Impeachment!

Indifferent. All the other countries with large enough standing militaries also deploy men for UN peacekeeping forces and generally this leads to better cooperation in sectors surpassing military and interdependence which helps to deescalate the overall defense bill.

So Basically it's a good thing?

Diplomatically,yes. For the common person, not so much. But if we were not to suffer, we wouldn't have much to gain, would we?

The way our conversation added up was pretty much what a lot of conspiracy theorist and some politician said. Kinda funny.

We have this great power, other nations get powerful as well, and then all of a sudden the economy breaks down, the only solution, join military and political forces, and what does this all add up?

ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!!

That was how Europe got together after they realized that being divided wasn't a good idea, so they made the European Union and made new currency.

America wants that as well, joining Canada and mexico to make the North America Union and the Amero currency. ( Strong Rumor, also reported on television )

Will that be a good thing, officially joining countries and making a powerful NEW nation AND currency? The European Union didn't work out that much so why create a new union with Mexico and Canada?

So I am just saying, that what you just wrote reminded me of that.

I just realized the true reason behind this impeachment BS; the republican candidates are such a pack of lunitics, there is no way obama won't get re elected. it's a hail mary play.

He isn't gonna get re-elected anymore, because Ron Paul has a few more points than Obama. Unless Obama pulls off a cheap stunt that makes people like him again, which I think he is gonna do.

[color=#2e1a6b]I don't really care if Obama gets impeached, it's too late for that. I just hope that Obama 2.0 Romney doesn't become the republican Nominee

...After all this time people still want a person too have rule over them???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

People have no idea just how powerful they are without the rule of government.

I keep forgeting ron paul because the media ignores him. i was thinking of the other three loonies.




it's not that they want to be ruled, it's that they don't want to have to take responsability for themselves. that's also a big reason religion hasen't faded completely away.

people are selfish, stupid, and lazy by nature. being responabile requires thought and effort.

Yup and I know why. He is the guy who really wants to set things straight and been telling us these infos for almost 3 decades.

He is trying to show the American way of doing things. I mean 'keep doing the wrong until it becomes right'. Bush senior proved this with Operation Desert Storm, and it ended with Obama. And the school system proves this time and time again.

Saw this on facbook the other day Scientists say America is too dumb for democracy to thrive
Nah but what is the problem here really? Cause I don't see it. USA is a member of the UN, they should help out, and USA is a military heavy nation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.+Con.+Res.+107:

[color=#2e1a6b]depending on how congress votes on this bill, he could really get impeached

I think only two of the sources you gave may have been providing somewhat objective information. The rest of them had very clear biases.

As for Iran developing nuclear weapons, that's pretty much a given. Whether or not they've actually acquired these weapons is open to debate, but the notion that they're developing them is nearly irrefutable. Israel wouldn't blindly threaten Iran if it didn't have reason to believe that they're posing a credible threat.

As for whether or not Obama should be impeached, no. Whether his actions were right or not is a completely different discussion. But he hasn't done anything outside the realm of his powers or outside of the Legislative/Judicial Branch's abilities to check them. So that shouldn't even be a question.

[color=#2e1a6b]which post are you referring to? the "eat the rich" video has a biased tone, but I posted it because of its statistics about the rich. The biased tone alone doesn't discredit the information

I don't consider the alex jones video a source, since I linked to the actual bill.


[color=#2e1a6b]The constitution does not give him the power to start wars, only the congress can declare war. The defense secretary basically said that they don't need congress to use offensive military force


[color=#2e1a6b]that's what impeachment is for

EDIT: Ron paul just posted in his weekly update that the congress has the power to withhold funding to the wars. I'd be surprised if they did that, but that is a possible response


sounds familiar

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the OP. I haven't even bothered looking at anyone else's posts for that matter so don't get all jumpy on me, yea? Anyways, just some of my thoughts on what you replied to me:

First off, a bias may not necessarily discredit the information given (although half the time such is the case) but what it does do is frame the issue in order to push a certain view. There's no objectivity in biased pieces (needless to say), which makes it hard to make a truly informed opinion from the them, especially when you give a bunch of them leaning in the same direction.

So yes. The information within those articles/blogs/videos might be valid. They also might not be. But with the obvious biased tone that many of the pieces carried (the OP's, not yours), they're certainly not reliable (on their own, at least).

Third, the constitution doesn't give Congress the power to start wars either (declare =/= start). A declaration of war is merely an acknowledgement/recognition that the US government and the entire nation is in a state of war. That means Congress can only declare war once the US is already involved in armed conflict. Armed conflict without a declaration of war is simply armed conflict.

The President didn't need Congress authorization in order to do that until the War Powers Act, which limited the use of armed forces to when one of three conditions are met: 1) declaration of war, 2) specific statutory authorization and 3) in national emergencies created by attacks on the US and its territories/assets.

With that, I bring up the Fourth: The reason Leon Panetta said what he said was because of the fact that all the Presidents and the majority of the members of the Executive Department and armed forces have denounced the War Powers Act as unconstitutional since it was brought into effect in 1973. Mainly because of the fact that the only time the President is allowed to exercise immediate action without Congressional approval is when the US has already been attacked (obvious negative for the people charged with ensuring our safety).

So, before the War Powers Act, the right to use armed forces was constitutionally held by the President and the Executive Branch. Then Congress stripped them of it. Yea, I can see why the Secretary of Defense would answer the way he did.

Also, about the whole impeachment thing, yea. They're not gonna impeach someone for that. They might take Obama to federal court (like they did with Clinton in Kosovo) because he technically disregarded the WP Act, but they're not gonna impeach him. And even then, the federal courts would probably rule in Obama's favor because, really, the only thing Congress is doing is bitching that no one wants to follow their crummy rules (same thing they ruled with Clinton).

So yea. I stick with what I said.

I knew you meant me, sorry I didn't reply before.

S'all good. But aside from that, I get what you were trying to say. It does seem very alarming that the President can act without first consulting Congress. But if the President always has to, then we're limiting the role he has to play in defending the nation and making Congress pretty much head of state.

That may seem like a good idea, but if we're looking at a credible threat to national security, Congress will not be able to make the kind of immediate decisions that we would need in the given circumstances. That's why the Constitution says their right is not to start war, but to "declare" it. The President, because he is a single person, can immediately respond to anything that may come his way. It is then the responsibility of Congress to determine whether or not the President's actions were right and, if need be, halt further actions.

So my stance, in a nutshell, is this; the President does not officially need congressional approval to act. However, he must bear in mind that Congress acts as a jury and decides whether or not his acts are appropriate in defending the national security and the interests of the United States.

PS: Even that last bit is a little hazy, though. "The interests of the United States" can encompass a LOT of things, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

ok, I couldn't really tell since you didn't quote anyone

[b]The constitution doesn't give Congress the power to start wars either (declare =/= start). A declaration of war is merely an acknowledgement/recognition that the US government and the entire nation is in a state of war. That means Congress can only declare war once the US is already involved in armed conflict. Armed conflict without a declaration of war is simply armed conflict.

[color=#2e1a6b]The constitution doesn't use the word "start" because the president is the commander of the army, and he's the one who literally starts the war. It wouldn't make any sense to say that Congress "starts" the war. The Congress' Declaration of war is what gives the president the right to start the war.

This is what was intended by the writers of the constitution. By your explanation, "declaring" war holds absolutely no power at all. But article I section 8 is titled "powers of Congress", so declaring war must be a power.

[b]The President didn't need Congress authorization in order to do that until the War Powers Act

[color=#2e1a6b]He was supposed to have congress' authorization all along, but he disregarded it. The war powers act just forced him to comply

[b]which limited the use of armed forces to when one of three conditions are met: 1) declaration of war, 2) specific statutory authorization and 3) in national emergencies created by attacks on the US and its territories/assets.

[color=#2e1a6b]in a way, it gives him more power, since it gives him the right to attack in emergencies.

[b]With that, I bring up the Fourth: The reason Leon Panetta said what he said was because of the fact that all the Presidents and the majority of the members of the Executive Department and armed forces have denounced the War Powers Act as unconstitutional since it was brought into effect in 1973.

[color=#2e1a6b]They have no right to decide whether something is constitutional or not, that's what the judges are for (not that they do their job). Until the act is overturned by the judges, it is law, and it is treason for them to defy it.

[b]Mainly because of the fact that the only time the President is allowed to exercise immediate action without Congressional approval is when the US has already been attacked (obvious negative for the people charged with ensuring our safety).

[color=#2e1a6b]The word "attack" is not used in past tense. The president can defend or intercept an attack without congress' approval. What he can't do is make an "emergency" offensive siege on someone who isn't attacking us.

[b]So, before the War Powers Act, the right to [color=red]use armed forces was constitutionally held by the President and the Executive Branch. Then Congress stripped them of it. Yea, I can see why the Secretary of Defense would answer the way he did.

[color=#2e1a6b]Congress stripped the president the right to use armed forces? you must be referring to the right to invade other countries without congress' declaration of war. I already explained that he didn't have that power.