Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/5/03 12:05 AM, jimsween wrote: It says congress has the power it doesnt say that they need to, I think congress gave up that power when they voted that we could attack. Obviously it was some sort of attempt at a preemptive declaration or else why would they have voted at all?

That sort of situation is nothing new to Bush's administration. That practice goes all the way back to Truman.

exactly...and why would congress do that? its not because the republicans hold the majority is it? and the president is also a republican? if our politicians can toss the constitution aside to fit a political parties agenda....whats next? if you want to put all your trust into this war and this administration jim, go ahead. it is your right and im certainly not going to stop you, i just think our present political leadership is bieng highly hypocritical.

At 4/5/03 12:15 AM, WaldenPunk wrote: exactly...and why would congress do that? its not because the republicans hold the majority is it? and the president is also a republican? if our politicians can toss the constitution aside to fit a political parties agenda....whats next? if you want to put all your trust into this war and this administration jim, go ahead. it is your right and im certainly not going to stop you, i just think our present political leadership is bieng highly hypocritical.

Yeah we should always do exactly what the consitution says, even though it was written over 200 years ago. Back when it was written it would take forever in order to tell people that congress declared war so time didnt matter. And you still didnt show me where it said that congress HAS to declare war.

the constitution doesnt say the president HAS to declare war it says congress HAS to declare war. and if your trying to prove me wrong use the constitution, dont play word games. and whats your point that the constitution was written over 200 years ago? that its old and that therefore we should instill martial law?

For constitutional reference: the Congressional power to declare war is defined in Article I, Section 8.

"The Congress shall have power... to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Congress did pass a resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq, although it was not a formal war declaration. Also remember that Congress has the power of the budget. If at any time they do not wish to continue the war, they can simply pull the funding for it.

Ok, enough with the COngress quoting. Yes, the congress can declare war, not have to, but can. Now the topic is war good? Which i think is a stupid question. NO WAR IS NOT GOOD. It must be done though. War is always a last resort. last solution. Is it bad though, yes. Is it Neccesary? Without a doubt

At 4/5/03 12:09 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

OBVIOUSLY BUSH DID GET ELECTED IF HE IS IN OFFICE. IT doesn't matter how many popular votes you have, it's the electoral colledge, and Bush had mroe of those.

but the supreme court stopped the recount remember? and after all the the recounts whould have been done Gore would have won by just 7 votes. those 7 vote would have swung the electoral college and Gore would have won.

remember, the elctoral college doesnt vote vote for who ever, the vote as the people in thier state voted.

and you vote always counts.

At 4/5/03 01:32 AM, Evanauto wrote:

At 4/5/03 12:09 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

OBVIOUSLY BUSH DID GET ELECTED IF HE IS IN OFFICE. IT doesn't matter how many popular votes you have, it's the electoral colledge, and Bush had mroe of those.

but the supreme court stopped the recount remember? and after all the the recounts whould have been done Gore would have won by just 7 votes. those 7 vote would have swung the electoral college and Gore would have won.

remember, the elctoral college doesnt vote vote for who ever, the vote as the people in thier state voted.

and you vote always counts.

The electoral college varies. It could count as the people, or in some states it could jsut be the politcal reps, that the people have voted in. Anyways, as much as i dispise Bush. He beats Al Gore any day. What do yuo think the Internet robot would have said after 9/11? i would move to Britain pretty F***ing fast.

I wanted Mccain

At 4/5/03 01:42 AM, jimsween wrote: I wanted Mccain

yea Mccain was a cool senetor and prob. would make an excellent Pres. He was a vietnam POW, but the sad thing was he even lost the polls for the Vetrans. maybe hell have better look next election. (I hope Carey doesn't win).

At 4/5/03 01:32 AM, Evanauto wrote: but the supreme court stopped the recount remember? and after all the the recounts whould have been done Gore would have won by just 7 votes. those 7 vote would have swung the electoral college and Gore would have won.

I beg to differ. Gore would have won by 7 votes if the votes were counted the way HE wanted them counted. The votes had already been counted several times over under the standards set by Florida's election laws, and Bush won every time. But Gore wanted votes that shouldn't have counted under the law to be counted.

I hope I have put this issue to rest forever. It's been almost 3 years--doesn't anyone just want to move on?

I am surprised there are any Gore/Liberman supportists anymore. It's been awhile and i think the issue needs to go nigh nite also.

McCain was the best man for the job.

McCain > Buchanan > Bradley > Bush > Gore > Nader

At 4/5/03 01:32 AM, Evanauto wrote: remember, the elctoral college doesnt vote vote for who ever, the vote as the people in thier state voted.

actually, i think in one of my gov't classes we discussed this (3 years ago, my memory could fail) and it was brought up that the electoral college is not bound by the will of the voters in their districts; they could swing the vote based on their own personal choice. has anyone else heard this? i may be insane....

and on a side note.....

i think anyone who posts something to the effect of 'bush didnt win!' should be permanently banned for stupidity. would you rather gore won? do you know what would happen? EVERY SINGLE ELECTION FOR THE REST OF TIME WOULD BE MARKED BY MULTIPLE RECOUNTS! is that really what you want?

George Bush now, Al Gore NEVER

Some states force them to vote for their party's candidate, or who the people in their state voted for, others states allow them to vote either way. In any event, it is always expected for them to vote accordingly, and I don't think it's ever been an issue.

The electoral college exists to make sure people don't elect some popular idiot who doesn't know what he (or she ::shudders::) is doing.

(Here's your cue to say: HAHAHA BUSH IS AN IDIOT THEY FAILED OMG, go for it you original clever guys)

At 4/6/03 11:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: [stuff that fourdaddy should have already known]

thanks for clearing that up for me, i wasnt totally sure.

It's a lot of both.
Good-It frees the Iraqis from dictator
Bad-Iraq is rich in oil and our president has quite a record when it comes to oil.

Back to the topic

WAR HUUUH.... GoodGodYALL

WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN!
SAY IT AGAIN

WAR HUUUH.... GoodGodYALL

Absolutely Nothing.

At 4/5/03 01:32 AM, Evanauto wrote:

At 4/5/03 12:09 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

OBVIOUSLY BUSH DID GET ELECTED IF HE IS IN OFFICE. IT doesn't matter how many popular votes you have, it's the electoral colledge, and Bush had mroe of those.

but the supreme court stopped the recount remember? and after all the the recounts whould have been done Gore would have won by just 7 votes. those 7 vote would have swung the electoral college and Gore would have won.

Several independent recounts afterward found that Bush in fact won, and by a greater margin than previously thought. That doesn't dissuade liberal propaganda, though. The Supreme Court stepped in when it did to halt the theft of an election by a whining loser.

At 4/10/03 10:21 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: The Supreme Court stepped in when it did to halt the theft of an election by a whining loser.

I still think counting the votes in the state where his brother was Govenor was a conflict of intrest as far as a fair election goes.

Maybe the votes were in his favor.
But they used a state under the control of a Bush to decide whether the election.

War is bad. There. I said it twice. Err 3 times

At 4/10/03 10:25 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/10/03 10:21 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: The Supreme Court stepped in when it did to halt the theft of an election by a whining loser.

I still think counting the votes in the state where his brother was Govenor was a conflict of intrest as far as a fair election goes.

Maybe the votes were in his favor.
But they used a state under the control of a Bush to decide whether the election.

People are always whining about "But his brother was governor!" So? Do you have ANY evidence of corruption? It was the Gore campaign that filed the numerous lawsuits and the Jeb Bush administration had to walk on eggshells to avoid any allegation of corruption. In the end, it came down to the Supreme Court enforcing the law.

MSNBC report

I still think using Florida was a poor choice.

Even if they were walking on eggshells.

Killing over 600(and more to come) to stop one bad man?o ya....thats a war full of morals there....

Saddam killed 2 million of his own people in 14 years (he wasnt crazy in the begining he was actually a very good president). 600 is nothing to what he did to his citizens DURING this war.

You have killed your own point. 600 people unjusifiably dead is a horrendous crime. However, you do nothing to justify the executions. These are murderers that are getting their punishment under the law. You are compating apples and oranges, when you had the chance to make an intelligent rebuttal.

I believe that war is horrible, but sometimes it is the only possible and/or prudent course of action. Could Bush have used more diplomacy? Of course. Could the oppressed Iraqis have been liberated earliler, say, during '91. Definitely. However, I see this hypocrisy in American foreign policy. If we are going to bust tyrannical regimes, we must also not turn a blind eye towards countries like Saudi Arabia, where there is very little freedom, and women are oppressed. You don't see Bush preparing to invade them, do you? The double standard must end, and we must either use diplomacy or force, or more preferrably a mixture of both. I have a challenge to president Bush. Denounce the wrongdoing of all countries, even allies like Saudi Arabia. Do not hastily invade them; rather use diplomatic pressure to make the change. Once the hypocrisy ends, so will a great deal of terrorism and anti-Americanism.

how about the next polls be done with touch screens with pictures of the candidates, no confusion there...

At 4/10/03 10:39 PM, Jlop985 wrote:

Killing over 600(and more to come) to stop one bad man?o ya....thats a war full of morals there....

Saddam killed 2 million of his own people in 14 years (he wasnt crazy in the begining he was actually a very good president). 600 is nothing to what he did to his citizens DURING this war.

You have killed your own point. 600 people unjusifiably dead is a horrendous crime. However, you do nothing to justify the executions. These are murderers that are getting their punishment under the law. You are compating apples and oranges, when you had the chance to make an intelligent rebuttal.

I believe that whole thing was a justification, he killed 2 million in 14 years, he has killed more than we have during the war. It might help if you made any sense, "These are murderers that are getting their punishment under the law. You are compat[r]ing apples and oranges" What does that even mean?

I believe that war is horrible, but sometimes it is the only possible and/or prudent course of action. Could Bush have used more diplomacy? Of course. Could the oppressed Iraqis have been liberated earliler, say, during '91. Definitely. However, I see this hypocrisy in American foreign policy. If we are going to bust tyrannical regimes, we must also not turn a blind eye towards countries like Saudi Arabia, where there is very little freedom, and women are oppressed.

I'll jump in here already, Obviously you have been reading too many pamplets. Saudi Arabian women are not treated as badly as is thought, they are hardly being oppressed because in Saudi Arabia there is no sources of entertainment, Its in thier religion. The "stonings" that are so imfamous are not as common as everybody thinks. Most of the time the stonings are done by angry mobs of people not the government.

You don't see Bush preparing to invade them, do you? The double standard must end, and we must either use diplomacy or force, or more preferrably a mixture of both. I have a challenge to president Bush. Denounce the wrongdoing of all countries, even allies like Saudi Arabia. Do not hastily invade them; rather use diplomatic pressure to make the change. Once the hypocrisy ends, so will a great deal of terrorism and anti-Americanism.

We have to respect the cultures of other countries, much of the stuff you are complaining about is in thier religion, however it say nothing in thier religion about mass murder and killing your own people. Bush is taking it one step at a time, he is making Iraq more humane so people in the surrounding countries get an idea of how good it is. I give it another 15 years before Saudi Arabia becomes a democracy.

At 4/10/03 10:39 PM, Jlop985 wrote:

Killing over 600(and more to come) to stop one bad man?o ya....thats a war full of morals there....

Saddam killed 2 million of his own people in 14 years (he wasnt crazy in the begining he was actually a very good president). 600 is nothing to what he did to his citizens DURING this war.

actually, many of those were killed because of sanctions, and america have twisted the figures to make it seem as if sdaddam killed loads.

:Once the hypocrisy ends, so will a great deal of terrorism and anti-Americanism.

exactly. terrorists are freedom fighters. they have been opressed, and are fighting back. they dont kill themselves for no reason

At 4/12/03 08:26 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/10/03 10:39 PM, Jlop985 wrote:

Saddam killed 2 million of his own people in 14 years (he wasnt crazy in the begining he was actually a very good president). 600 is nothing to what he did to his citizens DURING this war.

actually, many of those were killed because of sanctions, and america have twisted the figures to make it seem as if sdaddam killed loads.

Oh? May I ask where all the Food that Iraqis got from selling their oil went? Did they all throw it down the toilet? And how do you know that America twisted the figures?

Once the hypocrisy ends, so will a great deal of terrorism and anti-Americanism.

exactly. terrorists are freedom fighters. they have been opressed, and are fighting back. they dont kill themselves for no reason

Terrorist are NOT freedom fighters. They fight for political ideology