UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"once you go black, you're a single mother" implies all.
Where do you stand on these political issues?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What are your answers to the OP?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sorry the tangent with the racist, pada. here you go.
-the state of education and the cost to pursue secondary education
we could learn lessons from more successful nations like finland who pay their teachers well, too bad the GOP has been pushing the union thugs nonsense to distort the issue.
-the war on drugs
lol, what do you think?
-birth control and abortion
birth control was settled decades ago, but let the GOP keep bringing it up, it only hurts them. abortion has been decided by the SCOTUS, deal with it righties and stop wasting time passing unconstitutional laws that just get struck down.
-Christianity
geigh
-Islam
geigh
-teaching sex education to K-5 students
no opinion, who cares
-president Obama
better than the alternative. everyone was wrong about what he would do about CO and WA, but never admits it.
-the next presidential election
will hillary run? who knows. martin o'malley could destroy any shit stain the GOP nominates anyway
-the wars in the middle east
what wars? we haven't had a war since WWII
-Syria
i do not give a shit about other nations civil wars apart from humanitarian issues
-the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
despite what a few cranky sorehead bigots think, i really don't care too much
-your American neighbors
-i have great neighbors
-your American government in general
-ya get what ya vote for
-the prison population in America
-i watch lockup a lot but haven't actually studied the issue
-the bailouts
-necessary evil to keep capital flowing, proof of the failure of capitalism
-economic warfare in America
-going very well for those at the top currently, need strong unions again
-poverty
-the metric by which it is measured needs to be reevaluated
-the pharmaceutical industry
-out of control
-the military
-serve in a worthy conflict that preserves our freedoms before asking me to kiss your ass
-illegal immigration
-just legalize the damn workers so they don't get exploited so much
-the US foreign debt
-overblown nonsense pushed by people with agendas. we've been worse off, it's not the end of the world
-the state of education and the cost to pursue secondary education
we could learn lessons from more successful nations like finland who pay their teachers well, too bad the GOP has been pushing the union thugs nonsense to distort the issue.
-the war on drugs
lol, what do you think?
-birth control and abortion
birth control was settled decades ago, but let the GOP keep bringing it up, it only hurts them. abortion has been decided by the SCOTUS, deal with it righties and stop wasting time passing unconstitutional laws that just get struck down.
-Christianity
geigh
-Islam
geigh
-teaching sex education to K-5 students
no opinion, who cares
-president Obama
better than the alternative. everyone was wrong about what he would do about CO and WA, but never admits it.
-the next presidential election
will hillary run? who knows. martin o'malley could destroy any shit stain the GOP nominates anyway
-the wars in the middle east
what wars? we haven't had a war since WWII
-Syria
i do not give a shit about other nations civil wars apart from humanitarian issues
-the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
despite what a few cranky sorehead bigots think, i really don't care too much
-your American neighbors
-i have great neighbors
-your American government in general
-ya get what ya vote for
-the prison population in America
-i watch lockup a lot but haven't actually studied the issue
-the bailouts
-necessary evil to keep capital flowing, proof of the failure of capitalism
-economic warfare in America
-going very well for those at the top currently, need strong unions again
-poverty
-the metric by which it is measured needs to be reevaluated
-the pharmaceutical industry
-out of control
-the military
-serve in a worthy conflict that preserves our freedoms before asking me to kiss your ass
-illegal immigration
-just legalize the damn workers so they don't get exploited so much
-the US foreign debt
-overblown nonsense pushed by people with agendas. we've been worse off, it's not the end of the world
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
Again, you fail. This is obviously a play on a common phrase of going black, and never going back. Sure, you can take a line here or there that I say and demonstrate possible racism, however, evaluation of my substantive comments would fail to show it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you yourself said you are a racist and asked what's wrong with racism and you followed it up with the posts we see in this thread.
just own it already and stop trying to weasel out.
I am racist. However my definition of racism does not mesh with what I have observed to be what I believe is you definition of racist.
Racism is fine, it's bigotry that is a problem. It just so happens that most people incorrectly use those terms interchangeably. I am not a bigot. I do, however think that some groups of people are better at certain things or have more abality on average with certian aspects of exploiting their environment than others. And I don't think the group that I belong to is superior to all others.
We have not had a declaration of war by congress since WWII is what they are trying to say. I think an environment where a group of armed people are shooting at another group of armed people is a more accurate way of determining what is or is not a war than a group of folks sitting in a large building in some city voting.
echelon1k1
New Member
We use sexy euphemisms to describe war these days;
Humanitarian Intervention
Kinetic Military Action
Even sexier for kill lists;
Joint Prioritised Effects List
Terrorist attacks are called;
spontaneous protests
Humanitarian Intervention
Kinetic Military Action
Even sexier for kill lists;
Joint Prioritised Effects List
Terrorist attacks are called;
spontaneous protests
zambonic
Well-Known Member
Well if anybody would be an expert on pieces of shit it would have to be you...... right Uncle Buck? Just keep adding to your post count with more worthless comments.
aknight3
Moderator
While congress has not 'declared war' since ww2. congress DID pass AND enact 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
The United States of America would not be able to go to 'war' or at least 'use military force' without congress. Although the way they do it now is just sleazy and lowballed but do not think for a second it is not a war. To call it anything else but a war IMO is not only an insult to all the soldiers that have died over there but ALL of the men and women who have served in any conflict dead or alive. (Both U.S. and non-U.S. forces) Im not saying I agree with this war or 'authorization for use of military force' but, it is nonetheless...a war. Please dont degrade our men and women serving over there by calling it anything else. Thanks
a little history lesson for my RIU buddies
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress", "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.
After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93–14
over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. The War Powers Resolution proscribes the only power of the president to wage war which is recognized by Congress.
iloveyouall
The United States of America would not be able to go to 'war' or at least 'use military force' without congress. Although the way they do it now is just sleazy and lowballed but do not think for a second it is not a war. To call it anything else but a war IMO is not only an insult to all the soldiers that have died over there but ALL of the men and women who have served in any conflict dead or alive. (Both U.S. and non-U.S. forces) Im not saying I agree with this war or 'authorization for use of military force' but, it is nonetheless...a war. Please dont degrade our men and women serving over there by calling it anything else. Thanks
a little history lesson for my RIU buddies
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress", "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.
After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93–14
over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. The War Powers Resolution proscribes the only power of the president to wage war which is recognized by Congress.iloveyouall
Doer
Well-Known Member
I feel good about all this because we are Free to do it. And we did....to ourselves.
Doer
Well-Known Member
How right you are! In a world of constant conflict, WW2 is not even over and that was declared. The Constitution allows the USA to declare war through the People themselves. Unique. But, we don't have to declare WAR to kick ass.While congress has not 'declared war' since ww2. congress DID pass AND enact 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
The United States of America would not be able to go to 'war' or at least 'use military force' without congress. Although the way they do it now is just sleazy and lowballed but do not think for a second it is not a war. To call it anything else but a war IMO is not only an insult to all the soldiers that have died over there but ALL of the men and women who have served in any conflict dead or alive. (Both U.S. and non-U.S. forces) Im not saying I agree with this war or 'authorization for use of military force' but, it is nonetheless...a war. Please dont degrade our men and women serving over there by calling it anything else. Thanks
a little history lesson for my RIU buddies
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress", "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard.
After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93–14
iloveyouall
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
(Chilling, is it not, in the modern context? This is still the definition of Jihad, make no mistake.)
Two big fights happened over this but were never declared by Congress.
In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'"
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
My friends, the declaration of War, puts the entire country on a War Footing officially. It is almost never necessary. We have plenty of resources to fight. War is when no autos are made and metals are collected. Only tanks and planes, etc are produced. That happened in the 20th. C.
Fighting is NOT war.
It is NEVER required to declare War to fight, but World Zombie Youts preach it....the things they teach these Youts, will form the insurrection that will scrap the Constitution all together. And any declarations of independence and Bills of Rights will be scrapped as well.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not really. Many bureaucrats are unelected and operate beyond censure. Judges aren't elected either.
The people that are elected are not bound to vote in any particular way once elected, if they even bother to read the laws they are passing. Not to mention some people don't vote at all and often a very high % of people elected were not elected by a large margin, thus not ahem "representing" a majority. Besides tyranny of a slight majority still ensures that a large minority will be pissed off.
Freedom entails two sides, free to do something and free not to do something. Political control extinguishes that....always.
Doer
Well-Known Member
What the fuck!!?!!? These are still US citizens (for the most part) WE hired and appointed by WE. Come on. WE the People run this show for the baby minds that still don't get it.
You don't get it. Fighting and dying for 250 years and all we get is a bunch of checked out nobodies that can't acknowledge what has happened here. SELF RULE. You get it, or you don't.
You bitch and collect the largess. You blame your fellow citizens in this great experiment by sitting back and throwing spitballs of sophistry. There is no govt like in Europe. Get over it.
WE run the place and WE will kill all that oppose us. You are bitching about the freedom. Good job.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
echelon1k1
New Member
Oh fuck, special needs helper has let duke back on the computer...