Author Topic: Saving Nash the trouble... (Read 1396 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:27:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny stuff Toad.

If only those Democrats would act in unison, these things would improve.

LOL... Kinda like blaming the spectators for a lousy Superbowl.

You miss the point. Again.

They are the opposition party; they're the ones that are SUPPOSED to keep the other side "honest".

If all this evidence is out there why aren't they doing something about it?

According to Nash, the whole Republican shebang is a clusterfox. We should be voting for the Democrats.

Well, to be voteworthy, they should be showing some leadership here. Instead, it looks like they're..... just about like the Republicans when it comes to "leadership".

Thrawn · « **Reply #46 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:35:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
The President is responsible for the safety of the nation, and he's allowed to send our military to war for 90 days on just his opinion, if he determines that it's necessary.

After 90 days, congress has the ability to cut off the military activities with a simple vote.

This has always baffled me. President starts a war and blows the **** out some country for three months. Heck it took less time than to boot out SH. Congress than votes against the war for whatever reason...what the heck happens next does the US send the country a card saying, "Sorry about the war!

",?

Toad · « **Reply #47 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:40:08 PM »

Well, they gave the President "War Powers" because you can launch and hit the US with an ICBM in far less time than it takes Congress to assemble.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2006, 08:41:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
what the heck happens next does the US send the country a card saying, "Sorry about the war! ",?

It's a quite strikingly beautiful limited edition Hallmark. Very nice...

Debonair · « **Reply #49 on:** April 26, 2006, 12:52:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
...nov is right around the corner.. anyone care to place a wager?

wagering on politics, $500 max bet:
http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/
no vigorish

Sandman · « **Reply #50 on:** April 26, 2006, 01:04:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler

nov is right around the corner.. anyone care to place a wager?

Well... I haven't had a good BBS wager since the presidential election. What you have in mind?

Thrawn · « **Reply #51 on:** April 26, 2006, 08:36:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, they gave the President "War Powers" because you can launch and hit the US with an ICBM in far less time than it takes Congress to assemble.

I didn't realise that the US had to declare war even after an agressive attack.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #52 on:** April 26, 2006, 04:11:44 PM »

As I understand it the War Powers act doesn't give the president anything, it was passed to limit the presidents use of the military so as to reserve the reponsibility of declaring war for congress.

Maverick · « **Reply #53 on:** April 26, 2006, 04:19:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
I didn't realise that the US had to declare war even after an agressive attack.

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly but in either case. The Congress has the responsibility to fund any and all Federal activities. The President can order the military to action based on his position of Commander in Chief. Congress has to allocate funds and authorize any actions longer than 90 days. If they don't there is no funding for continued action. Another check and ballance situation.