I like em both...

I'd take either over this current lot of losers that are competing for the White House.

Ron Paul is TRULY conservative and Dennis is TRULY a workers candidate.. Both vote with their proffesed beliefs and always have. Love em or hate em, they are a different breed of candidate.

Welcome Back…

Indeed, bred sounds appropriate, with on average, Paul with 3% and Kucinich with 2%, added to Tancredo’s 1.5%, these bred are indeed 6% voices in the wilderness, though grant you, singing songs to a different bred of a few to none, it seems in fact. Truly different song birds, but heard mostly by their differing small breeds, don't you think?

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Ha, still bedazzled, after all these years of being stung in the perplexes of illusions, where ambiguity, is and then, it is not, eh “Pudding of Power,” friend…

Even what, now more than two years, since your disorientation, your lethargy to convert its meaning, even when given a bread trail, is unblemished in effort. O, well, welcome back, it seems time has changed old habits, impenetrably?

http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?showtopic...&st=0&p=66872&#




More bread crumbs to follow in further abjuration of wisdom.

http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/pudding/index.h

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12697

That is all!!

Thx for the welcome

In a strange way I missed your inane non-sensical ramblings. March on Trader... March on.

Ha, now, now Frau cow, I missed you, Non-Sensibly too.

“Non-sensical” is that kind of like perhaps in your urban dictionary evolution of imagine, I do not imagine.”
Verbatum= Urban Dictionary’

“ the negate of sensical’ to make sense, to be ”uderstood”

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sensical

Dictionary.com

No results found for Sensical.

Did you mean Scenical (in dictionary) or Sensual (in encyclopedia)?

Dictionary suggestions:Scenical Encyclopedia suggestions:Sensual

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sensical

That is all!!

The good sense of minority candidates such as Ron Paul and Kucinich are the proof of the pudding that sensible candidates, who want to govern sensibly, have no chance of getting elected. Imagine, a President Paul who would only wage wars that were clearly DECLARED by Congress!

LOL!

You mean instead of just merely voting individually to go to war?

Huh?

Several minor points of the usual FITS, pudding power, illiteracy, made in the illogic of uninformed demagoguery, propagate from a self-motivated petulance of ham-fisted mendaciousness.

Under the Constitution, The President does not need the direct authority of Congress to initiate war. Furthermore, by constitutional authority, once war is initiated, declare and or otherwise authorized by appropriations, a de fact authorization in law, and or by Congressional decrees and or declarations of authority, the President can act and or conduct such war activities as is his authority as Commander and Chief of the Armed forces of the United States.’

The Constitution grants war powers, but it divides them neither equally nor proportionately.

Congress has the power to declare war, and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8).
While the President is the sole Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2).

It is generally agreed as unchallengeable in law and precedence, that the Commander in Chief’s role gives the President full unfettered power to defend and or repel attacks against the United States with the sole responsibility for leading the armed forces.

As such, if he deems it appropriate, he can initiate war operations without the consent of Congress. He is only limited by Congressional powers granted in Article I, Section and weakly and as not dare been used, for fear for being overturned as unconstitutional, the War Powers Act of 1973.

It is true the Congress though having the constitutional authority to vote on a declaration of war. Yet, in practice and precedence declaring war is not the sole and or only authorizing method at Congresses disposal that would permit the President, under congressional consent and authorization, to conduct war.

Foremost, the Congress has, in constitutional authority solely, the authority, to authorize undeclared war, by decrees and or declarations and with its use, in de facto authority in and of law and precedence, by appropriating funds to pay for the conduct of war operations solely controlled by the Commander and Chief, the President.

These latter methods having been used many time and as such, legally consenting to the war operations of various Presidents without Congress declaring war.

For example, Congressional consent and authorization were given in various ways, in Korea, with the Democrat President Harry Truman and a Democratic Congress. In Vietnam, with both JFK, LBJ and Nixon, two Democratic and one Republican Presidents who all had Democratic Congresses. Ronald Reagan, in Granada and Panama with some Democratic and some Republican Congresses. To George Bush I, in the First Gulf war with a Democratic Congress. To Bill Clinton, not only in the 12 year, NO fly zone war in Iraq that followed, but equally, in Kosovo and Serbia with Democratic and Republican Congresses.

Now in the same methods and procedures of authority and Congressional Consent, given to George W Bush, Congress has authorized the Military conduct of war operations in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.

So once again FITS and in the three letter world of Sir pudding power, your demagoguery and propensity to assume seems apparently lacking, cluttered by the fantasy of mystics you think exists in this world in the here and now.

The Congress has two current methods to have combat Operations cease. One, their weakest method, proven by their decades of unwillingness to have its constitutionality Challenged, is the War Powers Act of 1973 that sets out limitations on the president to conduct war operations. Two, its only true method, cutting off of funding, which is a risky political move, while troops are in harms way, if the President is unwilling to compromise in a safe effective withdrawal method using appropriate funds solely for that purpose.

We now face the point of decision, next month 200,000 perhaps as much as 400,000 world wide, civilian workers for DOD and affiliated organizations, may be facing layoffs and lost benefits, as well as key military equipment Programs being halted and or curtailed. A the while forcing Troops in Combat zones to garrison up and be bulls eye targets penned in encampments unable to pay for Operations to protect themselves out side their encampments, which will grow vastly more dense as they are forced into them by a lack of funding to maintain field protective operations.

Likewise, their families at home, housing, medical and other services provided, are impacted as the reliance on these hundreds of thousands of furloughed civilians workers provide much of the families needed service at home.

Playing chicken with Soldiers lives and their families wellbeing, now that is the metal of partisanship, intellect and progress, is it not, especially now that the news is good from Iraq and even Afghanistan.
This is either, impeccable inept timing and or inept situational awareness or likely both, as is seems has been the successful ability of the majority one year into power, don’t you think?

Support the troops, give a 22.5 % approval rated Congress, the Boot.

Gesh, you would think NO ONE ON EARTH could be as disliked and unacceptable as Bush, yet he has over a 10% higher approval rate and 5 percent lesser disapproval rate than a Congress now a year in power with no excuses but blame and shame to rely on as their vision for tomorrow.

While at the exact same time, they, stiff neck, the issue, Iraq is getting better. Now pray tell who is the fool of folly and ineptness in that logic and timing. Could Congress go below 20%, it seems more plausible every day.

That is all!!

Yes, they can and did. The last poll I saw a few days ago, Bush was 26%, Congress was 10%. OJ after his last trial on the murder of two people was..........16%!!!

Perhaps we can to some extent, occasionally, agree with George W. Bush that we don't have to give full credence/confidence in popular opinion polls.

Back on point: did Ron Paul vote for the war in Iraq? Since the war itself was never formally declared, which resolution amounted to a de facto Congressional authorization to commence the war?

Niether candidate voted for the war OR The Patriot act.

FITs you and Pudding Power, being the last refugees of whine, blame and shame here, who in usual fashion make allegations always void of supportable and reasonably incontrovertible evidence.

Nonetheless, in the usual affliction of attention deficit, you two transponders gravitate away from the use of intellectual fairness and honesty. Where one seeks, “NOT A TRUTH OF CONVENIENCE.” Instead, a preponderance of data, evidencing a truth, using the mental and innate integrity of a reasonable person. One who would seek out, in search for, “a free and responsible conclusion based on ALL facts and data which in its preponderance, would have one conclude a reasonable likelihood of truth and meaning from all the facts, not just those that are from the one sided shallow end of Indoctrinate U’s laziness and propensity for convenient truths and myths."

Instead, as proven, you two use, this mongering of it is a lie, or this is evil and or wrong and or illegal, never seeking your own proof always looking for others to prove your comments allegation and despoilments wrong, instead of you proving them right.

You merely again confirm my original intent and cogitation, by saying clearly you and pudding power here, do not seek to have the ability nor inclination beyond 30 seconds of attention to answer your own questions and prove your own arguments.

That is okay, girls, you try to figure out what constitutional powers, statutory laws, authorizations and resolutions that dumb arse cowboy used to Slap down the Euro-skeptics, leftist America socialists and the entire profundity of elitists of Indoctrinate U and its first cousin bride, those elite of your doomocracy of the righteous, so profoundly for all these years.

If you will just admit you two have not idea. Or are, as I allege, merely afflicted with attention deficit and to lazy and or inept to find the answers to how Bush was given the legitimate authority, in the muter of the usual ambiguities held in the wordy confusions of real meaning that are always in the Congressional and International Communities language of vagueness in law and resolution.

Truth is, the reason they have not impeached Bush is simple really. They, both the internationalist and the Congressional mutters, of I win, and I win too meaning language. That usual vagueness of meaning hidden to give them a foothold on either side of an issue in measure mostly to how it comes out. So they can take credit either way, the US Congress and the International Community gambled Bush was to stupid to know he could act.

Likewise, they unwisely underestimated, he would act, on the vagueness of the usual two sided coin they gave him, from which he chose a side they thought he was incapable of choosing and sustaining, as he did and has.

Let me know if you can't find the authority, I have it but would prefer you argue your evidence first.

That is all!!

FITs you and Pudding Power, being the last refugees of whine, blame and shame here, who in usual fashion make allegations always void of supportable and reasonably incontrovertible evidence.

Nonetheless, in the usual affliction of attention deficit, you two transponders gravitate away from the use of intellectual fairness and honesty. Where one seeks, “NOT A TRUTH OF CONVENIENCE.” Instead, a preponderance of data, evidencing a truth, using the mental and innate integrity of a reasonable person. One who would seek out, in search for, “a free and responsible conclusion based on ALL facts and data which in its preponderance, would have one conclude a reasonable likelihood of truth and meaning from all the facts, not just those that are from the one sided shallow end of Indoctrinate U’s laziness and propensity for convenient truths and myths."

Instead, as proven, you two use, this mongering of it is a lie, or this is evil and or wrong and or illegal, never seeking your own proof always looking for others to prove your comments allegation and despoilments wrong, instead of you proving them right.

You merely again confirm my original intent and cogitation, by saying clearly you and pudding power here, do not seek to have the ability nor inclination beyond 30 seconds of attention to answer your own questions and prove your own arguments.

That is okay, girls, you try to figure out what constitutional powers, statutory laws, authorizations and resolutions that dumb arse cowboy used to Slap down the Euro-skeptics, leftist America socialists and the entire profundity of elitists of Indoctrinate U and its first cousin bride, those elite of your doomocracy of the righteous, so profoundly for all these years.

If you will just admit you two have not idea. Or are, as I allege, merely afflicted with attention deficit and to lazy and or inept to find the answers to how Bush was given the legitimate authority, in the muter of the usual ambiguities held in the wordy confusions of real meaning that are always in the Congressional and International Communities language of vagueness in law and resolution.

Truth is, the reason they have not impeached Bush is simple really. They, both the internationalist and the Congressional mutters, of I win, and I win too meaning language. That usual vagueness of meaning hidden to give them a foothold on either side of an issue in measure mostly to how it comes out. So they can take credit either way, the US Congress and the International Community gambled Bush was to stupid to know he could act.

Likewise, they unwisely underestimated, he would act, on the vagueness of the usual two sided coin they gave him, from which he chose a side they thought he was incapable of choosing and sustaining, as he did and has.

Let me know if you can't find the authority, I have it but would prefer you argue your evidence first.

That is all!!

I'm not sure what your babeling about Trader. This thread isn't about the efforts of Dennis to impeach Bush... It's about their voting records. There nothing to dispute there. It is a matter of public record.

Once again, like normal, The Bear Pit can't stay on topic and resorts to ad hominem attacks. If you can't attack the facts, attack the person.

Now pudding power, I know its seems mighty deep and meaningful there in the shallow end of the pool, but really I think you attention deficit is in overdrive as to the “issues and feigning of blame and shame.”

Let me see, you mutter in true Kucinich ambiguous fashion, some distraction from having to answer the questions laid forward by Fits by saying


I'm not sure what your babeling (babbling)about Trader. This thread isn't about the efforts of Dennis to impeach Bush... It's about their voting records. There nothing to dispute there. It is a matter of public record.

Once again, like normal, The Bear Pit can't stay on topic and resorts to ad hominem attacks. If you can't attack the facts, attack the person.

I think you need glasses, try re-reading posts # 5, 6, 9, 11 & 12 and then tell me those were exclusively about impeaching, nor voting records , both of which was not mentioned by me in regards to Mr.Kuck.

Only in a commentary in rebuttal of reasoned facts as to why no impeachment has been, nor will likely be done as to any unauthorized and implied illegality which Fits stated and you concurred, which was on point to Fits and your lagerings on authority and legality.

Yet, in later frailness of feigned harm you utter similar condescending and tone deaf mutterings in and of condemn of me.

In a strange way I missed your inane non-sensical ramblings. March on Trader... March on.

Only to later join FITS opined, yet, as usual unsupported commentary, with a agreeable “LOL” implying in duplicity your support as to the facts of his unsupported commentary which I have challenged you BOTH to prove.

Yet in fear of being wrong and proven so, you both know you cannot prove your duplicitous allegations of implied Illegality as FITS and you covert in absolutes of indisputable evidence. That is the why of my rebuttal of you both.

In the usual factual misrepresentations and condescending sorted opines, equally condemning, if not more so, of others, only minus any facts and evidence to support your lack of aptness to be condescending, and your capabilities in effort evidencing your indeterminate allegations, given almost exclusively without proof nor support what so ever.

I challenged either of you to prove it, and you take that as a personal attack. I would too, given both of you tendencies to been tone deaf and Mute when challenged.

a President Paul who would only wage wars that were clearly DECLARED by Congress!

Now if that be an ad hominem attack on you and Fit’s lack of aptness to defend your fluency with facts, truth and evidence of both. Then, I plead guilty, for you two, like most of those likeminded who occasionally have wondered onto these fields of battle do so, with the least of attention spans, the most virulent of righteous nut root opines, using mutterings of unquestioned absolution, without the slightest effort to evidence them with facts.

Only, when challenged do you feign your underwater in the shallow end and unable to hear the questions and facts put to you in rebuttal, like you just did again in the usual feign of the faint of heart.

There was a topic about two extremes, Paul actually a Libertarian, something in ideology and social economic philosophy you obviously confuse as being a conservative. Yet, obviously unknown to you, in actuality libertarians are true liberals. To boot Ron Paul is not even a libertarian Socialist in what he says at least.
Unlike that muttering socialist’s loon UFO Kucinich, who is not a Democratic Republican liberal at all. Mr. “Kuck” is a socialist, in the vain of big brother intervention and government is the be all for all in achieving European mediocrity.

He has much of what is a true leftist’s propensity, though his ambiguity of grasping a wide range of governance duties and responsibilities, is Kucinich’s best asset, he plays his cards along the lines of Engel’s struggle between two historically developed classes the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, a concept that has failed in every variant it has evolved into.

Back on point: did Ron Paul vote for the war in Iraq? Since the war itself was never formally declared, which resolution amounted to a de facto Congressional authorization to commence the war?

I await either’s evidence or is that a personal attack on you both giving evidence of your mutterings, condescension and piety of righteous absolution so as prove that you are not in error in the allegation of nut root supposition. To which I have given already ample rebuttal proving that, but have more knowing how lazy you guys are in using facts and evidence while feigning water in the ear and or perhaps on the brain.

That is all!!

Lol, We'll... I couldn't care less if you need proof of their voting records. It will take you less then 5 mins to find their PUBLIC voting records.. If you wish to show ME otherwise, the burden of proof is on you... not me.

And for impeachment... we didn't talk about it.. you were the only one. Like normal, you are having a diff conversation then the one I am.

Far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to debate here... Unless you can go back in time and make them vote ways they didn't, your just trying to stir up sh!t.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

( obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

( PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

( To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

And nothing you has said IN ANY WAY shows that Ron Paul or Dennis K. voted for the war & Patriot Act.

It is a matter of public recored that they voted against it.

WTF are you trying to prove, that they didn't?

Ron war on the war http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html
Another, since you can't seem to use google, here is the search for ya http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi...raq+war&spell=1

Ron on the patriot Act http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi...raq+war&spell=1

Dennis K. on the war http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi...raq+war&spell=1

Dennis K. on the Patriot act http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Kucin...act&btnG=Search

Ron on the Patriot act http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Kucin...act&btnG=Search

Sheesh, this place has become even MORE dense since I left... This thread has zero to do with your trying to take it. Go hijack something else.

Watch, I bet ya... you wont deal with THEIR VOTES ON THESE 2 TOPICS. You'll mumble something incoherent and then say "THAT IS ALL!" like you said something great.

I don't mind debate or dissenting opinions, but for F@#Ks sake, make some sense!! Or stay on topic for once.

No doubt you'll be pleased, but I'm starting to regret coming back...

My friend you haven't tried to follow your own links past the moment you spewed your stuff. None of them work today, but it really doesn't matter because the anger in your tone precedes the predictable anger behind the message of the Kuck and the Paul.

Their's and your's appear to be the same anger as was perpetrated on US 9/11/01, in that they haven't gotten their way since before WW2 so there must be something wrong with US. The Kook and the Paul blame the inadequacy of international government and national governments on "evil" American capitalism, they only part ways in that the Kook would have every American die to save the life of a right minded (socialist) anti-American, and Paul would have every non-American die without raising a finger. Neither one of them are capitalists and neither one of them are patriots. And yes I know that Ron Paul served in the Air Force, Benedict Arnold was a general in the US Army and served his country better than either the Kook or Ron Paul. People are fighting and dying and neither of them can acknowledge their work or progress without belittling in some fashion the cause they died for, which is disgraceful and they both should be shunned or humiliated at every conversation for that reason alone.

Thank you for actually staying on topic trader.

Frankly, this post was never about if this war was allowed by congress. Fit made a joke about imagine going to war that was sanctioned by Congress and I laughed. Truth is, this country hasn't officially declared war since WWII. That is why it was funny to me. This post says nothing about what you were going off about. You assumed our position and then decided to attack a position I never proclaimed... IN THE SLIGHTEST.

If that is what you wanted to debate, fine... but it had zero to do with this thread.

Next time don't assume what I'm trying to say. Read my post.. that is what I'm trying to say, nothing more, nothing less.





The links work just fine for me.. did you click then?

I displayed no anger till Trader tried to take this conversation other then where it was headed.

Trader and I have a couple year history here, and sometimes he frustrates me to no end. You've assumed much about me based on very scant evidence.

You WAY over simplify both of their respective views, while there is a thread of truth in what you try to summarize as their positions, until you demostrate better knowledge of their ENTIRE viewpoint, I can see there is not a conversation to be had with you.

Casublett, I can see there is not a conversation to be had with almost everybody in the Bearpit. I don't recall when you left, but it's probably worse now. Same incoherent babblings, same ad hominems, same same...

Actually, it seems worse... although I've always been insulted here, I did have a few decent convos. That made me stay, not sure I will this time around tho, seems insults and rambling rule the day.

Dammit, I wanna DEBATE too! lol

Not when the same tired song is played in almost every post. Fit, you make ad hominems while complaining of them. And, when you're proven wrong on some issue, you just melt away with no response and not post for a while. Frankly, I'm tired of your calling Trader senile while feigning concern for his well-being and condeming to hell those who don't agree with your pacifism.

You don't post at Ai-Jane anymore, either. What's the reason for that?

You'll probably not answer, but complain of an ad hominem attack instead.

You've voluntarily brought up the subject of your Baptist ministerhood many, many times as proof of whatever you're debating at the moment, and of being a "practicing hetro" while married (and seem very proud of both of those points.....proud enough to brag about them), but become irritated when I try to follow up with details of that subject such as when I asked about your encounter with the "whore" (your words, I believe)in the pool. You just seem so very defensive when someone tries to vary off the subject of pacifism to make sense of what you're saying by comparing your past statements and what you say about other issues that YOU'VE brought up. An easy out is to these questions is to imply or just right out accuse others of ad hominem attacks. And, then, in later posts you turn around and do the same thing. Just doesn't make sense.

SoloNav, mea culpa. I confess that I have engaged in ad hominem attacks, especially after I've been attacked much more viciously. Now, would you care to join me over here in the mea culpa room? You do it, too. Oh, and there have been times when I made a point, and somebody made a counterpoint that proved me to be more or less wrong. Actually, here and elsewhere, I'm often in the habit of saying "Okay, you're right and I was wrong." I haven't noticed you doing the same thing, but perhaps I'm blind.

As for calling Trader a senile old fool, he clearly presents himself as such, and he repeatedly, over and over again, almost incessantly and without stopping, posts puerile, juvenile insults at me and at others. So he deserves the same back in his face, and I'm far from the only one here who have pointed out that his jabberings are just nonsense. Okay, mea culpa for picking on a senile fool.

I've lived a life that has made me who I am now; that's the present perfect tense. I haven't mentioned those things as often as you imagine. I find it useful to point out that I've had more babies, and possibly had hetero intercourse, more often than most people who haven't (yet) made the switch, because it shows I'm giving an informed opinion from a broader background.

Don't preach to me about being defensive or sensitive; you're the queen of that province yourself.

Now, where are we in this discussion? Ron Paul and Kucinich? You see, Solo, you couldn't get back on topic yourself, but had to go for the character assassination, yourself. You're an ad hominem addict, too.

Oh, wait, I see you've brought up another personal question, why I no longer post on AI-Jane. Why would you care? What relevance does it have to Bearpit? Do you miss me, or like Nixon said to the press, do you just miss not being able to kick me around?

P.S.: I don't need to admit I'm wrong every time I post. I already admit it! Read my signature, below:

Click here if image does appear http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/...71551slarge.jpg


You can take the attack out of the attacker and you can take the attacker out of the atack, yet in the end, attack less attacker and attacker less attack, it still FITS.


I'm often wrong, yet I'm often right. But I'm not always wrong, nor am I always right. In saying such, I admit at best, I am but average and or mediocre in my equality and capability.

Many people tend to look at other's, their styles and languages from the lenses of a religious zealot's infallibility: they demand, if you belong to one, you cannot belong to others. But this analogy is another fallacy of the elitism's of mediocrity.

That is all!!