Marine has Message for Sen. Reid

The sources to the polls are listed whether their is a link or not. Do your own research. The point of the article is just what you say. Of all the reports of polls that say Americans want out of Iraq none of the questions asked to obtain that poll information is ever listed. The polls listed ar give as actual polls that have been taken. It is not an opinion if the polls ever took place.

 

I am talking about the Iraqi people taking a vote, not the USofA. Do you know what the Iraq constitution says concerning the matter?

I think if we're not able to let the people of that "free" world (Iraq) decide what way they want to go, then our goal to create democray is a bust.

If we're to never give them a choice, then we should just state it as we have claimed our 51st state.

Let the people vote, it's seems logical knowing that it's those very people that have to live in this mess. It's easy for any of us to have our opinion, and no matter what side you're on, it's just that opinion. It's the Iraqi people that have to live in this, let them decide.

Jamie


Jamie

 

I googled each poll he listed and found none of the results/Polls he claimed. So I stand by my statement, until one can see the questions asked, one don't know how to respond to the poll.

How many people were asked?
Where?
Democrat/Republican ratio?
What were the questions?

I can post links to poll after poll that would conflict with your/his results. Does that mean your's are wrong? No, it just means the questions were different.

Polling mean little to nothing unless it's balanced and one can't see it's balanced unless you can see the poll itself.

Jamie

 

Which is why I said that the Constitutino "does not leave military decisions to votes ... of foreigners.

It doesn't matter. Our military decisions are what we are talking about.

This is two different issues. However, my suspicion is that, given the choice, Iraqis would not only want us there, but want us there in more numbers with more pursuit of the terrorists. We have to recognize that our soldiers there are not the problem. We are too uncritical in accepting that. The problem is the terrorists. And our exit will not lead to their exit. Only our power will lead to their demise,

 

If the questions are properly phrased and the selection of questioned people is random, then a poll of 2,000 people is as accurate within a percent or so as a poll of 2 million.

Which U.S. govt since Geo. Washington hasn't been corrupt?

 

But there's not really any way to know that. What should be said is that a majority of people polled believe this or that. (Again, my little thing about honoring the truth gets in the way of some good arguments, but I think it is a necessary distinction.)

 

It still would not meet the requirments for deploying troops on US soil.

Oh, and an insurrection would be legal grounds for deploying troops on US soil.

Now, the NG could be used in such a situation, if I'm not mistaken. But, as has been pointed out, border patrol agents are already being arrested for doing their jobs.

 

You might want to actually read the article.

 

Post the links then.

Jamie

 

Oh, I did read the article. Even in it the author stated my very point.

"For one, as I stated here earlier today, many of the polls frame their questions in a clearly slanted matter."

Without seeing the polls themselves, and reading the questions for oneself, you can't get an understanding of a poll.

It's like taking a Bible verse out on context. ANYONE can take a select few verses and have it say pretty much what you want, but when you read the whole chapter, you get a better understanding.

Unlike carpro would like you to believe, I don't dispute his findings, but I don't believe them either until I read them myself and see what, if any slant they have on them. Also unlike carpro, I have and can admit when I am wrong. I don't wear blinders.

Jamie

 

I didn't really expect you to post them. I am used to your baseless posts.

You my friend, are the one with blinders on. I am willing to read it and then make an opinion, you accept it as fact even if it's only from an opinion piece. Your favorite posts are from opinion pieces..

Jamie

 

The polls listed are facts.

 

Yes, but since you said it's so easy. Post them. Simple really.

Jamie

 

Prove it.

Jamie

 

The original intent of the statutory laws was to prevent over zealous civilian law enforcement officials - sheriffs and marshals - from demanding that the military help them enforce local law. It came about as a result of abusive actions during the reconstruction - or deconstruction - of the South following the war between the States in such matters as supervising local elections. Like most of our laws it has been twisted around these days to mean something other than what was originally intended. It was never intended to prevent the President from using his full authority - including the military - to enforce the law of the land when ordinary civilian law enforcement was unable or unwilling to do so. We sometimes seem to seek out every possible way to tie our own hands.

The President should act on the basis of the Constitutional duty, as chief executive officer, to enforce our law - including immigration law. The President could rightly invoke the use of the military to accomplish this enforcement on the basis that illegal immigration - and support of it - is out of control and beyond the capability of civilian law enforcement to address and is, in fact, being in some cases aided by local governmental actions. It constitutes an invasion of our terrorist and a rebellion against our laws. Did we not, as just one example, use federal troops to enforce civil rights laws against the states? Is the threat from illegal immigration not even as great as that? Regardless, the restrictions are all based on statutory law - not Constitutional law - and are subject to change by Congress if they would be so inclined. If there is concern that the extant illegal immigration does not constitute justification for the President to act under existing statues or on a Constitutional basis alone, then Congress could enact specific legislation to deal specifically with it by statutory law.

We'd better get a handle on the problem before it becomes an even worse problem perhaps even leading into a violent war within our own borders.

 

Just wait and see, pastor, wait and see.