It's too bad that Lincoln was so adamant. He should have let the South secede,(Slavery was on its way out anyway),so today we'd have a choice where to hang our hats,The United States of Progressivism,or The United States of Fox News,instead of the Ugly unified United States of NeoConservative Progressivism.
adam wrote: @ Rex Caruthers:
Nope. What if there’s a series of cross border raids carried out by bandit/terrorists from Mexico, and the Mexican government can’t stop it–do we have to declare war (against whom?) of can the President just order the army to go in and take care of it
That works fine,even Granada works,but not Vietnam,Korea,Desert Storm,or WOT. Anyway, it's all opinion,when it comes to governing,we usually do what we want first,and second hire an army of lawyers to justify it.
adam wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Well, I also don’t agree that
The Declaration of War,In terms of verbiage,it's unambiguous,but it's not a popular component,so we pretty much ignore what we feel is inconvenient to our sensibilities.
adam wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Well, I also don’t agree that
The Declaration of War,In terms of verbiage,it's unambiguous,but it's not a popular component,so we pretty much ignore what we feel is inconvenient to our sensibilities.
The principles of Judeo-Christianity don’t trump the Constitution
Of course they did,in the case of slavery,and of civil rights,Slavery was certainly legal under the constitution,and Lincoln had to wage an unconstitutional war to deal with the mess,Secession was certainly Constitutional,Civil Rights superseding states rights was certainly unconstitutional,
The principles of Judeo-Christianity are the basis of what you call Progressivism especially what is known as the Golden Rule
How about one aspect of Progressive fascism at a time,I'd love to start with the Anti-trust legislation,followed by the American Disabilities act.
Also,I find ERISA fascinating.
CK MacLeod wrote:
@ fuster:
Stop being so nice. People will talk.
Plus Liberal Fascism is a very good book. You’d enjoy it. And Goldberg didn’t make up the term: He took it from a self-avowed liberal fascist.
Actually it first appeared in "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich,written in the early 1930s. Reich distinguished RED and Black Fascism. RED Fascism was most interested in enslaving the Social,intellectual,economic aspects of Society backed by Brutal Force. Black Fascism just cut through the BS,and went straight to the Brutal Force part,but in the end,same ole-same ole.
Reich wrote the book just after his resignation from the Austrian Communist party. He was an agressive anti-communist the entire remainder of his life,in fact,his anti-communism was as aggressive as any in the Twentieth Century,he would be classified with Solzyhnitsyn and Whittaker Chambers,but unlike them,he was fervently pro-USA,a NEOCON prototype.
" Wilson is actually worthy of being hated, as Wilson hated his political enemies"
I,too,am a huge critic of WW,"THe Illusion of Victory",by Thomas Fleming is a scathing analysis of the events that led us into WW1. Therfore,it is interesting to read such venom about the Father of Exceptionalism. So what I hate about Wilson is the deaths of 175000 of our citizens,to feed the ideology of WW(see Flemings masterpiece &argue with him). Plus,Wilson's Fiscal incompetence was a major contributor to Great Depression 1. This opens up so many connections to our plight today.
It's too bad that Lincoln was so adamant. He should have let the South secede,(Slavery was on its way out anyway),so today we'd have a choice where to hang our hats,The United States of Progressivism,or The United States of Fox News,instead of the Ugly unified United States of NeoConservative Progressivism.
. So, is anything short of a Declaration of War (in the case of the WOT, against whom?) unconstitutional?
What does the Constitution say,does it mention anything short?
adam wrote: @ Rex Caruthers:
Nope. What if there’s a series of cross border raids carried out by bandit/terrorists from Mexico, and the Mexican government can’t stop it–do we have to declare war (against whom?) of can the President just order the army to go in and take care of it
That works fine,even Granada works,but not Vietnam,Korea,Desert Storm,or WOT. Anyway, it's all opinion,when it comes to governing,we usually do what we want first,and second hire an army of lawyers to justify it.
adam,
I think your loyalty is to your opinions on the Constitution,rather than the poor Tattered Document itself.
adam wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Well, I also don’t agree that
The Declaration of War language is unambiguous,but we find it inconvenient.
adam wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Well, I also don’t agree that
The Declaration of War,In terms of verbiage,it's unambiguous,but it's not a popular component,so we pretty much ignore what we feel is inconvenient to our sensibilities.
adam wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Well, I also don’t agree that
The Declaration of War,In terms of verbiage,it's unambiguous,but it's not a popular component,so we pretty much ignore what we feel is inconvenient to our sensibilities.
adam wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
I don’t agree with any of this
And all the Wars since WW2 are unconstitutional,no declaration
The principles of Judeo-Christianity don’t trump the Constitution
Of course they did,in the case of slavery,and of civil rights,Slavery was certainly legal under the constitution,and Lincoln had to wage an unconstitutional war to deal with the mess,Secession was certainly Constitutional,Civil Rights superseding states rights was certainly unconstitutional,
The principles of Judeo-Christianity are the basis of what you call Progressivism especially what is known as the Golden Rule
Dred Scott? Can you say that was decided wrongly
Don't the principles of Judeo-Christianity trump the constitution?
How about one aspect of Progressive fascism at a time,I'd love to start with the Anti-trust legislation,followed by the American Disabilities act.
Also,I find ERISA fascinating.
CK MacLeod wrote:
Rex Caruthers wrote:
How does Bismark fit into this group?
Probly social security.
OMG,The Dastardly Villain,and all the others did was merely slaughter millions.
CK MacLeod wrote:
@ fuster:
Stop being so nice. People will talk.
Plus Liberal Fascism is a very good book. You’d enjoy it. And Goldberg didn’t make up the term: He took it from a self-avowed liberal fascist.
Actually it first appeared in "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich,written in the early 1930s. Reich distinguished RED and Black Fascism. RED Fascism was most interested in enslaving the Social,intellectual,economic aspects of Society backed by Brutal Force. Black Fascism just cut through the BS,and went straight to the Brutal Force part,but in the end,same ole-same ole.
Reich wrote the book just after his resignation from the Austrian Communist party. He was an agressive anti-communist the entire remainder of his life,in fact,his anti-communism was as aggressive as any in the Twentieth Century,he would be classified with Solzyhnitsyn and Whittaker Chambers,but unlike them,he was fervently pro-USA,a NEOCON prototype.
It was Bismark, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot
How does Bismark fit into this group?
" Wilson is actually worthy of being hated, as Wilson hated his political enemies"
I,too,am a huge critic of WW,"THe Illusion of Victory",by Thomas Fleming is a scathing analysis of the events that led us into WW1. Therfore,it is interesting to read such venom about the Father of Exceptionalism. So what I hate about Wilson is the deaths of 175000 of our citizens,to feed the ideology of WW(see Flemings masterpiece &argue with him). Plus,Wilson's Fiscal incompetence was a major contributor to Great Depression 1. This opens up so many connections to our plight today.