Next Republican Presidential Candidate?

You forgot: unpatriotic, facist, jingoist, terrorist.

Briana Dawson

Ahh yes, Briana, mustn't forget those. Shall we form an exhaustive list of what Kendra has called people who disagree with her?


Yes, it is. You're having delusions of grandeur. This is all about politics.


You're right, because I disagree with you I have no clue what I'm talking about, clearly.


The one that has a War Powers Act. Try reading it sometime.


I'm sorry you think that disagreeing with you based on reality and facts is belittling, but to think that any military action not condoned by a formal declaration of war is illegal is a juvenile understanding of constitutional law, political reality, and the War Powers Act. The U.S. Constitution does not prevent the President from taking military action; it merely grants the Congress the right to declare War. The method that's been used for over fifty years now to take military action without a formal declaration of war is certainly constitutional. Only someone trying to make political points, or who has a less than perfect understand of the balance between the executive and legislative branches, would say otherwise.

On another note, if that were so, then this military action is no more illegal than Clinton's war against Kosovo. So, did you protest that? Or the invasion of Grenada? Or the invasion of Panama? Or the Gulf War? Or the first war in Serbia? Or the peacekeeping mission in Haiti? Or the relief mission in Somalia?

Hey I was in the Kosovo conflict (Operation Nobel Anvil)! Does that make me a war criminal?

I have a cool shiny NATO medal from that operation

Briana Dawson

We live in the reality where Presidents can order Military action around the world (except in the United States) without approval from congress.

You sound so sure of yourself when you say "There certainly is a law!" And you are flat-out wrong.

Briana Dawson

That's a simplistic view of what I do and say. Many people disagree with me that I don't label.




You can label it political all you like. That doesn't make it so.




You don't. Sorry



I have many times.






I believe that this is referred to as a War is it not? According to The War Powers Act this is simply an "authorized use of force". So if that's the case why do we constantly refer to this aggression as a War. Also I didn't know that an "authorized use of force" was able to double as a three year occupying army.



The method that's been used for over fifty years is a perversion of the Constitution.
The War Powers Act is an executive attempt at side-stepping the Constitution. Always has been.



I did protest it yes. OTOH Kosovo wasn't a War --it was an "authorized use of force".



Grenada was an "authorized use of force" and I protested it.
So was Panama
So was Serbia
So was Haiti
So was Somalia
So was Gulf War I --even though again --it was falsely called a War.

The difference between these above and the current "War" in Iraq? They were authorized by Congress without Congress being lied to. I still found them wrong, but I didn't view Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton as traitors. George W. Bush is a traitor, a war-criminal and clearly ouut of his depth when it comes to the fine balance of world-affairs.

Have you read the IWR? Did Bush meet the House's criteria?

Kosovo was wrong. But at least it was legal --so you're in the clear.

Im not wrong in this. Your saying I'm wrong doesn't change that Briana. Bush's aggression in Iraq has gone way past his authorization and into an undeclared War.

Fine, but on this issue you always do, and it makes you seem like a twelve-year-old.


Guess what, if it involves the President and Congress, it's political. So try again. Heck, if it's a matter of public policy, it's also political. If you think this isn't a political issue you're either willfully ignorant, incredibly naive, or both. Every issue involving government is political, get real.


It's the common vernacular term, not the legal term, Kendra. There is a difference. There's no time limit on any authorization of force, as long as Congress has approved it and continues to fund it . Just like you don't have to redeclare war after three years, you don't have to reauthorize military action after it's undertaken.


How is it an "executive" attempt when it requires Congressional approval? And when the War Powers Act was, itself, passed by Congress? You're right, that was some shady Presidential manipulation there.



So we've established that you automatically protest any military action undertaken in the past fifty years, and will likely automatically protest any military action undertaken in the future that is not a war declared by Congress. Why should we think you're able to form a thoughtful, well-informed opinion on this when you seem obsessed on what is, in reality, a fairly trivial point? Whether it's a declared war or not, it needs to be approved by Congress at some point. Whether it's a declared war or not, Congress controls the funding.


Again, because you disagree with it, you think he lied. There's really no conclusive evidence that he knew something, then gave anyone the opposite information - which is what lying is. There is evidence that he made many moronic mistakes, to be sure. Again, the logic of someone launching a bad war being a traitor escapes me, but I suspect that's because there's not much logic involved.


That's clearly a matter to debate, isn't it?

geeee. At least you're not insulting or anything.

Nice way to duck actually responding to any of the issues I raised. I'm nowhere near as insulting as you were in this discussion up to this point, so you really have no call to take issue with anything I wrote. And I wasn't being insulting for the sake of being insulting, I was being honest and direct, and you may interpret that as an insult. If you read over what I wrote carefully you'll find that, unlike you, I never directly insulted you. I merely pointed out that name-calling is childish (something on which most of us probably agree) and that believing any governmental issue is not political is either naive or willfully ignorant.

Toni --you are obviously suffering from a case of transference. Youve been far more insulting to me--and frankly the issues you raise are cocky doody

By all means do so.

In the meantime here's an exaustive list of what Toni has insulted me with in this one thread.

Enjoy!

"if someone disagrees with you, then they're not patriotic?"

"Not joining the Kendra Bancroft New World Order, you're un-American. Very tolerant and open-minded of you. Well done."

"Everybody line up to take the patented Kendra Bancroft Patriotism Test® "
"
"Do you live in your own world, or just under a rock?"

"you can take military action as long as Kendra Bancroft is satisfied you've taken all appropriate diplomatic measures."

"Secondly, it's only firmly established in your own mind, Kendra. Much as you might feel otherwise, it being your opinion does not make it an absolute, undebateable truth. We can disagree with you and not be naïve, stupid, crazy, or ignorant."

"Fine, but on this issue you always do, and it makes you seem like a twelve-year-old."

"Why should we think you're able to form a thoughtful, well-informed opinion on this when you seem obsessed on what is, in reality, a fairly trivial point?"

"-- but I suspect that's because there's not much logic involved."


and these don't even include all the sarcastic quips where you are putting words in my mouth.

So by all means --publish your exaustive list of insults, Toni,

Here's a fascinating look at Bush's well documented lies from a Conservative standpoint (so as to avoid being told I'm using an obviously liberal bias)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

Here's a taste:

WASHINGTON – A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.

The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.

Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:

* had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,

* was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,

* and was not a terrorist threat to America.

"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.

Guess you don't like it when your insulting logic is applied back at yourself, do you? Just applying your standard, based on what you've written, to you. Only insulting if you're a hypocrite.


That was a legitimate question. Were you making stuff up, or ignoring reality?


That's what you wrote.


Again, that's what you wrote. It's not firmly established, except by you. And you did call people who disagree with you various synonyms for naive, stupid, crazy, and ignorant.


True.


A legitimate point and question that you never cared to answer.


Being honest. You haven't yet used logic in this argument, just emotional knee-jerking and name-calling - the patented tools of extremists everywhere.


I never put words in your mouth. Just because you later realize you don't like what you said doesn't mean you didn't say them.

It seems as though you find truth and logic insulting, Kendra.

Iraq (Saddam) was a state sponsor of terrorism. It doesn't matter that he was not a direct threat to us. He was funding terrorism in the region and thats enough.

Briana Dawson

You just called me crazy because I disagree with you, and yet still somehow I'm the one being insulting. Amazing, really amazing. This is especially amazing because I haven't raised many issues; indeed I have mostly simply responded to the ones you raised.


You know what? Liberals and conservatives both think there was something fishy on the grassy knoll. Doesn't make them true. Liberals and conservatives both believe in God, and UFOs. Doesn't make them real, either. What's your point here, exactly? Did I ever write "Well, if only you could dig up a conservative who agreed with you, you might have a point there."? No, of course not. So what relevance does that book have to this discussion? Nice try. And, just because it was published, doesn't make it true, either. Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I'm willing to believe everything negative that's published about him.

I'm not a conservative, and believe it or not, I don't automatically believe something because someone else of my political ideology thinks it. If that were the case, Kendra, I'd agree with you all the time.

Enough of a reason for you, but not for everyone.

That's a good point, Zuzu. Nobodoy's opinions are necessarily a fact just because they think it, are they? Let's try to keep that in mind, folks, and make this discussion civil again.

Though I will say we've done a good job derailing the original topic! Yeay us!

No, sweetheart. I find YOU insulting.

re-read what I've written --I inslted nobody on this board --unless George Bush is an SL forum poster. I never called you crazy --I called you delided. You are deluded.




What part of the article didn't you get? The Intelligence reports of the NIE actually showed he lied about the reports themselves. This isn't conspiracy THEORY --it's conspiracy FACT.



Clearly you didn't read the article. It points to exactly where Bush lied. Verifiable only by reading the NIE document yourself. To place it in the same category as UFOs is insulting. But you know it is --that's why you did it.





Then read the NIE document yourself --am I supoosed to do ALL your research for you?
The article points out not only the document to read but the Article of that document as well. I know it's an opinion piece --but it points out where to look for the truth. But again you choose the easy insult --claiming I believe just because something is posted makes it true. Read the NIE report. Make up you own mind after that.



No --you just believe what the corporate media tells you, and you insult people who don't join you in the mass brainwash. I'm not asking you to agree with my opinion, Toni --I could care less whether you do or not. You could at least investigate the truth you claim to care so much about.

Having said that --I'm done with you. Your posts are always insulting --and always manage to blame other's for your own problems. You are far more insulting a person than I could ever dream of being. Good day.

So is George Bush. When do we start fighting him?

Ah, so disagreeing with you is insulting. Got it. What a sad, lonely little world you must live in.


Splitting hairs. I find deluded insulting. You know what, Kendra? Thinking differently from you isn't a delusion. I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you wrote, because you constantly insulted people on this board. Like just now, or a few posts ago, or a few posts before that......


It's not insulting, it's reasonable. It's only insulting if you have a problem with UFOs.


You're right. Because I think differently from you, I must not be able to think very well. Because it's not what you believe, it must be manufactured by the mass-media and force-fed to me. More conspiracy theories from the grassy knoll.


Funny, because yet again, if you actually bother to read a single thing I wrote, you'll find that you were insulting and I really wasn't. Did I ever call you anything? No. Did you call other posters things? Virtually every time.

Your posts have so drastically differed from what was actually written that it's hardly worth having a discussion at all. If the only way you can win arguments is by responding to things that you wish your debate opponent had said, then there's probably not much logic involved in there. But, I'm manipulated by the mass media, so clearly my opinion has no value. Feel free to rant on about something I didn't actually write.

Bullshit.

Another mature response. Well done. Really, keep it coming. You keep impressing me with your well-reasoned, logical responses.

Who are you kidding? You lace every response to me with the same passive aggressive sarcasm. Anybody who reads your responses to my posts can see that. I simply decided to simplify your long diatribes about how evil and unfair I am to one simple word. That word being "Bullshit".

You personally attack me with every single post. I don't even do that to Kiamat (who by the way is a far more intelligent and reasoned poster than you will ever be. At least he knows when I'm being tongue-in-cheek)