Caught part of his acceptance speech this am. It was well delivered. A bit long. And a bit strange. But over all he did a good job.

Does saying that make you feel dirty? :D

Nope.

I agree, I think it was a very well crafted message on the moral imperative of some wars.

While I agree that there is a moral imperative to defensive wars....wars in which we are fighting those who attacked us first, I do not agree that the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan fit that description. Afghanistan didn't attack us. In fact neither did the Taliban. Neither did Iraq. And none of them posed a danger to America.

They were harboring Al Queda, but the correct response to this would be to make a 100 billion dollar reward open to anyone...for Osama Bin Laden's head, and to issue letters of marquis and reprisal per the U.S. Constitution...against Al Queda. Any private black-op militias like say (Blackwater), could go into Afghanistan or Pakistan or anywhere else and kill, rape, loot, etc. all they want but if they get caught, they are on their own. If they can get back to America, they will be protected by our government and be held blameless for any crimes they've committed in any other country in order to bring back the head of Osama Bin Laden or to kill Al Queda members.

Right after 9/11 there would have been thousands if not millions willing to sign up for that kind of a deal.

We'd have saved trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives lost needlessly in unconstitutional wars, etc.

Says it all.

If we were fighting an "unconstitutional war," Radar might be right.

But for six years straight, most of America and all of Congress, plus two Presidents and Cabinets and sundry Constitutional scholars who don't have personality disorders quite disagree with Radar. The Constitution does not say what you say it says, never did, never will, Radar. Warfighting flexibility for the Commander-In-Chief is in some measure expressed and in greater measure implied. The Constitution says Congress may declare war. It nowhere says nor implies that Congressional declaration is required before the troops can move out. Even the guys carrying the rifles, as Radar has never done, want it that way.

So, Paul, take your "unconstitutional" and insert it, with a half twist, you anti-intelligent personality and tiny-minded wiper of antidemocratic bottoms. Your notion suffers the daily fate of most of your asswipe notions: to be covered in shit and flushed. Your thinking is as contemptible to the people of freedom as it is disturbed to the people of psychology.

Letters of marque and reprisal. Guess that's something I knew and you didn't. Bright boy.

You might be right if you weren't an retarded sociopath who picks the wrong side of every issue.

I've proven many times that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unconstitutional in several ways.

1) The President has no power to make war with even a single soldier for a single day and the unconstitutional 1971 "War Powers Act" doesn't change that as it directly contradicts the U.S. Constitution which is the HIGHEST law in the land and according to the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison, all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

2) Congress alone has the power to make war, and then only when it is America's "common DEFENSE". Defense means we only attack when we are attacked, and then only against those who attacked us.

3) Congress may only exercise their power to make war through a Cosntitutionall required formal declaration of war.

4) Congress may not grant its constitutional powers to any other branch of government such as granting the president the "authority to use force". The only way powers may change from one branch to another is through a formal declaration of war.


5) The President is not the commander-in-chief of the military until called upon to be such through a formal declaration of war.


It doesn't matter what "the guys carrying rifles" want. It only matters what the Constitution says and it says the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unconstitutional and that anyone who claims they aren't are filthy liars, complete idiots, or both, especially if they are non-libertarian, lying, and insane cowards like UG.



Lastly, there is nothing that you know and I don't other than what it's like to be humiliated, punished and defeated on a daily basis by my intellectual, social, and physical superior as you suffer from me on a daily basis or what it's like to be a dishonest, gutless, piece of shit with the intellect of a flea which you experience every time you look at the guy you're shaving in the mirror.

Ooops, sorry. Thought I'd walk into this thread and there'd be peace running all over the place. :lol:

Oh YEAH...this is why there will never be peace in our world.

We just redefined peace so it's all ok now. There will be peace one day maybe: at the cost of the definition. :p

Lets hold hands anyway though.

I can't make an edit, so here's a correction to my post...

4) Congress may not grant its constitutional powers to any other branch of government such as granting the president the "authority to use force". The only way powers may change from one branch to another is through a Constitutional amendment.


I think faster than I type, but neither is very slow.

You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?

And sing!

I'm down with that!

Oh heck no...which is why I pointed it out! These guys are coming to virtual blows over who won the PEACE prize. What does that tell you about our chances for peace in our world? As Obama said, people have been warring in one form or another since the beginning of mankind.

And smoke dope and hold hands! Groovy, man. 'Cept you don't really want to hear me sing.

Yes I do.:p