The"I respect our president" thread.

[Gone]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

I agree with W more than not. Iraq/terrorist war, yes. Immigration policy, NO. Eavesdropping, yes. Budget, no. SCOTUS nominees, yes. Economic policy, yes. Foreign policy, yes.<br />Do I see anyone on the horizon any better? No. Maybe Condoleeza.

 

[txswinner]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

I respect him because he no longer uses cocaine, per his statement, "he has never used cocaine since elected to public office" (said back when governor of Texas) and he is no longer a drunk and he does not know Monica.

 

[JasonB]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

I respect him for being willing to do a job that most of us truly have little clue about and probably wouldn't want after the fist week in office. <br /><br />I don't agree with everything he does, but last time I checked, I'm not on the list of thosethat get briefed on the detals of national situations either, so my OPINIONS about his decisions aren't necessarily informed ones. We hear what the media wants us to hear.... on both sides.

 

[txswinner]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

2350+ dead soldiers does not require a media slant.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

Originally posted by txswinner:<br /> I respect him because he no longer uses cocaine, per his statement, "he has never used cocaine since elected to public office" (said back when governor of Texas) and he is no longer a drunk and he does not know Monica.

I respect him because he picked himself out of the gutter. He found God and made something out of life.<br /><br />I respect him for having enough brains to know how to inhale, unlike Clinton. <br /><br />Ken

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

TXSwiener......I am saddend by our lose too but, how about all the things that has improved over there(Iraq) that time and time again we hear dispite the left slant of the media. Do I think one of our boys should have died to help them? NO.......on the flip side do I think one of our boys should have died to stop Hitler....answer is no again, but on both acounts it was nessassary to to end both of their riegns of terror.......bummer for us great for the world.Tough decision made by a man we elected to be our leader.

 

[JasonB]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

2,300 is 2,300 too many to lose, but the fact that the number is that low is a testament to our fighting forces. <br /><br />Our Govt. is set up as a system of checks/balances. Want someone to blame? Start with the reps that were elected from your area. That's what we elect our representatives for. It takes lots of cogs to run our govt. Bush catches the flak because he is the face of our govt and the buck stops with him. The House and Congress bear some blame as well. Last tiem I checked, they have (in theory) 1/3 of the Govt's power. They are supposed to be there to correct teh Pres if he is way out of line. Unfortunately, I feel too many are caught up in the political rambling, posturing, and back scratching to do what often needs to be done.

 

[txswinner]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

Jason<br />1. The spying issue involves check and balance the executive branch chose to skip the involvement of the balance.<br />2. Only congress can declare war but are we at war in Iraq or not.<br />3. This administration does not appear to honor the check and balances and has the power not to.<br />4. No question professional politicans are the problem, especially with no moral standards.

 

[JasonB]

Re: The"I respect our president" thread.

TXS, good friendly debate.<br /><br />1. When Congress and the Pres are at odds over something like this, it is the job of the 3rd branch of Gov't to step in - the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, they seem to be too busy making laws (the job of Congress)instead of interpreting laws. To make matters worse, this stuff usually gets tried in the 'Supreme Court of Public Opinion' first.<br /><br />2. Correct within the narrow confines of wording you used. From Wikipedia re: The War Powers Resolution - Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the President is Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces.<br /><br />Congress never declared war during the "Vietnam Conflict" or the "Korean Conflict" . This little political oversight made life for our Armed Forces a nightmare. If you are going to fight a war, (sorry conflict is a load of P.C. bull) fight to win and get it over with as quickly as possible. <br /><br />Congress did, however, authorize the uses of force, at least in Vietnam. Korea was authorized by Truman under United Nations authorization. Don't get me started on the UN....<br /><br />3. That's for the SC and Congress to decide, and outside Martial Law, which has not been declared to my knowledge, the second part of your statement doesn't seem to hold up.<br /><br />4. Here we agree, but I would submit the problem is this; we have a government "Of the People" (politicians forget this), "By the People" (we forget this when we don't vote and blindly blame a single politician. If someone didn't get off their can to vote in the pres. election or any other election, don't whine about the results. You obviously didn't care enough during the election to have your say), "For the People" (politicians and citizens forget this one. Politicians forget they represent their constituants, and we the people seem to mistakeny think that it is "for the person" as people tend to think that the govt should bend over backwards for them individually. The Fed. Govt is responsible for all people. The state govt is responsible for state level. The local Govt should pick up the rest.