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
Talk about overreaching. Did it take you all day to think this up?
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.
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?
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.
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?)
What the frick were we talking about?
The prez is judge, jury, executioner, and legislator.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Get over it, It is Obamaco in case you needed an update
Bush was evil. He was one of the faces of our king
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......
"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."
******--Mos Def reading this when I get home!!!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"...and there is no specific language in the Constitution for a war declaration"
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".
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?
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.
The president requires no Congressional approval to attack pirates or terrorists for that matter if they are in international waters, on American land or in a country that invites the US in.
A war declaration is only required when attacking a sovereign country and even then as Commander in Chief it is not entirely clear in the constitution when a declaration must be made. Congress addressed the C in C issue in the War Powers limitations and even than a clear and present danger still permits the C in C to act without Congressional permission.
In fact it is not Congressional permission that must be granted it is Congressional approval.
I was reading what you wrote and was thinking to myself "dang, he's right!"
... but then I decided to read what the President had the power to do in the Constitution.
NOPE! He has no military power unless granted by Congress. Our president DOES have permission from Congress in a few of these situations, but not to the point that our Executive has taken them.
We've been bombing Libya for more than 90 days (90 days was the limit set for our last tyrant, Bush, when he begged and pleaded Congress); we've been in Syria for longer than a year; we've been attacking Pakistan for years upon years; we've been in Afghanistan and Iraq for longer than a decade.
Sorry, but you're wrong on these situations.
For more information on the powers granted to the Federal Executive Branch, I recommend READING the CONSTITUTION (Article 2, Sections 2-3.)
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????
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?
Just out out of curiosity, have you ever traveled to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region for any type of training??
If that is your definition of a King, I am very sad for our educational system.
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.
Read "Liberty Defined".
It's clear he wants to return us to a Constitutional Republic.
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?
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!!
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.
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?
Any reason why he is a Republican, and not in the Constitution Party?
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.
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.
Good. Have a party.
No one else is any good.
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?
...and eliminate things like meat inspectors. Yeah...great idea Ron.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
Remember Hillarys tyson stock? $1,000 converted into $100,000. Has there been a more blatent kickback out there than 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.
So, too, would liquidating tainted meat.
From whom would the for-profit quality meat ensurers derive their profits?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tainted food is sold to the Federal Prison System
I don't buy green meat....
... so, problem solved.
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.
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.
"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)
"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." 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.
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!!!
What war act have we committed in Egypt?
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.
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.
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?
A king is not democratically elected as is the president, who is not only elected, but answerable to the government.
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.
"I honestly don't think any American president comes anywhere close to this."
Be thankful you don't live in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.
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.
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....
Ron Paul will be worse than Obama
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.
"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."
"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!
Bush is not president. What crimes? Still haven't seen anything specific from you.
Iraq, 9/11, torture.......did you miss that?
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.
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.
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?
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.
A declaration of war is a declaration of war.
There isn't one for any of the wars we're involved with.
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?
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."
The U.S.A. does not have a "King".
It has over 300 manipulators of information in office, but will never have a King.
Do you feel better now that you got someone banned for this thread?
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.
"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.
by ahorseback2 weeks ago
Ultra-libs are actually not only calling for but, actively bringing " Blood into the Streets " politics to America's main streets , It has arrived ! Loretta...
by Credence27 weeks ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threat … 40039.htmlMexico tells the Trump administration to 'take a hike'. Now the GOP is going to pay for it? How?Do we declare war on...
by ptosis7 weeks ago
The poorly crafted Executive Order without consulting the people who have to enforce it seems - hamfisted."Mr. Schneiderman said that the executive order was unconstitutional and that he and other attorneys general...
by ahorseback14 months ago
When 90 + percent of blacks voted for Pres. Obama in the last election , That tells me something important in the whole "racism " accusation-al debate ! Just who is the ...
by GA Anderson2 years ago
Probably a tough discussion to have, since the exact details can't be confirmed, but here are a few "understood" parts.1. "The deal" would have a limited life. Current gossip has it as a 10-year...
by Deforest2 years ago
Then, why did Obama (the executive) made a new law by changing what the constitution stipulated anteriorly? Isn't the US becoming an absolute monarchy?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.