WWIII? Or just a little fuckery?

[Big RR]

No lib--Biden just realizes that in a democracy a president does not (and should not) wage war unilaterally. Many presidents have ignored this, but Biden is smart enough to follow the Constitution. Sure, it can be inconvenient at times, but it is far and away the best policy.

[liberty]

No lib--Biden just realizes that in a democracy a president does not (and should not) wage war unilaterally. Many presidents have ignored this, but Biden is smart enough to follow the Constitution. Sure, it can be inconvenient at times, but it is far and away the best policy.

We do not have a parliamentary system ours is a federal democratic republic where the president has broad powers in the area of national defense unless he's blocked by Congress; he can provide weapons to allies that benefits our national defense. On the other hand, as chief executive his ability to give away resources is limited like the forgiveness of student debt; he does not have a power to do that without the support of Congress. Nor does he have a right to give away or sell national parks or other valuables that belong to United States. Evidently you think the president has more power as chief executive than he has as commander in chief. I know you like most liberals want a parliamentary system but that's not what we have and hopefully never will.

[Big RR]

Am I a liberal"?--gasp. FWIW, the president does not and should not have the authority to unilaterally arm others without the consent of Congress. I understand some, perhaps yourself, would rather have a strong man president than a Congress viewed as capable of doing nothing, but that is very dangerous situation that does not go well for any republic where power is supposed to be in the hands of the people and their elected representatives; those closest to them should have the most power (not a single man or woman). It is, e.g., why the Constitution specifies that all bills to raise monies must originate in the House, and gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war and to aprove treaties. We have gotten away from some of these mandates for a while, and it is damn dangerous. If you want a dictator who can act on a whim, there are a lot of other countries that have them.

ETA: And, FWIW, while the president has some power to authorize sale of arms, this should to extend to the giving of arms to combatants, which is quite a different thing, nor does the president have the right to unilaterally export sensitive technology to whoever (s)he chooses. That Congress does not seek to enforce its will in such cases is a travesty, but does not excuse the president acting unilaterally.

[MajGenl.Meade]

If you want a dictator who can act on a whim, there are a lot of other countries that have them.

So do we! So do we!

[liberty]

Well limy, one dictator or a gaggle of dictators what difference does it make it's still controlled. Your country is no longer a free country. In the Uk, you can go to prison for not using the correct words, so don't talk about dictators.

[liberty]

Am I a liberal"?--gasp. FWIW, the president does not and should not have the authority to unilaterally arm others without the consent of Congress. I understand some, perhaps yourself, would rather have a strong man president than a Congress viewed as capable of doing nothing, but that is very dangerous situation that does not go well for any republic where power is supposed to be in the hands of the people and their elected representatives; those closest to them should have the most power (not a single man or woman). It is, e.g., why the Constitution specifies that all bills to raise monies must originate in the House, and gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war and to aprove treaties. We have gotten away from some of these mandates for a while, and it is damn dangerous. If you want a dictator who can act on a whim, there are a lot of other countries that have them.

ETA: And, FWIW, while the president has some power to authorize sale of arms, this should to extend to the giving of arms to combatants, which is quite a different thing, nor does the president have the right to unilaterally export sensitive technology to whoever (s)he chooses. That Congress does not seek to enforce its will in such cases is a travesty, but does not excuse the president acting unilaterally.

George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention he didn't speak much but he had input into the constitution. He knew how necessary it was for a president to have the power to do what had to be done in time of crisis. You should know this you're an educated man, but I'll give you one hint why America almost lost the Revolutionary War 'Valley Forge". Washington pleaded and pleaded with Congress to provide relief for his army; they were starving to death, but he got nowhere congress was gridlocked; finally, he acted on his own and saved the army and the revolution. Any lawyer looking at what he did would say he was a criminal, but his army didn't starve and live to fight another day.

Now we face a similar situation in Ukraine. If we don't have a president with guts, we are screwed but don't worry it won't be your fat ass freezing off and dying of hypothermia. It will be my grandsons. Was it bacon's rebellion that inspired the saying," low is the head of a ruler that rules an armed and discontented people". I say now damned is the nation who has a coward for a leader.

I contend now, just in case it's needed, that any white Southerner who is proud of his heritage is disqualified from the draft; all he has to do is show up with a Confederate flag or pin on his shirt. Since proud white Southerners are not wanted in the military in peace time they can't be drafted in wartime, you can't have it both ways.

[Big RR]

Again, we can a government have of laws, or one that exists at the whim of a man or woman doing what (s)he thinks is necessary. Neither is perfect and both can face significant problems, but I would much rather trust the collected wisdom of a group of people who have to choose to act in concert than the whim of a single person. And I'd much rather die on that hill than live in service of a dictator. I guess you feel differently.

IMHO, we have given presidents far too much power already; I want to reduce, not enhance, it. Even a well intentioned and benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

As for your last paragraph, there have always been many proud southerners in the military, so I really don't understand your point.

[BoSoxGal]

I think what he's getting at is the actions taken in recent years by the US military to remove Confederate names from military bases and military academies as well as prohibiting Confederate symbology from soldiers' accommodations, clothing, vehicles etc. on military bases. Many Southerners are still very invested in their pride over their ancestors' participation in the war of northern aggression etc. If they cannot express that pride in peacetime they should not be drafted to serve in war time.

Did I get that right liberty?

[Bicycle Bill]

liberty, it is a fact that when someone is posting on the internet they can be whoever or whatever they want to be.
Why did you choose to be an idiot?

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm an American, lib. This here is my country.

Any lawyer looking at what he did would say he was a criminal,

No shit, Sherlock! GW was a leading fighter in rebellion against the legal government and you think he just might have been a bit "criminal"?

Hand in your citizen badge until you learn Civics 101 - or 000 whichever you find easier

[liberty]

I think what he's getting at is the actions taken in recent years by the US military to remove Confederate names from military bases and military academies as well as prohibiting Confederate symbology from soldiers' accommodations, clothing, vehicles etc. on military bases. Many Southerners are still very invested in their pride over their ancestors' participation in the war of northern aggression etc. If they cannot express that pride in peacetime they should not be drafted to serve in war time.

Did I get that right liberty?

Yes, you did. An individual displaying a framed Southern Cross, battle flag, Confederate flag in his room and refused to remove it from his wall would be court martialed and separated from the military with at least an undesirable discharge. In that case, how could someone who insists on showing pride in their Southern ancestry by displaying the so-called Confederate flag be qualified to serve the military unless serving in military is really being a slave, which I never bought. When I was in the military, we were told that individuals had a right to retain some of their individuality, I Reckon it's changed now. Also, someone could display the Mexican flag, a gay pride flag, the pan African flag and nothing would happen to them.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Anybody who takes pride in rebellion against the legal government, conducting war against fellow citizens and enslaving millions of people because they happen to be black should probably not be in the military.

And yet proud Southerners are serving their country (the United States of America) under the rules and regulations of their country (the United States of America). Evidently the vast majority of those proud Southern boys are quite content to do so, without decorating their walls with flags representing hatred, rebellion, chattel slavery and destruction of civil society.

Apparently they have grown up some in the past 165 years. God bless 'em

[Big RR]

No Lib; you can retain whatever individuality you want, but you cannot display images that could be offensive to others; you say you were in the military, so you must understand that unit cohesiveness is paramount, and you cannot introduce behaviors that will disrupt that; glory in your heritage all you want, just not on base (FWIW, you could retain it in your own home, just not in a barracks room)--even religious symbols are often restricted while in uniform, but you can wear what you want off base.. Similarly, you cannot post political signs, even though you may support whomever you choose. The other flags you mention; show me a decision that has said they were fine and i will look at the reasoning.

The point is, you have a right to free expression, but not to the extent that it affects the unit or mission--this is why the military exists. m You give up some rights when you enter the military, including dressing as you choose (and quitting your job when you want to), because the military must function as a unit. But you can keep your individual beliefs.

[ex-khobar Andy]

There were undoubtedly Nazi soldiers who fought with bravery and who led their men effectively and with empathy for the foot soldiers. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this but raising a swastika in their honor is way beyond acceptable. In the same way I believe that many (most??) Trump voters are decent people who want what we all want - a better life for our children. However most Trump voters have, IMO, fallen for the lies their commander tells them because he was the president and thus incapable of lying. It must be a liberal communist plot.

FWIW although I think that Vietnam was an American foreign policy disaster and totally antithetical to the idea of America, I hold absolutely no grudges against the grunts who went to Vietnam and fought because their country told them to. Except for the Lt Calleys of this world, of course.

[Bicycle Bill]

However most Trump voters have, IMO, fallen for the lies their commander tells them because he was the president and thus incapable of lying.

While we're on the topic of Trump and his one-time presidency, why is it that his supporters and sychophants, as well as many others — including some among the media — continue to refer to him as 'President Trump'?

I'll give you the fact that he WAS at one time the president, just as I was at one time the president of our local Aerie in the Fraternal Order of Eagles — but he is no longer the president, and hasn't been since January 20, 2021.   He is a FORMER president, no more, no less, just like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush — and to continue to call him "Mr. President" as if he still holds the office is no more accurate than referring to Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers as still being members of the Green Bay Packers.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

While it is not required and the proper honorific for a former president is either Mr. or Former President _______________ , it has for my entire lifetime been the common practice of media and others to call former presidents President _______________ .

[Joe Guy]

I know that it's common to address former presidents as 'Mr President' but Trump should be an exception to the rule since he lies and claims that he won the 2020 election. The distinction needs to be made, otherwise it sounds like you're agreeing with him.

[liberty]

Anybody who takes pride in rebellion against the legal government, conducting war against fellow citizens and enslaving millions of people because they happen to be black should probably not be in the military.

And yet proud Southerners are serving their country (the United States of America) under the rules and regulations of their country (the United States of America). Evidently the vast majority of those proud Southern boys are quite content to do so, without decorating their walls with flags representing hatred, rebellion, chattel slavery and destruction of civil society.

Apparently they have grown up some in the past 165 years. God bless 'em

I'm glad to see that we agree on at least that. My grandson doesn't have to die in a frozen Arctic Hell; your grandson yes, he does. All my grandson has to do is to show up at the induction center with a southern battle flag tattooed on his hands and he's disqualified from the draft. He is by the way a blooming tree hugging PETA type Liberal. He couldn't kill a bug let alone a human being. To send him off to fight in the Arctic would be nothing short of murder. To him the Southern Cross, that I would encourage him to tattoo on his hand, would be nothing more than a sign of pride in the courage of his ancestors; he's definitely no racist. It wouldn't be our fault if the government interpreted it otherwise.

However, your grandson has nothing to disqualify him; he can go and fight in the Arctic and maybe he'll get lucky and come back with artificial feet, hooks for hands and maybe an artificial nose. I will be happy to thank him for his service.

[Bicycle Bill]

I posted this earlier this week, and I notice that you chose not to respond.

liberty, it is a fact that when someone is posting on the internet they can be whoever or whatever they want to be.
Why did you choose to be an idiot?

I realize now I was wrong.   You did not choose to be an idiot any more than you chose to be an asshole.   You were apparently born that way — in both cases.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

Lib told us:

All my grandson has to do is to show up at the induction center with a southern battle flag tattooed on his hands and he's disqualified from the draft. He is by the way a blooming tree hugging PETA type Liberal.

I'm really confused now. Is lib's grandson really a tree hugger with a Southern battle flag tattoo? What draft? And BTW the Southern Cross is something else unless they changed it while I wasn't looking.