I think the EU has the right idea when it comes to cutting spending and reducing their deficit. Obama is digging the US in a deeper hole with his increase in taxes and his ridiculous increase in spending.
I agree with one four and five, I think that Obama is doing the best that he can given the state of things. If you have a better I dea I'd like to hear it, that was an honest request, not a sassback.The better idea was to do what the EU was doing. Obama was the only one at the G8 who wants to increase government spending.
1. I think the EU has the right idea when it comes to cutting spending and reducing their deficit. Obama is digging the US in a deeper hole with his increase in taxes and his ridiculous increase in spending.
4. Iran needs to stop trying to make nukes.
5. Russia and China needs to stop hapering the West from stopping Iran from getting nukes.
I disagree with one, four, and fiveYou mentioned the three you disagree with, but you didn't mention which ones you do agree with.
Do you wish harm towards Israel and America?Bah, you know, that's one sensitive question to ask, im2msart4u, 'cause many people around the globe would say "yes" to both or one of them, and in some cases, quite vehemently.
Many people around the globe don't like America, but few would wish for them to have a nuclear weapon used on them(during 9/11 some cheered, but most of the world was on the US side). To allow Iran to build a nuke is to say "Fuck you, we don't care about your safety". Because nations like China and Russia are unwilling to have sanctions against Iran's energy sector, state-sponsored terrorist will have access to nuclear materials. As soon as Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will want one too. It will be like the cold war again, but this time it will be with religious fanatics.Do you wish harm towards Israel and America?Bah, you know, that's one sensitive question to ask, im2smart4u, 'cause many people around the globe would say "yes" to both or one of them, and in some cases, quite vehemently.
I think it's pretty clear, by impication, that namelesskitty agrees with the rest of the points, namely 2, 3, 6 and 7, if he singled out 1,4 and 5 to specifically disagree with.I can't tell if he has no opinion on the matter or if he agrees.
honestly don't care about 7,Exactly, he isn't nearly as important as he thinks he is.
8. USA should try distance itself from China ASAP, and try to get financially indpendent of the said country, lest no one remains at all to keep China in check for the future.The USA hates China like heroin addicts hate heroin. We want to stop, but we can't. Overpoplulation is both China's strength and weakness. China needs the status quo, because if they don't have jobs, then millions of people go hungry which may cause a revolution.
I know my opinion probably insn't wanted here but I agree with im2smart4u on everyone of his points.Your opinion probably isn't wanted, because you agree with me. On this forum, people rarely do that.
Taxes are wrong.That statement is extreme. I think it is wrong to raise taxes so the government can control things that they shouldn't be controling like health care, car companies, retirement savings, student loans, and est. Taxes should only be spent on stuff like regulation, defence, security, and infrastructure.
I'm okay with helping poverty ridden countries, but we need to help the starving in America tooIt is wierd that there are people who go hungry when the government pays farmers to not grow food.
I think it is wrong to raise taxes so the government can control things that they shouldn't be controling like health care, car companies, retirement savings, student loans, and est. Taxes should only be spent on stuff like regulation, defence, security, and infrastructure.Do you not want centralized health care, why not, it stands to save the lives of tens of millions of people, do you wish harm towards those people who currently can't afford health care? also the tax increases are only on people who can afford it, like CEOs and the sort.
Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal [which are authorization for a private vessel to attack the enemies of the state], and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[And] all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
The Liberals, if they weren't coallitioning.
Since they are, however, I'd have to say the Republicans. Wait, are you getting voting advice from a website devoted to a game? :o
You're old enough to vote? Or did you leave out the "not"?
I never understood the appeal for Quebec to succeed from the rest of Canada.Me neither... anyone has an explanation?
The president himself does not have this power. If he agrees to, along with multiple other countries, it's within his power.So the President doesn't have to listen to the Constitution when other countries give him the "okay"? So if the UN approves arms control and speech limitations, then Obama is allowed to ignore the 1st and 2nd Amendments and bypass congress?::) Even with UN approval, the "president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
In short, the president has the power to authorize the use by NATO, and by the UN, of US forces, but not to send them by himself.
If you're going to bring up the War Powers Resolution, you may want to know that it says that the president [Obama] must notify Congress within 48 hours, and also must withdraw forces after sixty days if Congress's approval has not been achieved by this time. Neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution forbids his actions at the moment. I believe Candidate Obama, when he said your oft-quoted quote, meant for longer than sixty days. The Iraq "War" lasted significantly longer than sixty days, and troops certainly did not attempt to withdraw by ninety.A)This conflict in Libya is going to last longer then 60 days, so Obama is required to get congresstional approval
So the President doesn't have to listen to the Constitution when other countries give him the "okay"? So if the UN approves arms control and speech limitations, then Obama is allowed to ignore the 1st and 2nd Amendments and bypass congress?::)
HERE'S THE LINK (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/War)
- noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5.
aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6.
a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8.
Cards .
1. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
2. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
9.
Archaic . a battle.
- verb (used without object)
10.
to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
11.
to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
12.
to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
- adjective
13.
of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.
" 'Allegedly' "?I find funny that people still think Obama is a secret muslim terrorist who was born in Kenya/Indonesia.
Barack Obama is quite American, born in Hawaii. And he hasn't walked over them yet.
And didn't we just go over this? The Constitution itself doesn't actually forbid it, and in fact encourages the US to form treaties with other countries, our interest in having positive relations with other countries superceding our need to avoid unilaterally decided military attack.According to the Constitution, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...." This still means that Obama needs congresstional approval to agree to the UN resolution. Plus, no where in the UN resolution says America or any other country has to commit troops. That means that every country and thier legislative body have to make the choose to commit armed forces to military action.
I think the views/laws of the UN supersede those of the American Constitution/Congress, but it is just my opinion. I mean they are trying to making decisions for the betterment of the world, not just the states.I see why you would think that. It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
I see why you would think that. It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
You're doing your part, yes, but you can't say other countries should do theirs. I agree with smarty, its up to the country in question to commit forces or not, and how many, and when. Obviously, we needed to help Libya, but it should have been done legally.I see why you would think that. It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American personal and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
And you think, that Canadians are just sitting around, watching the American's to go Libya? Just to let you know, we are also doing our part in helping the people in Libya (Mind you, not to our fullest potential right now, as we have an election going on).
It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American person[ne]l and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.
Think of it this way, A teacher (Barrack Obama) wants to know if he can do X in his classes. He could go to the principal (U.S Congress) of the school, or he could go to the school board (The UN). I think the school board might have a better knowledge than one single principal...Too bad that the school policy requires the teacher to ask permission from the principal. The principal needs to be asked, because if things go wrong, then the principal and the school (America) suffer, while the school board remains uneffected.
The major difference is that our fellow countrymen's lives are being risked and our taxpayer dollars are the ones being spent. Are Canadians flying our jets over Libya? No, it is our famliy and friends who are the ones put in harms way. Are the Canadains paying for over 280 tomahawk missiles that cost about 1.5 million dollars each? No, that cost is the burden of the American taxpayers. War is such a serious matter that committing armed forces to military action is not a decision that should be left to one man (even the President) and a group of foreigners. That is why the founding fathers gave the decision to go to war to Congress.It must be easy for people in Canada to vote on using American person[ne]l and resources because Canada wouldn't have to spend money or risk lives.I find that remark unfair.
It must be easy for people in America to vote on using American personnel and resources because they personally wouldn't have to spend their own money or risk their own lives.
I was always aware that the teacher could either go to the principal or school board. I mean the principal does need to get approval from the school board for a lot of education things...It doesn't matter who a teacher asks, because it is a stupid analogy. The President has to get congresstional approval according to the consititution.
Yes, our soldiers lives are being put on the line as well. We are flying are own jets over Libya using are own missiles and bombs. Canadians are doing their part too. Sure not as much as the America, but we are still using our tax payers money for this. You act as though everyone is watching you while you get rid of the problem. What the Founding Fathers didn't count on was that after World War One, an organization was formed that included most of the world's countries. This organization does not pick and choose, it simply addresses the problem, and anyone who wants to help out can, and it gives them their approval.Good for them. (Canada didn't fire a single tomahawk missile and I can count all the Canadian deployed jets on one hand.) I don't think you see my point. Canada and the rest of the UN don't have the power to give Obama or anyone else the power to defy the Constitution. Lets say that the rest of the world wanted to quickly hunt down terrorists in Canada. Does the UN have the ability to allow Stephen Harper to ignore the Canadian Consititution and enforce unreasonable search and seizure?
Clearly you guys don't believe in sovereignty. Throughout Canadian history, the Canadians had the British make all the decsions for them, so I can see Zackirus why would rather listen to foreign powers then his local community.
You can call it "simply miltary invovlement" or whatever, but this is NATO choosing sides and then sending armed forces to kill people in a civil war.
I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.
It isn't arrogance; it is fact. For example, France and Britain were unwilling to strike in Libya untill they were able to use America's unrivaled Naval power to destroy Libya's anti-air power.I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.Since WWII, the UN has relied on mostly American and British militaries to enforce its resolutions. Can you hostely say that Canada could have protected Kuwait from Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War or protected South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War? If Canada withdraws thier forces it is a small lost at best. When America withdraws its forces, then the war is lost.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.
Since WWII, the UN has relied on mostly American and British militaries to enforce its resolutions. Can you hostely say that Canada could have protected Kuwait from Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War or protected South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War? If Canada withdraws thier forces it is a small lost at best. When America withdraws its forces, then the war is lost.
Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.Putting aside the fact that Obama in ignoring the Constitution, can you at least admit that Obama is a hypocrite?
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
I love how Obama claims to be a christian yet doubtlessly supports abortion.Different Christians have different definitions of when cells become a person. Some believe life begins at conception, while other believe life begins much later. But thats a whole different topic. Plus, Obama's church was always less about Christianity, then it was about "black theology". (It is has become outdated and racist in the 21st century.)
It's called being a politician. Do whatever it takes to get into office, then do whatever. Then, when election time comes back around, do whatever it takes to be reelected. Then, if you are reelected, do whatever you want to botch stuff for the next person to take your office.Obama didn't promise anything when discussing the president authorizing military attacks, so it wasn't a campain promise. He was just discussing his moral views. Apparently, he will willing to throw away his moral beliefs to make sure he doesn't lose political points.
The Bloc Leader, Gilles, couldn't say one sentence without mentioning Quebec's needs and wants...
France and Britain admit that they can't halt Gadhafi's assault against civilians in places like Misrata without American firepower. Its not arrogance; It is history that says America has lead the free world militarily and politically since WWII.I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
Furthermore, the current NATO general has totally botched the operation. He even bombed rebel tanks, saying that he didn't know that they had tanks when he almost certainly had heard it, and then refused to apologize. Three articles:France and Britain admit that they can't halt Gadhafi's assault against civilians in places like Misrata without American firepower. Its not arrogance; It is history that says America has lead the free world militarily and politically since WWII.I still think think representatives of Americans (Congress) would make better decsions about where to send American forces, then the foreign countries who can't do anything militarily without us.That is what I am talking about. American's can be too arrogant and you guys think you are the most important thing ever. Things can get done without you guys you know.
"Let's be realistic. The fact that the U.S. has left the sort of the kinetic part of the air operation has had a sizable impact. That is fairly obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.-Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110412/ap_on_re_us/uc_us_libya;_ylt=At2qoxhuj9Jt03FnV.65DSW96Q8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJpNTVtMWw1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNDEyL3VjX3VzX2xpYnlhBHBvcwMyNARzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNkZXNwaXRlbmF0b3I-)
Furthermore, the current NATO general has totally botched the operation. He even bombed rebel tanks, saying that he didn't know that they had tanks when he almost certainly had heard it, and then refused to apologize. Three articles:I haven't heard of any evidence that anyone knew that the rebels had tanks.
Killing 13 Rebels (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/968156--nato-airstrike-accidentally-kills-13-rebels-in-libya)
Link About Destruction of Tanks by NATO (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42488973/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/)
im2smart4u: I love how you jump from the Canadian political debate to what is happening in Libya. I don't doubt that America is one of the leading countries in the world, but, there is something called Modesty which everyone needs to learn, no matter how powerful... Furthermore, I didn't see you defuse the Suez Crisis or Peace Keep in Afganistan, and those went pretty smoothly.Unlike some people(not implying you), I don't talk about subjects that I don't know about, so I am not talking about Canadian politics.
About undermining the Constitution, we've pointed out multiple times that it's not, and los Padres Fundandos probably shouldn't have put in that bit about treaties in the sixth article of the Consitution if they didn't bloody want to use it!Reid v. Covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) says that the Supreme Court has "regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty".
Then can you explain how the Controlled Substances Act remains Constitutional?Can you explain how the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional?
Yes. It violates the states' rights to put their own laws upon trade within the state. States have rights -- all those not specifically granted to the federal government, as per the Tenth Amendment.Basically, Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) said the Commerce Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) has allowed the federal government do almost anything that has any effect on the economy. For example, Obama said the Commerce Clause allows him to mandate health insurance, because being alive is considered commerce.
No. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn because his activities affected interstate trade, because wheat was traded nationally. Marijuana does not have such a national trade; it grows most anywhere, and cultivation and distribution is nearly completely local. The United States can outlaw interstate trade of anything, but if the interstate trade is cut off, the product is no longer traded nationally, and no further Commerce Clause restrictions apply.I don't think you understood Wickard v. Filburn. Roscoe Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat, but by growing wheat, he effected the supply and demand which gives the federal government jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. Congress has the right to eliminate the supply and trade of any protect due to the Commerce Clause.
Health insurance applies because the market is national; people travel between states to recieve it, and health insurers operate in multiple states. But if there is no interstate trade, the intrastate trade cannot be regulated as per the Tenth Amendment.I may be wrong, but I don't think you can buy insurance across state lines, because of all the conflicting state health care laws. The Republicans' plan was to try to allow consumers to buy over state lines, so competition increases which causes prices to drop. You didn't hear much about the plan because it was overshadowed by Obama's plan to socialize health care.
Marijuana is a large part of current administration of countries.For example, you had to be high to vote for the new health care bill.
Marijuana is a large part of current administration of countries.For example, you had to be high to vote for the new health care bill.
No. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn because his activities affected interstate trade, because wheat was traded nationally. Marijuana does not have such a national trade; it grows most anywhere, and cultivation and distribution is nearly completely local. The United States can outlaw interstate trade of anything, but if the interstate trade is cut off, the product is no longer traded nationally, and no further Commerce Clause restrictions apply.I don't think you understood Wickard v. Filburn. Roscoe Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat, but by growing wheat, he effected the supply and demand which gives the federal government jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. Congress has the right to eliminate the supply and trade of any protect due to the Commerce Clause.Health insurance applies because the market is national; people travel between states to recieve it, and health insurers operate in multiple states. But if there is no interstate trade, the intrastate trade cannot be regulated as per the Tenth Amendment.I may be wrong, but I don't think you can buy insurance across state lines, because of all the conflicting state health care laws. The Republicans' plan was to try to allow consumers to buy over state lines, so competition increases which causes prices to drop. You didn't hear much about the plan because it was overshadowed by Obama's plan to socialize health care.