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.
Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by BubbaJoe
Wow, you are way out of line sir. I don't assume you are talking to me as I wouldn't call for war but be careful who you call "sorry assed scum." I along with many many other ATS'ers also served, even those I disagree with should never be attacked in this manner whether or not they did serve themselves. It is all about civil discourse sir.edit on 17-6-2011 by LexiconRiot because: error
Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by BubbaJoe
Oh I fully agree. One thing I learned about my brothers while in the Army is that even during a disagreement and they act like they are not listening you will hear your words come out of their mouth in the future as you will end up repeating theirs. Respect is a huge deal and it often leads to some semblance of mutual understanding. While I often think poorly of Obama, I do not doubt he preforms his job much better than I ever could. It is just the "cool" thing to hate the CiC or POTUS which ever you like best.
Originally posted by Finalized
For the poster that said his economic policies would be a disaster.... what situation do you think our economy is in now? What policies do you think got us to this point?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Hypocrite is not the word I would use to describe Ron Pauls actions, opportunist is, him and his 9 buddies. Tell me one good reason why they are going to the judicial branch when the legislative branch has the full power to do what he is claiming to try to be doing with the judicial? What kind of sense does that make? Why are they acting like private citizens when they are in fact law makers? Why aren't they on the House floor demanding the purse strings be cut? Because the words SUING THE POTUS has a much better affect on the minds of the people than going about it the right way.
Originally posted by Naptown317
LexiconRiot since no one in here apparently has the balls to answer your question I will. As im curious as to what you have to say. I could care less about the issue I just like to hear what peoples perspectives on political issues are.
Definition of WAR
1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
www.merriam-webster.com...
Originally posted by kro32
Paul is an idiot and he shows it with that statement. He is such a strict constitutionalist that he doesn't realize that as Commander and Chief the President has the power to send troops to war if the need is immediate and there isn't time to go to Congress for approval.
This is why they passed the war powers act because Presidents were overstepping their bounds and Congress called them on it. Now you may certainly debate whether Libya was an immediate threat but the problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't believe the President has this power.
If he was President and China invaded the east coast he would have to convene Congress, have a debate, then a vote on whether to go to war with China or not.
He is stupid.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by LexiconRiot
Your not making any sense. Ron Paul is not a hypocrite he has been condemning all these illegal actions since he has been in congress, however he has been doing it alone until now. Had he filed law suites when he was the lone voice then he would have been easier to ignore and dismiss. Now that has has 9 other congressmen it cannot be ignored as easily. Going after Obama for acting outside his scope of authority is the right thing to do since congress will not do it and are largely in collusion with him on his unlawful actions. Obama has thumbed his nose at congress and said he doesn't need congress to wage war indefinitely by his actions completely ignoring the war powers act. UN resolutions do not trump the constitution and are not authority for us to go to war without a congressional declaration. What else would you have them do?
Originally posted by kro32
Paul is an idiot and he shows it with that statement. He is such a strict constitutionalist that he doesn't realize that as Commander and Chief the President has the power to send troops to war if the need is immediate and there isn't time to go to Congress for approval.
This is why they passed the war powers act because Presidents were overstepping their bounds and Congress called them on it. Now you may certainly debate whether Libya was an immediate threat but the problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't believe the President has this power.
If he was President and China invaded the east coast he would have to convene Congress, have a debate, then a vote on whether to go to war with China or not.
He is stupid.
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I served, signed my name on that line, I have lost friends, and fellow patriots along the way, you sorry assed scum that call your selves patriots now, make me wanna puke. Piss off.
Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I am not anti Ron Paul, just not sure how everyone believes he can accomplish everything he wants to without a fight.
Originally posted by Naptown317
LexiconRiot since no one in here apparently has the balls to answer your question I will. As im curious as to what you have to say. I could care less about the issue I just like to hear what peoples perspectives on political issues are.
Definition of WAR
1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
www.merriam-webster.com...
A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.