More Ron Bashing

[reverendjeremiah]

EPA lie. Not destroyed cut by 30% please stop saying eliminate it.

Out of EVERYTHING I posted, thats the only thing you can say?

He is not a racist, thats a lie.

I never said he was a racist. I merely pointed out that he uses the same arguments about the govt that known racists use, and would you speak infront of the confederate flag? If any other Republican did this everyone would be screaming "racist".

The only true way to end racism is end the laws that help a certain race over another. We are all equal.

How extremely naive of you. You expect me to believe that the equal rights act is the reason why racism exists in the hearts and minds of Americans? That the KKK would disband if we got rid of the civil rights act? No. Please admit that what you are saying is clearly naive.

What are all you worried about then? If the president has no power, then don't worry, nothing to worry about at all then. So why does it even matter who is president? Sounds like they can do nothing. Might as well just vote for Romney right? Cause the president can't do anything.

Wait? You dont know what the president can or cant do? If we vote in Romney, with the amount of neo-cons in office he can very well get his tax cuts through because nobody would veto it. When I vote for a President, I have THESE reasons I vote:
-Veto anything breaching church and state and other important bill of rights issues.
-Veto more tax cuts for the rich
-Appoint progressive judges for the supreme court
-Appoint progressives to any and all positions that he is allowed to appoint for.
That is it. Do you think Ron Paul or Romeny will do these things? No. Sorry bro, but Paul is the enemy.

Wake up. I don't think any of us on this board has ever seen a truly free market with free trade.

This coming from a man who more than likely knew nothing of what the executive branch could or could not do. I am not asleep, and my recent posts on this topic CLEARLY shows that I am very much up to date on not only how the system works, but the vast majority of views that the people running for president hold.

How does that equal "asleep" to you?

Ron Paul is a lying scum bag, and he will NEVER gain my vote.

---

If you are talking about Afghanistan, then No it wasn't. President Bush on sole executive powers went into an undeclared war. Basically a loophole, I guess. Check your facts on that.

Okay, I checked my facts on it. For one there is a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal that was created by an executive act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_...vice_Medal
The invasion of Iraq: In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". The resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resol...ainst_Iraq

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan
President George W. Bush was authorized by Congress on September 14, 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on September 18, 2001, by both President Bush and congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizati...Terrorists
[quote]Introduction
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[edit] Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
[edit] Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Of course politics as usual have been played, but EVERYTHING has pretty much been ochestrated by the senate and congress.
Does this count as facts for you? Or is it all some conspiracy theory? Am I allowed to use this as strong evidence? Or are you going to discount all of it?

The Constitution says that Congressional support is needed to DECLARE a war, not stopping one. The Constition also says the prez needs 2/3 support from the Senate to MAKE TREATIES with other nations, still nothing about complete withdrawal of troops. It seems your mistake lies in the INTERPRETATION of the Constituion, not in the legality of it. And furthermore, even IF Ron Paul did need majority support from either the House or Senate, you automatically PRESUME that he wouldn't get it!! What are you psychic? You know for sure that would happen or is that just your own ASSUMPTION of things?

War Powers resolution complicates things like this. Ron Paul would be able to control many aspects of the war. As far as senate not supporting him, and that I am somehow psychic. Have you noticed how so many politicians on both sides of the spectrum either completely ignore or minimize anything that Paul says or does? Do you think that will suddenly dissapear if he got elected?
I have no given proof that the vast majority of politicians oppose Paul ALREADY without using psychic powers. Now please show me proof that any of these politicians will suddenly change their minds about him without using YOUR psychic powers.

Well, once again we see another presumption, that Obama would end the war if he could. So Obama is an honest politician in YOUR eyes, but Paul is not.

Stop making presumptions on what I say. Obama is a liar, just like Ron Paul and most of the other politicians. How many times has Obama approached Congress about ending the war? NONE.

You say you don't like Ron Paul. Perhaps you hate all politicians. This is an OBVIOUS BIAS.

Nope, some politicians do actually care and do not lie as much as most others.
The rest of your post is nothing more than baiting me by claiming I am biased. I have posted AMPLE proof about what I speak about. I dont see one single shred of evidence in any of your posts. If you WERENT biased, you would have answered them all with evidence, instead of claiming I am merely biased.