Iraqi anti-aircraft fired on an American aircraft, successfully or not, they reignited hostilities.

              The War Powers limitations were a response to Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon actions in Vietnam.  It left war without declaration possible if the military action was of sufficiently brief duration.  Granada and Panama were both with in those limits.  There was a declaration for the Gulf War.  Thanks for reminding me why I don't really want to vote for Ron Paul.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Iraq and Afghanistan have NOT been declared wars. Sorry to bring the news to you.

                Congress gave him permission to use force, but they are not wars.

                These "permissions to use force" have been amongst the longest "uses of force" in US history.

                Here's a nice little chart to help you out:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … ted_States

                If you notice, the current "wars" are merely funded by congress, they are not declared -- even the 1991 "Gulf 'War'" was not declared, and so THAT'S why peace was never declared.

                Sorry to inform you that you're just plain wrong on everything you wrote (you were right on the "Force was authorized" part, I'll give you that).

                And this is why we need Ron Paul for president: our people have little understanding of what our government is doing to us. All these "authorized military actions" are NOTHING MORE than cheap attempts to bypass Congress.

                It's easier to "Authorize military action" than it is to "Declare War", and thus our Executive Branch has been given more power.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Authorized military actions" if not  war declarations, I still contend they are de facto declarations, are not an attempt to bypass Congress but rather a demonstration of Congressional cowardice.  Congress votes on the language and has eschewed the words "Declaration of War" because it is a major commitment to a bold and specific course of action, something congress avoids, assiduously.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "...and there is no specific language in the Constitution for a war declaration"


                WHA~~aAaAAAaaAAA~~~aAAAATTT?!?!!?

                I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be pretty heavy.

                Article 1 Section 8:
                "The Congress shall have Power ...To declare War..."

                And this is why we need Ron Paul to be president: So many of our people have not even read the "Supreme Law of the Land".

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Congress shall have the power to declare war.  I do not dispute the congressional authority to declare war but the language of that declaration is not delineated, it can take what ever form Congress uses.  If a cowardly Congress decides to pass on strong language but instead gives the President a carte blanche in military action against a foreign government how is that not a declaration of war?

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No. A declaration of war is a declaration of war.

                    Authorizing military action is quite different.

                    "a pirate just attacked my boat!" - authorize military action.

                    "Some dude in libya needs to have his missile turrets blown up" - declare war against libya.

        2. tHErEDpILL profile image87
          tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are so blinded Mr. Rogers, please allow me to welcome you to 'my' neighborhood.

          Our current President is a puppet that is being blackmailed by the people who got him into office.  He is being controlled by the puppet masters who could care less about you, me, or him.  The moment he tries to do anything without their approval all of his bogus history will be released to the world or he will be JFK'd (if you know what I mean).  I swear as I read through your comments I have noticed that you have the typical force fed knowledge of U.S. history.  For example:

          "He'll be the first president to run a successful presidency since... Jeez, Washington?"

          Do you really believe that????

    3. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How do we correct it?  Do you think Rand Paul will or would correct this, if He was on the Watch and we were attacked in an act of war?

      How do we change it then?

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And he says he wants nothing to do with 9/11 Truthers.....how is he any different?

    4. Greek One profile image77
      Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just out out of curiosity, have you ever traveled to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region for any type of training??

      smile

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        nope, and if I were drafted, I would run away.

    5. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If that is your definition of a King, I am very sad for our educational system.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you know a better term for "the head of an executive branch that overtakes the powers of the other two branches of government, but who's human form changes every few years", then please enlighten me.

        I suppose "king" isn't the perfect word, but I feel it communicates the idea properly.

        1. profile image0
          Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Autocrat?

  2. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    So, why does Ron Paul want the Kingship?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Read "Liberty Defined".

      It's clear he wants to return us to a Constitutional Republic.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And you think Congress will just roll over for ole Paul, huh?

        You think the money-changers will let him put them in their place?

        He DOES serve them well though...he thinks ending subsidies is a tax increase.
        He wants to end regs....
        He serves Big Business quite well.

        But what's he going to do with all the families who can't afford nursing home care?

        Don't make enough to survive?

        Rely on gvt for help, in say, a disabled family member situation?

        What happens to people who need gvt, which is a lot--especially with the Boomer generation coming into retirement?

        And will we the people get to vote on HIS salary, perks and bennies?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Congress won't roll over for Paul.

          But he'll veto a lot!

          The simple fact that you think that "congress will roll over for Paul" shows that you think the president is a king!!

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No--I just don't think Paul will have any more power than Obama to do what he wants.
            Unless it's in line with Republicorps...which a lot of it is.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              He'll have less power - He'll actually follow the Constitution.

              And that's what Paul wants to do. Follow the Constitution.

              He'll be the first president to run a successful presidency since... Jeez, Washington?

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Any reason why he is a Republican, and not in the Constitution Party?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  He was, as we are all aware, a member of the Libertarian Party. In fact, he was their presidential candidate back in 1988. He ran against Ronald Reagan and Michael Dukakis.

                  Obviously you need to be a member of the two major parties to be taken seriously in this country.

                  But, from his readings, it's clear that he's trying to change the Republican party to its more libertarian roots.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are selling me on that isolationist goofball Ron Paul.  I can think of no better reason to vote for him than people like you oppose him.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good. Have a party.

            No one else is any good.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ron Paul isn't an isolationist...

            ... unless by "isolationist" you mean "someone who won't try to run the world with your tax dollars".

            What's a better foreign policy? Taxing your people into poverty to police the world, but being considered non-isolationist? or Allowing free trade between nations?

            Isn't it still illegal to do ANY business with Cuba? How isolationist is that?

      2. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ...and eliminate things like meat inspectors. Yeah...great idea Ron.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Though meat inspection should be handled by each state individually, at least according to federalism and the constitution, meat inspection is a very good idea.  If you mean to say Ron Paul is stuffed full of nonsense then I agree.

          1. profile image0
            Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is a really good point, actually.I don't like the idea of having each state mandate the laws of things like meat inspectors. Some states are freaking idiots. I would prefer the children of, say, I dunno...Bristow, OK to be stuck eating Ecoli meat because the only people who vote in the state of Oklahoma are also the type of people to legally outlaw aliens from Mars from holding jobs within the state. Let's be honest...people individually are usually reasonable. Groupthink election cycle frenzied people...the ones who vote in state elections, are quite unreasonable and don't appear to consider accountability to be real on that election day.
            However, I have the same thought about education, and that bothers quite a few people. I don't think because I live in Texas, that my kid has to be taught that Adam rode a T Rex, and that fossil records, biology, archeology, isotope testing, down the isle...are "of the devil." I don't want my kid to think the institution that provides education, actually considers fairy tales to be equal to observable science. I think your right to tell your kid whatever you want is totally yours...but there has to be an equalizer somewhere, something to balance it out to make sure your kid isn't limited in their potential, and thus our country as a whole, because you live in a state of morons. :Let's be upfront, some states have a higher percentage of wacked out nutjobs than others do. Why do the kids HAVE to be limited by ignorance? Then again, I don't believe in home schooling either.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Some states are freaking idiots"

              ... then you wouldn't buy meat from that state, would you?

              Thus, by your own freedom, you would encourage that state to provide a better service. You'd have 50 states fighting for your approval instead of a monopoly provided by the Federal Government.

              Plus, because you would represent a higher percentage of the voting population, you would have a greater say in how the meat selection services would be provided.

              ... it's actually quite foolish to argue that we need a monopoly on meat inspection.

              1. profile image0
                Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                In theory, that is correct. However, in practice...the governor gets a kickback from the meat industry, which we know happens now, and blows off meat inspection. Not everyone can up and move states like you believe they can. More people struggle than you are aware of apparently. Most are stuck in the state they live, period. Why do their children suffer because that particular state doesn't put emphasis on safe meat?
                Would it be better to put the question in the hands of 50 states, or better to 1 central department in this particular case? Not sure really. House Reps get kickbacks now from the meat industry, defund the FDA in response, and they don't have the resources to do the job effectively now. SO...I lean towards the centralized decision in this case, but can be swayed. Break it down for me Evan.

                1. profile image0
                  Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Business will do whatever they can to maximize their profits, to the tune of skating regulations. That is a fact. Who can they buy more easily? I am not sure. Is the question then, what can we do to prevent corporations from buying off politicians? Isn't that the primary issue really?
                  Didn't we have this conversation in the Federalist papers already?

                2. American View profile image61
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Remember Hillarys tyson stock? $1,000 converted into $100,000. Has there been a more blatent kickback out there than this?

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ron Paul is not alone.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's a disgrace to our public education system in that you can't see that "ensuring quality meat" would be a profitable service.

          1. Tom Koecke profile image60
            Tom Koeckeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, too, would liquidating tainted meat.

            From whom would the for-profit quality meat ensurers derive their profits?

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Do you think Tyson foods would like tainted chicken with its imprint finding its way to the dinner tables of millions of people?  Quality assurance benefits a manufacturer because it protects its marketability. 
              The best auto safety guarantor in America is not the federal governments agency but the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  One should be able to imagine a private association of grocers guaranteeing meat quality because there is a vested commercial interest in selling quality products.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever you think in theory we know in fact that companies do produce tainted meat, eggs, bean sprouts and so forth.  They also oppose making food traceable to its origins.  That is why when people start dying we can;t even work out what is killing them.

                I for one do not want to go back to the days when food contained unlisted toxic ingredients that regularly sickened, disabled and killed them.  The days before the Pure Food act and the FDA.

                Even with inspection 3000 Americans a year die from preventable food borne illness.  The farm who eggs recently sickened a lot of people had previously killed people in another outbreak.  Why?  Because it is run by an asshole who doesn't care.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sounds like the FDA is perfect.  I am not saying there should be no food inspection.  I am saying that food inspection is not best served by a giant central bureaucracy.  The FDA stands in the way of all kinds of medical advances.  The vast power of the federal government stands in the way of progress and innovation in medical treatment and costs lives. 

                  Food born illness killed 3000 people last year, why if the FDA is the great guarantor of or health?  Is food born illness fatalities due to tainted food or flawed food preparation.  Properly cooking food kills food born parasites.  It is likely you will see food born illnesses increase as the raw, organic food craze continues.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image81
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The FDA is not perfect, just better than a free market assumption that [producers will never harm consumers--which is what I was responding to.

                    The FDA does not have the authority, the staff or the budget to actually police and regulate all foodstuffs.  They just set a framework and provide the necessary testing laboratories etc.  Then it is up to the states, the industries ans the watchdogs and other federal groups like the USDA and CDC.

                    And most food borne illness is due to s**t being in food.  It is by no means necessary for s**t to be in food.  Other countries have essentially no coliforms in their meat and veg so it is clearly possible.  Very long and large consumer chains make it harder to avoid.

                    I don't know about you but I have sat through  lot of meeting where agricultural groups want to evade food being traceable, or downplayed risked like e coli, or said melamine wasn't toxic.  I want third party auditing of some sort.

            2. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Tainted food is sold to the Federal Prison System

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't buy green meat....

              ... so, problem solved.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You think the people whose children died from Jack in the Box burgers or other tainted meat brought 'green meat'?  I hope you don't really think it is that simple.

          2. profile image0
            Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Dude, you have to get off of this "only if it makes a profit" mentality. it is horrible. Make money building a bridge dude. Do you need that bridge even though it is not a profit making venture?
            Plus, what is the incentive? You want to privatize everything, including meat inspectors. What is their incentive? Does the meat lobby have more money than the meat inspectors' company? There are no legal ramifications if there is no regulation requiring it. No regulations, no consequences for screwing the public.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So, your argument with the bridge is this:

              "we need to build a bridge there, even though it's not profitable!"

              ... that makes no sense. If the bridge weren't profitable, it most likely wouldn't be built.

              It WOULD be profitable if you could convince people to pay you money to drive on your bridge.

              -- now you'll ask me to completely outline perfectly how a privatized road system would work --

              I can't do that - I'm not the collective thinking of millions of people trying to out-compete each other. But I bet that those millions of people could do a much better job than the people in government who risk nothing when building roads.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Then why didn't they?
                Why did the US not have a decent national road system until the government stepped in and built it?

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Only 31 Republicans and 122 Democrats voted against the Patriot Act in the House."

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/04 … democracy/

    Here's who voted how:

    http://bluebeerriver.blogspot.com/2011/ … triot.html

    ***

    Funny though....I know for a fact some of those who voted nay voted yay the 1st time.

    Only 2 voted against the 1st time, that I know of; Kucinich ("I voted no cause I read it"), and the liberal senator from Wisconsin who lost in 2010. (can't think of his name;;though I LOVE him)

  4. KK Trainor profile image59
    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    "Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. That resolution authorizes the U.S. President to use "necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines were involved in the 9/11 attacks."[148] The Obama administration justified its use of force by relying on that resolution, as well as international law set forth in treaties and customary laws of war."

    "John Bellinger III, who served as the U.S. State Department's senior lawyer during President George Bush's second term, said the strike was a legitimate military action and did not run counter to the U.S.'s self-imposed prohibition on assassinations:
    The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981], because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda, and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense."

    I'm pretty sure this means it was legal and un-kinglike. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      psst - we're at war in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and many others.

      none of them were declared, and at least 2 of them have no connection to 9/11.

      AND, the other wars have been A DECADE LONG!!!

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What war act have we committed in Egypt?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          My bad, I think that was a slip in typing. I've been hearing a lot about Egypt in the news recently and probably typed that one.

          My bad.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I will grant you Barry's Egypt policy is stupid but not aggressive.

        2. KK Trainor profile image59
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          actually we are not at war in Syria or Libya; a no fly zone is not a war. Pakistan is not a war situation either, we are simply killing bad guys hiding in their country. war means we declare against the government or leader and act to remove them. we arent' doing that in Syria or Pakistan, and aren't really doing it in Lybia since we've pulled out our firepower for the most part.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A no fly zone imposed by a foreign government is an act of war.  Killing soldiers, whether by air power or ground forces is still an act of war.  Whether we say it or not we are at war with Libya - a foolish, ill conceived, wasteful miss aimed war but a war nonetheless.  Gaddaffi may be a tyrant but those opposed to him are backed by Al Qaeda, connected to Al Qaeda, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood or part of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

            This is a conflict in which the sole interest is the flow of oil to the EU. NATO operations are scheduled to conclude on June 27th.  They will be extended.  We are NATO.  Without the American presence NATO has very limited capacity. 

            Barry has initiated a war for oil and no one is willing to say it.

            Consider this, if the government of Mexico bombed a house in Los Angeles being used by Narco-terrorists responsible for killing a judge or a police chief would we consider that an act of war?

  5. profile image0
    Muldanianmanposted 5 years ago

    A king is not democratically elected as is the president, who is not only elected, but answerable to the government.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      At one time kings, even emperors were elected.  The king of Poland and the Holy Roman Emperor were elected by elite bodies. At a time when Poland was a major economic and land power in Europe the king was an elected post.

  6. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    I see parallels with ancient Rome.

    1. profile image0
      Muldanianmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ancient Roman emperors married their sisters, had sex with their mothers, fed Christians to the lions and did many other sickening things.  I honestly don't think any American president comes anywhere close to this.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Clinton may have.  The entire story has not been told:)

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "I honestly don't think any American president comes anywhere close to this."
    Be thankful you don't live in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      HA!

  8. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/58614/lebron.jpg

  9. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    http://shop.elvis.com.au/images/cd_elvis_the_king_mongolia.jpg

  10. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/files/original/burger%20king.jpg

  11. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    We've had lots of kings.  Things seem to work out...

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When Bush de friended Canada, went against the UN then went on to the Iraq attack. Then there was the death execution of President Saddam,unpresidential, disrespectful,  no pun intended

      When Obama raised the USA War budget to highest level ever in American History, I thought here we go again; they do whatever they want and who dares to call them on it, then he must be King.

      From my hub page of Save Satan
      Jesus, whoever believes in him shall not perish. Kings conquer nations, and after they are conquered, people bow down to him. Whether it’s to save Satan or a King, we all can pray to Jesus for salvation. It’s all confusing; please forgive me for we do not know what we do.

      OH MIGHTY EVAN I program myself to have faith in you, but can I go back to thinking everyone is god?

      Tell me in CAPITAL letters so I know it is true.

  12. mrpopo profile image87
    mrpopoposted 5 years ago

    You're God, this shouldn't concern you smile

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mr Popo knows Kami-Sama well.

  13. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    http://www.politico.com/2012-election/p … ial-polls/

    Biggest voter segment is undecided.
    So if Ron Paul can pull all of those away from either Romney or Palin AND pick up all the small percentages of the lesser-known candidates, then maybe, just maybe....

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      National at 10% - wurd.

    2. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ron Paul will be worse than Obama

      Huntsman/Bachmann ticket

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense - Ron Paul truly understands what's wrong with our economy.

        He's the only politician talking about the 2 trillion dollar counterfeiters - the fed - and openly discussing how printing money out of thin air caused the depression we're in.

        Ron Paul 2012 - not only the "least-worst" candidate, but the best candidate.

  14. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Last month, the United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in the case of Kentucky v. King, told the police in our nation that they may break into a home without a warrant if they believe that the occupants might be in the act of destroying evidence."

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "The pretense that presidential conduct doesn't matter is a liberal thing."

    So, what has been done about Bush and co. from the conservative side?
    Wellll, CPAC was screaming 2012, 2012, 2012 at Cheney at their meeting last year, that's what!

    Get real.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bush is not president.  What crimes?  Still haven't seen anything specific from you.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Iraq, 9/11, torture.......did you miss that?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Congress approved action in Iraq and continued to approve funds for Iraq even after the 2006 elections.  9/11 - you got me there Jesse Ventura/Alex Jones or who ever you are channeling.  I was under the mistaken notion that that was a terrorist attack.  I suppose it was actually a forced implosion by Mossad operatives.  What torture?  You can say what you want and god knows you do but it doesn't make it true.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But they aren't declared wars, and thus are illegal.

            We've been in there bombing for over a decade - quit acting like this isn't a war.

            Only a Statist could think that "bombing a country for over a decade" isn't considered war.

            Also, I've noticed that these "military activities" are only NOT referred to as "wars" whenever we're discussing whether they are Constitutional or not. AT ALL OTHER TIMES they're called wars.

            It's nonsense. We're at war in 5 different areas of the Country, all have lasted longer than any allotted time frame: whether it be 90 days or a decade.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Congress approved the action, funds the action, doesn't insist on its end.  Sounds like a war declaration to me.  Again, what is the phrasing of a war declaration.  Is it like a bankruptcy declaration?

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuGIgf-ICHM

              As fir the statist thing, I am always amused by libertarians and liberals grabbing on to the name calling as soon as their arguments run their course.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A declaration of war is a declaration of war.

                There isn't one for any of the wars we're involved with.

                Sorry.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, and "statist" isn't 'name-calling'. It's me arguing that you're not an anarchist.

                A-narchy is the demand for an absence of government.

                A statist would be one who wants a state.

                ... would you prefer Pro-narchy?

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would prefer rational.  Anarchy is by its nature as utopian a notion as socialism.  How does one rectify the idea of "no government" with supporting someone like Ron Paul, who paints himself as a constitutionalist.  An adherent to the Constitution would also support the existence of government precisely for the reason Madison gives, "we are not angels."

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The fact that you responded back with "rational" shows that you are still taking what I said as an insult.

                    Good day, sir.

  16. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    The U.S.A. does not have a "King".

    It has over 300 manipulators of information in office, but will never have a King.

  17. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Do you feel better now that you got someone banned for this thread?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who got banned? And why is it my fault?

      1. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "banned for this thread"  Not for nothing but this thread was started by Evan. So how did Evan get himself suspended?

  18. Taylor P. J. profile image60
    Taylor P. J.posted 5 years ago

    I voted enthusiastically for Mr. Obama. I believed he would end the war in Afghanistan. I  also firmly believed he would bring home the troops in Iraq. Has,'t done either.  On the economy front, I don't see anything positive yet- errr.  I gotta good mind to throw my vote to a republican in 2012. And that would be a first (okay, I've only voted once in my life). And BTW, I thought it was common knowledge that ANY president can launch a war.

  19. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Why did the US not have a decent national road system until the government stepped in and built it?" Capitalists built the railroads, with some people say in part, the China drug profits. Roads too expensive. That's why there is government.

 
working