It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq statements were untrue

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I don't trust anybody with the last name "Rockefeller", they want us chipped because they think they are our rulers and we are their cattle or subjects. I say take down the Rockefellers (and the Rothchilds, and the Du Ponts etc...) before they take us down...




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
I'm still waiting for someone to have the guts to say what the consequences would have been of turning around and bringing 160,00 troops back home, walking away from all the UN sanctions and leaving Saddam in power.


This I HAVE to hear, why don't you enlighten us? What would have been the consequences of NOT invading Iraq?



Bush had the authority as Commander in Chief to deploy the troops as intimidation, but Saddam called his bluff. I blame the chicken s**t Democrats who stayed home because they thought there wasn't any difference between left and right politics and allowed one party to dominate all branches of government for six years.


You blame the Democrats for this? So you are saying the only reason that Republicans were winning elections is because Democrats were "too chicken #" to vote?

Besides there are many who wold argue that another factor is the stealing of elections. I for one think that Bush lost in both 2000 and 2004.



Leaders have lied about every war. We would have a much better chance of holding people accountable for incompetence, mismanagement and lack of oversight than proving they intentionally lied.


Perhaps you did not read the article that I provided in my opening post. Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true

This article clearly highlights how it has now been PROVEN that Bush lied. What do you think about that (The subject of this tread)?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It seems we have lost all rational thought in terms of Bush lied...i have been doing some very intesting research into the subject from all kinds of sources and found out something that changed my mind...there was more than sufficient "proof" that Sadaam was not only supporting terrorists, but did send a convoy to Nigeria to buy yellow cake...in my mind the biggest conspiracy is #1 why hasn't the administration defended itself...and #2 what is wrong with the so-called journalists in this country really checking this stuff out...I know on a "chat" like this I will be attacked and called a neo con, but if you go outside of the box and look at real investigative reports on the subject you'll find sadaam was exactly what Bush said he was and he either had or was trying to obtain exactly what the administration said they had...50 years from now history will probably prove me right, but now in this thread I will probably be called crazy...just one note, I used to believe in the intentional deception and disinformation campaign with the lead up to war, but unfortunately the truth is far simplier....



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


(Duly amended 24 hours into intensive care after foolishly taking mixed medication for twitching lower femur bone sleep disorder and erectile dysfunction. All human rights and pride reserved.)

A long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public Thursday concludes that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements for we the people of America.

Statements promoted an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence and would eventually piss me and the baron off due to terminal money-printer failure out of warranty, we are talking 1 trillion dollars later people and no one answering customer service.

“Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American peeps to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the capablities of my - I mean our - printing presses for dollar bills. Do they realize the price of printer ink these days and recycled paper? not to mention those thread things we have to put in each frikkin one. its worse than fueling up the space shuttle, prohibitively dear.

As for the threat we faced. Unfortunately, I have- # I mean our ....Committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims of machine durability that were, frankly, not supported by the on-site service agreement by Hewlett Packard. And now I have an pile of ruined dollar bills it goes into upper earth goddamned orbit if you stack it all up ,” said committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, D- W. Va. "I"ve had it with these guys its time for me - I mean ...what's his name, um....mcvities, --. MacCain you say? Or McCain like macdonalds. Get me HP on the line you goddam idiots."



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Animal:
Does anyone seriously think that bringing 160,000 troops home, leaving Saddam in power and abandoning all the UN sanctions would have had NO consequences? Anyone but Barack Obama? I sent several messages to Hillary's campaign, trying to get her to raise the obvious question.
Obama's "better judgement," to vote NO, would have set back the UN decades. What country would bother listening to them about anything if nothing could ever be enforced? Why does everyone give France, Germany and Russia a pass on scamming the OIL For Food program, then blaming the US for starving women and children?

Backing away would obviously have been seen as a humiliating defeat of the Great Satan and emboldened the entire Jihadist movement and Libya would still have a nuclear program. Saddam would have no reason NOT to start up his WMD programs again. The ones eliminated in the 1990's by UN inspections.
Yes, they lied. Ahmed Chalabi used 9/11 to tell them anything they wanted to hear just to get us into Iraq and they believed him. I'm all for pursuing the bastards to the fullest extent of the law, but that won't happen until there is enough of a Democratic majority to pass gas again. We still haven't recognized the authority of The Hague.

Democrats outnumber Republicans in registered voters, they just don't show up as reliably. Conservatives don't just get mad, they study the system and plan how to get more than even. Liberals just get mad and throw tantrums.
You can blame everything on stolen elections all you want, but if everyone registered actually paid attention and voted, it wouldn't be close enough to steal.

I don't care much for conspiracy theories, because it just makes people feel even more hopeless and it gives them another reason to stay home and not give a damn.
If people had a better idea of just how corrupt and incompetent the post invasion was, they would do more to expose that.
Everyone is stuck on the idea that the mistake was to go in at all, not that it was criminal negligence to go in so irresponsibly unprepared.
Going home was not an acceptable option once the troops were there and the neocons knew it. It wouldn't have mattered as much that Bush stole the 2000 election if they didn't control every other branch of government as well.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
So for a President and a Vice President to lie or to make false statements to it's people to lead a country into war, would that not be considered treason, or a treasonous act?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Goose:
As long as there are not enough votes to agree on what "High crimes and misdemeanors" mean, they can do anything at all.
As long as it does not involve anything as terrible as sex, that is.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


You know what Saddam never attacked us. If he was buying weapons it was because he wanted a deterrence against Iran who did not take to kind to Iraq especially after the Iraqi invasion. They were enemies Sunni and Shiite and we broke that standoff. There was NO good that came out of either the first or second Iraqi war.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Okay, again no big surprise to most people. My question is this, are these punishable crimes?

Yes...In the Constitution, Article 2, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So no matter what level of crime is committed (in this case, fraud at the least, conspiracy to commit mass murder as well as a complete disregard for his Oath of Office & the Bill of Rights on the whole, ), they shall be removed (not may be, but shall be) from Office then indicted for trial...As well as all of Bush's "advisors" that led Bush into "exaggerating" the available intelligence.

That's THE LAW, but try it with the way that the courts have been stacked against Justice since Clinton's term. I just hope Congress actually takes action to impeach before Bush & Cheney have a chance to declare martial law & suspend the Presidential turnover.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
As far as I know I have yet to find any actual law, rule or even regulation that says the President cannot lie to go to war.

At the very least, doesn't "fraud" cover lying to Congress & the public at large? Don't the lies lead to "conspiracy to commit mass murder" & other "war crimes?" I learned very early as a child that for every lie you make up, you have to figure out 10 more lies to cover the first lie...It all escalates very quickly from there.

However, I don't have the specific evidence needed to imply a charge of Treason...After all, being sworn to obey the Constitution, Bush would have to fit the definition of Treason as specified in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1. I'd have to stretch some of my suspicions a bit too far to make them fit the Constitutional definition.


Originally posted by ImJaded
I for one hope I see the day when these people are made to answer, and punished, for their crimes.

Although the Constitution is supposed to enforce specific limitations on the Government, who's responsible for enforcing the Constitution? The People! That's what the 1st & 2nd Amendments are for, to provide the methods (both peaceful & violent, if necessary) for the People need to do carry out this responsibility.


Originally posted by Animal
Because too many people, yourself included are too busy to be bothered to stand up for democracy. Shame on you man. Seriously wake up. Ya politics and politicians suck but your words here demonstrate a complete inability to act as a member of a democratic society.


Originally posted by Rockpuck


I don't like the fact that the President of this country has taken us to be the most untrusted nation of the world.

Don't vote for him or those like him. Ah, that would mean.. don't vote.
That's the evil of Democracy.

And yet you were spouting quite a bit about Bush & his "spreading of democracy"...Without considering the fact that America should not even be a Democracy anyway.

And even if there's too much "evil listed on the ballots", not voting would be shirking of Civil Duties as Americans...There's always "No Confidence" for a vote. That's a vote that crosses even the Party lines.

America was never created to be a democracy, never should have become a democracy & has no business whatsoever with spreading democracy either...
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe James Madison:.
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."
...And if you don't believe him either, check the Constitution, Article 4, Section 4. Do you believe in that?

BTW Rockpuck, you have been going way out of bounds...Check the threads Courtesy Is Mandatory & Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected. You can find a list of T&C-supporting threads lined up on the right side of the Search page.


Originally posted by vor78
You've got to admit, something reeks here , and the stench is coming from both sides in DC.

The only thing I have to say about this is that the use of political parties in politics is to distract the public away from the more numerous simularities between them: By use of PR spin & clever use of wording, the various parties seek the same goal, but have different paths to reach those goals. Yet, when all is said & done, the entire government is legally bound to obey the Constitution because the Oath of Office is mandatory before assuming the position: It's not just the President sworn/affirmed to Oath, it's all Offices of Trust, all three Branches, at the State & Federal levels too.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why would we silence critics of the intellegence?
Plant CIA/PENTAGON officials in the media?
CONTROL what the media can show/say/read?
Disclose CIA Agents who's partners HAPPEN to contradict the evidence?
'Lose' Emails
'Destory interrogation footage'

Not to mention what volumes of evidence for crimes could have gone up in smoke with the WTC?



Originally posted by mybigunit
...My punishment would be to make him serve and go on the front lines. See what crap he got our people into. Then if he makes it out alive send him over to Liberia for a couple weeks and let him hang there. Id like to see him get out alive there.

...And maybe followed up by living for a few years in a slum-area created by all of the illegal aliens he let through our porous borders...That should teach him about "providing for the common defense," huh?

Now that I think of it, letting the illegals pour through while refusing to enforce Immigration Laws is the same as allowing an invasion force (a civilian invasion is no better than a military one) to run roughshod over US Citizens & overrun cities would constitute "giving aid & comfort to an enemy," would it not?


Originally posted by Rockpuck


So much for the practice of Free Masonry making the man better. You cold, harsh, and fundamentally fatalist view of the world is quit pathetic.


Mmkay, tell me mate, how is the world? How is it the opposite of what I siad?

PLEASE list me one instance in the current or historical time when my view of the world was not accurate?

Unfortunately, from my studies in history, I must agree with you: That's the way it had been.

However, the Constitutional Republic of America was the first of its kind of established government...If the People could have maintained it (even if we have to restore it first) as it was meant to be, then history could be on an entirely different, perhaps better, course than it had been before the Constitution was established.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
You mean he didn't get the "popular" vote? .. Because you know the Popular vote in a Federal election means nothing? .. You know it's the States electing the President not the People?

Yep, the purpose of the Electoral College is specified in the Constitution. Even though not required to do so, I haven't yet heard of any occasion when the Electoral College has not followed the public vote.


Originally posted by Rockpuck


the Diebold machines, in Ohio


Yes.... I do hate those god forsaken machines. I refuse to vote when they are being used, which in my area is all the time now.

An option that bypasses those damn machines...Absentee Ballots! You're vote is guaranteed to be on paper instead of consigned to the electronic ether. I can't guarantee it'll be counted though...Unless I happen to be one of those counting the votes...Which I'm not.



Originally posted by Rockpuck


Can't wait to see the next move by this criminal,


I personally would bet another "terrorist" attack and war with Iran before he leaves office.

If not, then an outright declaration of Martial Law...Not to mention that the Patriot Act in itself counts the same as Martial Law with all Citizen Rights suspended (not just Habeas Corpus suspended, as specified in the Constitution).

Oh yeah, Bush lied alright...He's lied about everything he's done ever since he first plopped his @$$ in that chair in the Oval Office.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Wow, excellent post. Thanks for bringing in particulars of the Constitution. Despite the fact that Bush thinks it is just a "Dam piece of paper" it still is the guiding voice of our country.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Midnight, nicely explained. Could you address some aspects of what 'remedy' we, as citizens can employ? I know you mentioned the First and Second Amendments.

Also, what are laws that mention 'sedition'? What I mean is, it seems a 'Catch 22'.....our votes count for bupkis, but if we complain than WE are called the 'traitors'....once the bastards get power, they hang on to it.

Thanks



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 




At the very least, doesn't "fraud" cover lying to Congress & the public at large? Don't the lies lead to "conspiracy to commit mass murder" & other "war crimes?" I learned very early as a child that for every lie you make up, you have to figure out 10 more lies to cover the first lie...It all escalates very quickly from there.


No it does not actually.. unless you can prove without a doubt they concocted some scheme to do this. I don't doubt they did... but you need proof. I already said that there is enough evidence to IMPEACH the President, however not enough to bring them to "trial".



And yet you were spouting quite a bit about Bush & his "spreading of democracy"...Without considering the fact that America should not even be a Democracy anyway.


Your preaching to the choir mate, so far we agree on everything. America is a Republic, not a Democracy. However the act of voting is a Democratic process, regardless if it is a Indirect Vote, which is what a presidential vote is.

Is it safe to assume you might also be a Libertarian?



BTW Rockpuck, you have been going way out of bounds


When you attain your modship, send me a u2u.



Yep, the purpose of the Electoral College is specified in the Constitution. Even though not required to do so, I haven't yet heard of any occasion when the Electoral College has not followed the public vote.


There has been several instances.

Colorado and Main for instance, it doesn't matter what way you vote because they split the votes equally in two and vote for both sides.

In history two Presidents got 100% of the Electoral votes. Washington and another guy I can't remember his name. In spite, one state changed and voted for the opposition, they felt no one deserved to be elevated to the same level as Washington.



An option that bypasses those damn machines...Absentee Ballots!


Mmmmm......... Not counted!

Again ... I don't see where we disagree.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


God will you disagree on SOMETHING I wanna see a good debate Im sick of being in the middle of the good ones I want to sit on the sidelines for once and throw some jabs once in awhile



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I agree with people, but type in a manor that confuses them so they think I disagree.. then get their panties in a bunch and start rattling nonsense to me..

It makes my day more entertaining ya know? Try it sometime, no better person to argue with then someone you have just convinced you disagree with, all the while agreeing with them!

I think I do that to you more then anyone else by the way haha...

Mod Edit: Please Stay on Topic -- Please Review

[edit on 8-6-2008 by chissler]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Although in my opinion it should be, sadly it would appear that lying to the American people in speeches and over the airwaves is not considered a high crime or misdemeanor (which is the standard that must be met for impeachment). Lying under oath to congress or to a federal judge most certainly would be. Remember in the lead up to the war and in its aftermath how Cheney and Bush would only testify together, and not under oath?

Therein lies the problem. They haven't technically committed a crime (at least not in this regard. I suspect they have committed others which, if evidence existed to support, they could be prosecuted for. Whether such evidence exists in a form solid enough is questionable, though,) for which they can be impeached.

I'm no legal expert, so one question I've always had is: does congress have the power to compell the President to testify under oath? And, if so, why did they not do this if they truly felt the justification for the war was dubious?

I can only theorize that they either 1) believed what they were told, 2) chose not to oppose the administration for political reasons, or 3) were complicit in the deception of the people.

I deeply dislike and distrust our president and the current administration, and am a critic of both. However, it is not lost on me that it takes more than one man and one administration or one party to take a nation, and indeed, the world to war. It takes a government – no more and no less, in my opinion. It is also not lost on me that the powers to which Bush has laid claim were made possible by previous administrations and the precedents they helped set, and that they came from both major parties.

[edit on 6/8/2008 by AceWombat04]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Thanks for bringing in particulars of the Constitution. Despite the fact that Bush thinks it is just a "Dam piece of paper" it still is the guiding voice of our country.

Actually, if you look at the Preamble, it says that "We the People...establish..." Therefore, it's actually the "voice of the People" for which the governmental Officers are legally bound by Oath of Office to listen.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Could you address some aspects of what 'remedy' we, as citizens can employ?

Remedy is a way to "get out from under" a law so that it doesn't hurt you. Recourse is what you can do for recompense in case you've already been hurt by that law. Over in this thread (page 13) is a better explanation & a supporting link...The whole thread is a good read & I recommend it to get some ideas for further research. In particular though, UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-103 would be useful to you as an individual.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Also, what are laws that mention 'sedition'? What I mean is, it seems a 'Catch 22'.....our votes count for bupkis, but if we complain than WE are called the 'traitors'....once the bastards get power, they hang on to it.

Sedition is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but there are laws about it. From Wikipedia:

Sedition is a term of law which refers to covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

By this context, the government can claim to indict citizens on charges of sedition in order to prevent "incitement of discontent" against the government...However, the flip side is also true, in that the People can charge the government for sedition against the Constitution!
Specifically, in the USA:

In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts...

...The Espionage Act of 1917 may also be considered a sedition law of sorts...

...In 1940, the Alien Registration Act or Smith Act was passed...Although unused since at least 1961, the Smith Act remains US law...

As for the government being reluctant to give up any powers that they've stolen...Throughout history, this has always been true in that those in power must be coerced or forced to give it up. That's the reason why the King of England had to sign the Magna Carta & why our Constitution has the 2nd Amendment.

Hmmm...Now that I think of it, Bush's lying may not be worthy of indictment, but what about sedition against the People & the Constitution? Once further investigation from the sedition comes up, that should be enough to add more charges.


Originally posted by Rockpuck
However the act of voting is a Democratic process, regardless if it is a Indirect Vote, which is what a presidential vote is.

Yes, the Constitution represents a Republic form of government, but the very warp-n-weave of it contains some democratic processes...With the intent of limiting those processes from damaging the whole Republic.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Is it safe to assume you might also be a Libertarian?

I claim to be an Independent...With a strong Constitutionalist streak.


Originally posted by Rockpuck


BTW Rockpuck, you have been going way out of bounds

When you attain your modship, send me a u2u.

Actually, I don't need to have "modship" in order to send a U2U to one...As long as no one pushes me hard enough, I don't do that.




...I haven't yet heard of any occasion when the Electoral College has not followed the public vote.

There has been several instances...
Thanks for the info...As I'd said, I just hadn't heard of any. Never thought about it enough to research it either.



Originally posted by mybigunit
...I want to sit on the sidelines for once and throw some jabs once in awhile

OW!
Knock it off, will ya'?


Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mybigunit
 

I agree with people, but type in a manor that confuses them so they think I disagree.. then get their panties in a bunch and start rattling nonsense to me..
It makes my day more entertaining ya know?

Then you may enjoy my post in this thread.


reply to post by AceWombat04
 

Much of what you say is true...However, one big lie that very nearly all Government Officers have participated in is their vocal support of Democracy under a Constitutional Republic (but working towards a tyranny)...By Article 4, Section 4, they're duty-bound to uphold a Republic form of government. The lie is a violation of their Oaths of Office, as per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 9 (for the President) & Article 6, Clause 3 (for all other Officers in all three Branches at both Federal & State levels).

Ron Paul is one exception to that general tendency, as he's always acted "in pursuance of" the Constitution during his entire career in Government service.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Indeed, I'm a Ron Paul fan (or at least a fan of what he espouses consistently.) I've only ever disagreed with him on one point, and I regard him as a rather courageous person to say some of the things he's had the nerve to say.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I believe Paul is proof the Democratic process is officially dead in the US..

We have a whole line of people, all running for President. They all sound the same, all say the same things, all address their speech writers when confronted with an issue because they don't even know where they stand...

And the public supports people like that. Fake, cliche, uneducated to be President..

Paul speaks from his own mind, he can address a crowd on any topic and give a damn good answer. Some of my favorite Paul speaches have been impromptu speaches with no preparation.

I understand that many don't like him because of his extreme conservative views, but most of the country have never even heard of him. Even after he ran for President..

Sadly I think it will further detach the younger vote from what it already was.. because that was where he got such a big block of support from.

If you think about it.. McCain, Obama and Clinton both know very little about what it takes to be President.. hell just listen to a speech on the Economy by either McCain or Obama, it's embarrassing...

I wonder then, who makes the real policy?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Well, isn't that just special.
Not one other person here ever bothered to consider the actual issues timeline and the consequences of the only choices congress could make about invading Iraq. Lies, or no lies.
You all just assumed we could have had a Teddy Bear Picnic for the last 5 years, if only a majority had voted with Barack Obama against invading Iraq once the troops were already there.

The president, as Commander in Chief, has the sole authority to deploy troops anywhere and any time he wants, to support his foreign policy objectives. Congress only gets to say whether or not they can fight, not whether they may be deployed as a threat.
It was obvious to me that public opinion was irrelevant as soon as Bush began deploying an invasion force.
If Saddam did not submit, there were only 3 choices -- let them sit in the desert heat indefinitely, invade, or turn tail and come home.
The propaganda value to our enemies would have been disastrous if the greatest military power in the world had brought home a massive invasion force that had achieved absolutely nothing.

There was no need to lie about WMD's, but they did and they should pay for it. Ignoring UN resolutions for 12 years and the humanitarian disaster he created should have been reason enough to remove Saddam by force if necessary.
The bigger disaster that resulted from the irresponsible failure to adequately plan for the aftermath is a totally separate issue, and those people must still be held accountable. The career professionals, who understood the local history and culture, were in the State Department and were totally cut out of the planning. It was run totally under the DOD. Knowledge and experience were considered undesirable. All that mattered was political loyalty.

I have been a liberal Democrat for half a century, and I will still vote for Obama because I can't stand the thought of another Republican president. I would have preferred Hillary, or Joe Biden.
Obama's NO vote, without ever having to face what the consequences of that vote would have meant is a big strike against his "judgment" for me.
I am fed up with the thin gruel of liberal dogma on the military. Is it any wonder that is our weakest issue?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Indeed, I'm a Ron Paul fan (or at least a fan of what he espouses consistently.) I've only ever disagreed with him on one point, and I regard him as a rather courageous person to say some of the things he's had the nerve to say.

I don't agree with everything Dr. Paul talks about either...But he does seem to know the differences between what the government should do, what it should not do & what it must never do. And also he works toward getting the rest of the government to know those differences too.



Originally posted by Rockpuck
I wonder then, who makes the real policy?

Well, I can't claim any veracity to this link, but I think it opens up some ideas for researching some better evidence...



Originally posted by Eyemagistus
...and I will still vote for Obama because I can't stand the thought of another Republican president.

Personally, I don't vote for anyone in any Government Office who does not act "in pursuance of" the Constitution because that's someone who violates their Oath of Office (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 9 for the President & Article 6, Clause 3 for all other Officers in all three Branches at both Federal & State levels). Any candidate that voices their support for a Democracy in the US Government is already in violation of Article 4, Section 4.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has always "acted in pursuance of" the Constitution during all of his time in government. Before Dr. Paul, I've spent the last 28 voting years voting only for "No Confidence."



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join