Who Will Win The US Presidential Election?

as Goose said, there's a difference between wanting inspections to carry ona nd wanting to go to war. at the time we went to war it was always polling at about 50-50 and this was when we had millions of twats out on the street stopping people going about their business in protest.

What I'd like to know is why you seem to be okay with the constituition being violated in this post but you argued with Ice for nearly 10 pages on how the constituition was above the government to protect US citizens from the government.. please just pick an argument!

Actually, it was only 4 pages with Capt. Crash on the Constitution, and another 4-6 posts on the UN, with Ice occasionally chiming in.

I'm not ok with this violation, I personally think Bush should be impeached and tried for treason. I want to know ponrauil's reasons for thinking this violation is wrong.

Adrian

I didn't say Kerry doing it is ok. The thing is Bush did it as President, that's a fact.
My reasons are simple, any democratic country's constitution is it's highest and most fundamental law, it shouldn't be touched without the consent of the people. And if touched, it should be to had freedoms and rights, for progress, not to take them back, WHATEVER the context.
Anything else is moving backwards.

Ponrauil

So you believe that a country's highest law can only be altered with the consent of the people, for the good of the nation?

Adrian

as Goose said, there's a difference between wanting inspections to carry ona nd wanting to go to war. [/quote]

If you take Chirac's statement at the time, he said he'd go to war if the inspection conclusions proved it necessary. He even proposed some 15000 on ground plus some fighter planes to Bush if it ever happened. But Bush/Blair gave inspectors the finger and rushed to war.

That's wrong. Here's another link for you, the article is from September 29, 2002:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...801073,00.html

Ponrauil

The constitution is your country or my country's fundamental text for them to be democracies. So yes, by the people, for the people.

Ponrauil

So given that our founding and highest document shouldn't be changed without the express consent of the people, it doesn't phase you in the least that Kerry has voted at least 64 times to violate our Constitutional right (it's enumerated right up their with the rights violated by the Patriot Act, you may not like it but it is there) to own firearms? He voted for the Patriot Act sight-unseen, not even knowing what was in it (and only changed his vote once public opinion turned against it). It doesn't bother you that he wants to continue, increase, or create social-security, welfare, socialized medicine programs (I'm not asking if you think these programs are right, or if you think we should adopt them, I don't want to debate the use or ethics of such programs) despite the fact that such programs are illegal according to the Constitution?

Adrian

I know he voted for the Patriot Act and no I'm not glad he did. He did it like most congress men and senators: without reading it. And he still isn't againts it, he's againts how it's carried out.
The firearm issue is different imo, because the second amendment is not clear enough on the subject and leaves everyone free to interpret it the way they want. Plus the firearms you'd be able to purchase under Kerry are enough to defend yourself. Again, that's my opinion.
I don't see how Kerry's plan on healthcare or social security is unconstitutional, as he said people will still have the choice between the government's programs and private ones. He's not forcing anyone to his plans, he's putting an affordable option on the table for the least wealthy. How is that unconstitutional?

Ponrauil

Read an interesting article. Didn't want to create a new topic, so here it is:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...324949,00.html