Yes, that's true there was a surplus. But Good 'ol Bill, did absolutely nothing when there was a conflict. They had Bin Laden 3 times and he wouldn't let the cia grab him. He did nothing in '93 when the towers were bombed. And he really screwed up Somalia. Ever see Black Hawk Down? Not to mention he never had a 9/11 to deal with! Bill had his head in the sand or should I say up someone's dress! He never had a confrontation and wouldn't know how to deal with it.

I am not denying it, because my memory isn't exactly stellar these days, but I honestly don't recall it.

ummm i take it bosnia, ulster and israel means absolutely nothing to you?

here's a thought, bombing the shit out of a place comes a looooooooooong second in diplomatic manners to actually trying to get people to talk about it.

and as for talking about bin laden are you shitting me? you're honestly on here talking about letting him slip away whilst defending bush????

i wish my house would get bombed. i do.

Bill did make a mess out of Somalia. My friend was there and he said that when things started to turn ugly, Bill honestly did not know what to do. Hence why it got to be such a mess. Don't get me wrong, this isn't meant to defend Bush in any way, but Clinton was certainly no prize either.

AGREED!!!!!!!!

It's amazing isn't it? I think with her going to "Debate Camp" this week, it's not going to really help her all that much Thursday night. She's going to get asked random questions, as is Biden and will have no idea how to answer them. Hopefully she doesn't just spew out answers like she has recently or she is really going to sound stupid. For her sake, I hope I'm wrong.

Ryan

The more I see and hear of Sarah Palin the scarier I find her.

I think more and more people are finally starting to see that. Then again, I present this evidence to some of the conservatives and republicans that still defend her because of her strong christian and conservative values.

Ryan

k so he dropped th eball with somalia but he gets a by on that on account of the peace building work he did in israel and northern ireland plus how well he handled bosnia and iraq when military force was utilised.

bush's war record isn't so great incase you hadn't watched the news anytime in the past few years

So she's not a great speaker. Rather have someone with her values in the #2 spot, rather than that scum Biden. I'd rather have the guy in my sig as the VP than Biden.

Adrian

values like having women pay for rape test kits?

From what I've read and heard, that was not enforced.

Adrian

the fact someone would even think it up (a woman at that) is disgusting.

just another "christian" with a **** thy neighbour attitude sauntering through the corridors of power.

Wasilla police dep did charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests when she was the mayor of that town.


Ponrauil

Man... If there's one place we don't want the federal government.

I had heard different. If it's true, yeah it's a horrible thing to do. Still rather have her than Biden in the #2 seat. At worst she's a bad human being. At best Joe Biden is guilty of capital treason.

Adrian

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


When did Biden conspire with the ennemies of the US?

Ponrauil

Wow. You using a constitutional argument - that's one I never thought I'd see.

Joe Biden has multiple times violated the United States Constitution and sought to deprive its citizens of their human rights as listed in the first ten amendments. If that's not declaring war against this country, I don't know what is.

His holding certain opinions is just fine. Wrong, but fine. Acting on them and attempting to subvert our rule of law equates to trying to dissolve our country.

Adrian

weren't palin and her man secessionist in a previous life?

She talked to secessionists, she didn't join them. And that's coming from the LA Times, which would put the most anti-Palin spin on something that they could.

Even if she were a secessionist, merely being part of a group is not actively harming the country as Joe Biden did.

Adrian

explanation please?

She pass any laws? Enact any secessionist legislation? Ever?

As I said to Ponrauil:"...holding certain opinions is just fine. Wrong, but fine. Acting on them and attempting to subvert our rule of law equates to trying to dissolve our country."

Adrian

for the love of god tell us wtf you're on about claiming biden is a traitor.

Funny how you take some articles of that constitution literraly, when you have no problem interpreting very freely other articles... Double standards?



Ponrauil

His voting record indicates he has absolutely no respect for the powers granted to the federal government. Near everything he has ever voted for violates Article 1, Section 8.

Adrian

Examples, please?

Adrian

Section8 is the scope of legislative power. The limits of legislative power are in Section 9. Please give us an example of how he violated Section 9.


Ponrauil

Well we've had the discussion on guns before, also on how you think the part in Article I Section 8 regarding piracy is still constitutional material... yet for Biden you're ready to greatly extend the definition of "war".


Ponrauil

Article 1, Section 8 is the list of everything the federal government can spend money on.

Congress can:
~Lay and collection taxes, duties, imposts, and excises
~Borrow money on the credit of the United States
~Regulate commerce
~Establish a naturalization law
~Establish bankruptcy laws
~Coin money, regulate its value and the value of foreign money in the United States
~Fix the standard of weights and measuremens
~Provide for punishing counterfitting
~Establish post offices and the roads that they use
~Issue patents and copyrights
~Constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
~Define and punish piracy, crimes on the seas, and offenses agaisnt the laws of nations
~Declare war, grant letters of marque, and make rules regarding wartime captures
~Raise and support armies for 2 years
~Provide for and maintain a navy
~Make rules for the governing and regulation of military forces
~Call forth the militia
~Provide for organizing, disciplining and arming the militia
~Exercise legislative powers over the District of Columbia and all government property
~Make laws to execute the above powers

These are the only things the Congress is allowed to spend money on. While A1S9 is a good list of prohibitions on the Congress, Amendment 10 states that all powers not delegated to the United States are specifically reserved to the States or the people.

Adrian

What exactly would you call a career defined by repeated attempts to subvert a nations rules? If not treason, it's definitely more heinous than sedition.

Adrin

And the people make use of these reserved powers through their elected officials such as their Senators.


Ponrauil

Your argument is that because their constituents ask them to, it's ok for federal officials to violate the Constitution of the United States? If that's all it takes, what's the point of limitations listed in the document?

Adrian

You've yet to give me one clear and undisputed example of a US nation rule he's passed over.


Ponrauil

Anything that is not listed in Section 8, and therefore is reserved to the people, the elected officials can make law on as long as these laws are compliant with Section 9.


Ponrauil

Has he ever voted for the federal government to do something or spend money on something not listed in A1S8? The vast majority of Congress does it, doesn't make it any less of a violation.

By that logic, it is completely Constitutional to do most anything. You could reinstitute slavery and be on Constitutional grounds. You could deny jury trials to everyone and it would still be legal, so long as your constituents asked you to and enough idiots voted to do so.


Adrian

It is not a violation if doesn't go against the limitations set by the Constitution.

Look, this is like a contract between a client and a contractor. There is always a list of what is included in the scope (section 8 ) and what is excluded from it (section 9).
And like any contract it is said who is supposed to deal with what is not listed in the scope or excluded from the scope, in this case the people.
How are the people organised to deal with these "extra" issues? They elect local and federal officials who make laws.


No because you have the preamble of the Constitution that defines the objectives. And these you can't go against with ordinary law making.

Ponrauil

The 43rd presidency?

Exactly - there hasn't been a contract written yet that can cover all the "extra issues" that can come up on any job let alone a contract that can deal with all the "extra issues" of a country.

Problem is, it's not just bailing the businesses. It's encouraging those businesses to start lending money again. The alternative is that the average American gets hit far worse when jobs start going and companies can't afford their payrolls.