Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/29/06 07:29 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 12/29/06 06:54 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/29/06 06:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote: It would take me all day to list unconstitutional infractions the government has done in the past 10 years.

No it would take you forever to list the misinterpretations of the constitution that morons like you have that would be used to distort reality and create false examples of unconstitutional acts.

And you back this up with what?

Um reality. Meanwhile you didn't back up your claim that it would take you "all day to list unconstitutional infractions the government has done in the past 10 years".

So you should be the one attempting to back up what you said, dipshit. Which I'm sure you actually can't, you'll just resort to the typical "Lolz like Katrina, an liek Patriot Act, an Liek da Warzzz, and liek teh other stuff"

The only truly unconstitutional thing the federal government has done in the past 15 years was passing the Federal Assault Weapons ban.

Phone and E-mail taps

You mean the security measures under the Patriot Act (which was passed by the Congress making it constitutional, and approved by the Supreme Court making it constitutional in the first place). You mean the method of spying on people who contact or are contacted by known terrorists?

Thats not unconstitutional moron. Especially considering the fact that once someone commits treason - i.e. conspires with terrorists who are enemies of our country - they are automatically stripped of their 'right of privacy' (which isn't even mentioned in the constitution in the first place).

And since nobody would be spied on unless their phone number or IP address was linked ina database and showed to have communicated with terrorists, that makes it completely CONSTITUTIONAL.

Oh and by the way, even though its obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you mention the part of the constitution or bill of rights where it says that the government can't spy on people?

going to war twice without congress declaring war (We haven't congressionally declared war since WWII, which is unconstitutional.)

Once again you don't know what you're talking about. You are misinterpreting "declaring war" in comparison to "authorizing military action".

The US hasn't declared total war since World War II because the US hasn't needed to. But the US congress HAS 'authorized military action' against governments and non-national groups since WWII because declaring war on entire countries wasn't necessary, practical, or relevant to the situation.

The US congress authorized military action against North Korea, North Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq since WWII, and authorized military action in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Libya.

So the US didn't need to "declare war" on single countries.. The US congress HAS authorized the current war on terrorism without declaring war on individual countries because our current enemies don't belong to individual countries and have no single national base of operations.

So you are obviously too stupid to understand the full spectrum of the situation and are too stupid to dissect the nomenclature.

need I list more, probably, because you won't believe me no matter what I say.

Oh I believe that you THINK that such things were unconstitutional but this only stems from your lack of education and your own distorted perceptions.

Oh and by the way, I'm still waiting for you to list more things as to constitute taking "a day" of listing 'unconstitutional infractions' by the government in the last 10 years.

At 12/29/06 07:29 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Phone and E-mail taps, going to war twice without congress declaring war (We haven't congressionally declared war since WWII, which is unconstitutional.), need I list more, probably, because you won't believe me no matter what I say.

The first phone taps were done by Wilson in WWI (a Democrat), and then FDR in WWII (a Democrat). So it is not fair to blame any one President or either party as THE party of violating the Constitution.

We have gone to war more than twice without a declaration of war:

Korea
Vietnam
Gulf War (some would say this is one war, while others would classify it as two seperate wars).
Afghanistan

However, the Constitution grants congress the sole power to declare war. But the Congress and Constitutional scholars have come to the conclusion that war can be conducted in accordance with the Constitution without a declaration of war. This is called the War Powers Act (WPA). Therefore in each of those wars (2/3 or 1/2 of which were done under Democratic administrations) the President sought Congressional approval before going to war or continuing the military action. Some would say that this is preferable to a declaration in that once Congress issues a declaration of war they loose say over the issue until the President (or his delegates) negotiate a treaty. Under the WPA, congress maintains their power of the purse and can cut the funding for the war thereby forcing the President to bring the troops home.

At 12/29/06 08:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: So you should be the one attempting to back up what you said, dipshit. Which I'm sure you actually can't, you'll just resort to the typical "Lolz like Katrina, an liek Patriot Act, an Liek da Warzzz, and liek teh other stuff"

I do have to give Dre-Man at least one prop: he presents his arguments in complete sentences that follow general rules regarding grammar and spelling...

...because declaring war on entire countries wasn't necessary, practical, or relevant to the situation.

The US congress authorized military action against North Korea, North Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq since WWII,..

Dude, those were actions against entire contries...

So the US didn't need to "declare war" on single countries.. The US congress HAS authorized the current war on terrorism without declaring war on individual countries because our current enemies don't belong to individual countries and have no single national base of operations.

Also the enemy we are fighting is assymetical and unconventional in that they are not sovereign states. And when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights they were basing it on the post-Westphalia notion of nationalism and the sovereignity of states. This notion does not include provisions concerning threats posed by Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) such as al-Qaida.

However, it is ironic that one of our first military actions was under Jefferson against the Barbary Pirates (a group that shares much in common with al-Qaida) off of the coast of Libya...

So you are obviously too stupid to understand the full spectrum of the situation and are too stupid to dissect the nomenclature.

Stupid means a lack of an ability to gain knowledge. I think Dre-Man is probably a smart kid. However, I think he presents strong opinions on subjects upon which he is ignorant, ill-informed or uneducated.

I love my country very much and am training to be in The United States Marine Corps and would protect her to the death. But I do make my own decisions and don't just follow any leader blindly

At 12/29/06 10:55 PM, AustinR wrote: But I do make my own decisions and don't just follow any leader blindly

Not if you're in the military! We give up that right when we enlisted!

However, we can stay informed and cast our vote without harassment or orders to vote a particular way...

At 12/29/06 10:33 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/29/06 08:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: So you should be the one attempting to back up what you said, dipshit. Which I'm sure you actually can't, you'll just resort to the typical "Lolz like Katrina, an liek Patriot Act, an Liek da Warzzz, and liek teh other stuff"

I do have to give Dre-Man at least one prop: he presents his arguments in complete sentences that follow general rules regarding grammar and spelling...

It's called hyperbole, I was using the fact that many people who share his views are prone to poor grammar and typical incoherent rants that [when exaggerated] amount to: "Lolz like Katrina, and liek Patriot Act, and liek da warzzz"... etc.

...because declaring war on entire countries wasn't necessary, practical, or relevant to the situation.

The US congress authorized military action against North Korea, North Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq since WWII,..

Dude, those were actions against entire contries...

No they were not, not initially at least, and certainly not when the authorization of military force was issued.

In the Korean War the object wasn't originally to gain total defeat over North Korea. It was originally just a defensive measure to protect South Korea. The federal government didn't have the policy to go to total war with North Korea. A 'war against North Korea' only took place when the situation on the ground evolved into a counter-invasion (championed by a few generals) rather than a strategic counter attack and reclamation of South Korean territory and restoration of the 48 parallel under a UN resolution (championed by the US federal government).

Same goes for the Vietnam War, it only evolved into a full-scale war against North Vietnam when it was seen that bombing their infrastructure was necessary to support the effort to protect South Vietnam.

With Panama, it was an operation to oust Noriega and regain control of the Panama canal. It wasn't a total war.

With Iraq in the Gulf War it wasn't a total war it was an effort to liberate Kuwait and to protect Saudi Arabia and to simultaneously bludgeon Saddam Hussein;s ability to conduct war in the near future.

In the invasion of Iraq in 03 has been the only full-scale war that should have warranted a declaration of war. But even then, it was intended as a liberation of sorts and an act to topple the government, rather than a total war against an entire country, especially considering the cooperation with domestic Kurdish local forces. But a war against Iraq wasn't unconstitutional, it was authorized.

So his examples of 'unconstitutional infringements' or whatever hold no water.

So the US didn't need to "declare war" on single countries.. The US congress HAS authorized the current war on terrorism without declaring war on individual countries because our current enemies don't belong to individual countries and have no single national base of operations.

Also the enemy we are fighting is assymetical and unconventional in that they are not sovereign states.

Which is what I already pretty much said...

And when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights they were basing it on the post-Westphalia notion of nationalism and the sovereignity of states. This notion does not include provisions concerning threats posed by Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) such as al-Qaida.

Which I alluded to...

However, it is ironic that one of our first military actions was under Jefferson against the Barbary Pirates (a group that shares much in common with al-Qaida) off of the coast of Libya...

So you are obviously too stupid to understand the full spectrum of the situation and are too stupid to dissect the nomenclature.

Stupid means a lack of an ability to gain knowledge. I think Dre-Man is probably a smart kid. However, I think he presents strong opinions on subjects upon which he is ignorant, ill-informed or uneducated.

Hmm, I didn't know that the nomenclature involving the use of common words such as "stupid" was the center of this discussion, but just for fun:

Stu-pid-

1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.

I'd say that he was pretty foolish and senseless in what he said.

So I think use of the world 'stupid' fit the bill very well.

Thanks for broadening the debate into realms of irrelevance.

At 12/29/06 11:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Dude, those were actions against entire contries...

No they were not, not initially at least, and certainly not when the authorization of military force was issued.

This is splitting hairs here...and if that was the intention going in then no wonder the US military does not want to go to war anymore. Our politicians have no idea how to wage it...

ANY time you send troops, the government has to assume it is going to become an action against an entire country.

In the Korean War the object wasn't originally to gain total defeat over North Korea. It was originally just a defensive measure to protect South Korea.

"Total War" (the term is being somewhat abused here) was in the back of Truman's mind the entire time. It was a question of US/ROK capabilities vs DPRK capabilities. Initially it looked like the NKPA was all but undefeatable. However, our leaders became emboldened to take the early win against the USSR when it became apparent that the NKPA had be totally demolished.

Also, Korea was the last "Total War" the US has been involved in.

In the invasion of Iraq in 03 has been the only full-scale war that should have warranted a declaration of war. But even then, it was intended as a liberation of sorts and an act to topple the government, rather than a total war against an entire country, especially considering the cooperation with domestic Kurdish local forces. But a war against Iraq wasn't unconstitutional, it was authorized.

So his examples of 'unconstitutional infringements' or whatever hold no water.

And that is why he needs to be educated on things such as the WPA and how modern wars are made legitimate in this country. The framers set it up that the people's representatives (Congress) would have oversight over the decision to go to war. Thus far, this principle has not been infringed.

Also the enemy we are fighting is assymetical and unconventional in that they are not sovereign states.

Which is what I already pretty much said...

And when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights they were basing it on the post-Westphalia notion of nationalism and the sovereignity of states. This notion does not include provisions concerning threats posed by Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) such as al-Qaida.

Which I alluded to...

Dude, stop pulling a Bill O'Reily and realize that I was trying to back you up!

So you are obviously too stupid to understand the full spectrum of the situation and are too stupid to dissect the nomenclature.

Stupid means a lack of an ability to gain knowledge. I think Dre-Man is probably a smart kid. However, I think he presents strong opinions on subjects upon which he is ignorant, ill-informed or uneducated.

Hmm, I didn't know that the nomenclature involving the use of common words such as "stupid" was the center of this discussion, but just for fun:

I was just pointing out that name calling was most likely counter-productive. It was more of an aside comment, I didn't think I elevated to any form of central prominance...

You guys still on topic?

At 12/30/06 01:09 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/29/06 11:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Dude, those were actions against entire contries...

No they were not, not initially at least, and certainly not when the authorization of military force was issued.

This is splitting hairs here...and if that was the intention going in then no wonder the US military does not want to go to war anymore. Our politicians have no idea how to wage it...

ANY time you send troops, the government has to assume it is going to become an action against an entire country.

Explain Lebanon. That was a peacekeeping mission in which troops were sent. Does that mean the government was at war with Lebanon?

Also, more currently, explain Afghanistan. The government was pretty explicit in articulating that the goal was to oust the Taliban while fighting in cooperation with local forces. It wasn't a war against Afghanistan, it was a war against the Taliban minority.

In the Korean War the object wasn't originally to gain total defeat over North Korea. It was originally just a defensive measure to protect South Korea.

"Total War" (the term is being somewhat abused here) was in the back of Truman's mind the entire time. It was a question of US/ROK capabilities vs DPRK capabilities. Initially it looked like the NKPA was all but undefeatable. However, our leaders became emboldened to take the early win against the USSR when it became apparent that the NKPA had be totally demolished.

Thats just speculation. Truman may have had total war 'in the back of his mind' according to you but the bottom line is that we engaged in military conflict with North Korea only after they invaded South Korea, then the UN passed a resolution condoning military action by a coalition led by the US.

The war started as a defensive measure on behalf of South Korea and the UN, therefore there was no need to declare war on North Korea from the beginning. But congress did authorize military action, so it was constitutional.

And in case you didn't know, this is about the constitutionality of the wars in the legal sense, not what you or I think the motives or underlying issues of the war were.

Also, Korea was the last "Total War" the US has been involved in.

Yeah you're probably right there.

But that only validates the justification of congressionally authorized military action as opposed to the view that the war was illegal because congress didn't 'declare war'

Its the misinterpretation and the tricky nomenclature that confuses the people who think that our recent wars are unconstitutional.

In the invasion of Iraq in 03 has been the only full-scale war that should have warranted a declaration of war. But even then, it was intended as a liberation of sorts and an act to topple the government, rather than a total war against an entire country, especially considering the cooperation with domestic Kurdish local forces. But a war against Iraq wasn't unconstitutional, it was authorized.

So his examples of 'unconstitutional infringements' or whatever hold no water.

And that is why he needs to be educated on things such as the WPA and how modern wars are made legitimate in this country. The framers set it up that the people's representatives (Congress) would have oversight over the decision to go to war. Thus far, this principle has not been infringed.

I know, that is what I've been saying. But if you are really worried about the poor kids education, why don't you give him some reading suggestions. In the meantime, I don't understand why you're directing your arguments towards me when we are agreeing.

Dude, stop pulling a Bill O'Reily and realize that I was trying to back you up!

Oh, it didn't seem that way. It appeared as if your original response was being directed against me.

Hmm, I didn't know that the nomenclature involving the use of common words such as "stupid" was the center of this discussion, but just for fun:

I was just pointing out that name calling was most likely counter-productive. It was more of an aside comment, I didn't think I elevated to any form of central prominance...

Well the guy was being stupid by my interpretation of the word. And anyway that is pretty mild for me, being called a stupid by me is practically a term of endearment by contrast.

At 12/29/06 02:10 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Any americans here who truly love their country? You know the kind that belive in fighting the good fight and does not waste their time bashing the president because there are bigger sissues in the world. The kind who belive that things are rough and we gotta try to make it better? I'm being a bit vague here but nevertheless.

Yes I love my country and I proudly serve it in her armed forces.

I also believe that my country can do good in the world. We cannot solve every problem in the world, but we can go a long way to alleviating a great deal of the suffering.

I am not happy with some of Bush's policies, but I do not think he is evil. When I was a younger man I thought Bill Clinton was the devil. But now that I'm older I veiw him a little less critically and realizied that I let my partisanship cloud my perspective. The virulent anti-Bushies are making the same error.

At 12/29/06 02:10 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Any americans here who truly love their country? You know the kind that belive in fighting the good fight and does not waste their time bashing the president because there are bigger sissues in the world. The kind who belive that things are rough and we gotta try to make it better? I'm being a bit vague here but nevertheless.

I don't think blindly supporting a country in which there are major obvious problems is something commendable.

At 12/30/06 02:00 AM, TheMason wrote: I am not happy with some of Bush's policies, but I do not think he is evil. When I was a younger man I thought Bill Clinton was the devil. But now that I'm older I veiw him a little less critically and realizied that I let my partisanship cloud my perspective. The virulent anti-Bushies are making the same error.

You know, that's basically how I'd view things too, only of course, I'm liberal :P

Being a real American doesn't mean blindly following leaders, because sometimes we do need to call on our leaders when they are just doing something that is wrong, or not doing something that they should. Being loyal to one's country doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge our country's faults, it means that we can love our country in spite of past indiscretions. I'd say that being a real American is working, in a way either great or small, to better the country in one form or another; whether it is by, say, serving your country, or by working to improve quality of life in for a sector of our citizens.

It's hard to summon a leader, especially an American president who holds gnarly amounts of power, to hold his horses when there are throngs of people openly chanting death to america, death to israel, death to england, death to the west.

I know it makes me feel like a big pile of shit whenever the president tempts his boundaries in the name of security after seeing such large-scale, state-sponsored demonstrations.

Know what I mean?

At 12/30/06 12:56 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: I don't think blindly supporting a country in which there are major obvious problems is something commendable.

I had an answer to this but I've got to give props my liberal friend; he said it best:

At 12/30/06 01:10 PM, qygibo wrote: Being a real American doesn't mean blindly following leaders, because sometimes we do need to call on our leaders when they are just doing something that is wrong, or not doing something that they should. Being loyal to one's country doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge our country's faults, it means that we can love our country in spite of past indiscretions. I'd say that being a real American is working, in a way either great or small, to better the country in one form or another; whether it is by, say, serving your country, or by working to improve quality of life in for a sector of our citizens.

That is my sentiments exactly. America is not perfect, hell it may not even be the best country in the world for me to live in anymore. But it has given so much to me and opportunities that I would not have had in anyother country given the decades I grew up in. It is also based on ideals of freedom that are suppressed in most of the world. And for that it deserves my loyalty. However, this does not mean that I will follow my elected leaders blindly and without thought. But it does not mean I will turn my back on her when I believe our government in on the wrong track. That just shows a lack of integrity, sense of honor/duty and overall deficiency of character.

Furthermore, I am not a better American because I am in the military, educated, conservative, Christian, etc. I have known people better than me who were none of the above...

How can you define a 'real' american?

My Dad is an Korean War Veteran and ever since I was a young boy had pride in my country , and that our system of goverment is sound although the politicians are not. I always wanted to go into the milatary services even everybody says I'm crazy. What greater honor is there than to fight for your country, I may sound like a simple minded ass but truly, America would have never won WW2 without the patriotic people, and the draftees that weren't cowards like in Vietnam.

It's debateble what a "Real" American is. Some serve their country by fighting. But some serve there country by exposing scandels, scams, and illegle goverment operation.

How can you acuratly define a 'real american'

President and prime minister are gay! And andy got a plane home!

BTW I did read teh first cople of text its just im ectrodinarily drunk"!

At 12/30/06 01:10 PM, qygibo wrote: You know, that's basically how I'd view things too, only of course, I'm liberal :P

Very true, same with me, but I was on the liberal side of it. I have now grown up and realized that Bush is not a bad man, nor are ALL of his policies or ideas bad. There are actually some things he does that I quite respect, like his policy about everyone being punctual to meetings. ;)

Being a real American doesn't mean blindly following leaders, because sometimes we do need to call on our leaders when they are just doing something that is wrong, or not doing something that they should.

On top of that being an American doesn't mean exercising your rights "just because you can." It means exercising them in a way that will benefit you or, even better, the people around you. This attacking what the president does blindy is just as incorrigble as following him blindly.