What is clear from your posts is your view of what is best for this nation is your visceral hatred of the President. But because I do not share your view you now want to attack me as a Pastor. This shows a weakness of your position. I disagree with Ken but it is kept to the posts. background in what?
You are great at misquotes and misconclusions.
You said the word "hate."
There is a vast difference between hate and blind alligence to something that is obviously not in the best interests of our troops, that is, inept leadership.
No attacks on you as pastor, but hope your insights into Scripture are better than your political and national instincts.
Your hate is exposed in your rhetoric. such rhetoric is not an example of anti-allegiance but goes much deeper than that.
Since my being a pastor has no bearing on the topic it is clear that you have gone out of the way to bring it into the conversation which is unnecessary and clearly an attack. This seems to be uncommon of you never the less it is inappropriate.
You make a convoluted post and expect me to know which subject you are referring to. If you feel that is appropriate then you have the freedom to remain vague.
It seems very odd, very odd indeed, that all of the time you spend raking Ron Paul over the coals, a man that has at least some similance of leadership and morality, plus at least knows what he believes in, and all the time you spend defending the leadship of the present administration in this war, that you could accuse anyone of hate rhetoric.
This speaks volumes about insight.
They have not yet handed them the democracy. Don't you read the papers? Right now, the government is in the process of forming and working out a governing structure. That is one of the objectives that we have not won. I am not for doing a job halfway. Let's finish it.
You think wrong. And callling names and questioning others patriotism is a flimsy wall to hide behind.
So you think FDR was wrong and unpatriotic? In WWII, soldiers did not get vacations to come home and see their families. They fought because they understood something was at stake. Today, the problem is that we have too many people so narrowly focused, that they don't see the big picture of what is at stake.
Furthermore, Congress has no authority to manage troops. The President alone can do that. Congress can only fund or defund. Webb's attempt was an unconstitutional act. Which again shows us that for all your trumpeting about the Constitution, you don't really believe in it, or at least don't understand it.
What is a lack of insight is those who insist the President lied, started this war for oil and wants nothing but to start another one with Iran. That comes out of the tin foil hat club.
The other evidence of lacking in insight is that what goes on in the middle east in no way effects us. But this is a topic for another thread.
It was the beginning, not the completion of a safe, stable, and functioning democracy. You know that, Ken. What in the world are you playing these games for?
Article 2, Section 2 states: The
President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States;
Clearly, this takes precedence since they are called into actual service. So it seems to me that the constitution declares that the commander in chief is in charge when the armed forces are called into service. In a constitution of "enumerated powers," it enumerates the power over the military in "actual service" to be delegated to the President, not to Congress.
Yes, and with the military in action, that is the power of the purse. Cut off the funding if you want them home. But while in "actual service" they are under the direction of the president, it seems to me.
I will tell you exactly what a lack of insight is.
It is not reading posts then quoting something that was never said.
That is the third time you have done that in this thread.
The point is not whether Bush lied or not, it is the fact he has not excuted the war in a manner to win.
Iran?
When did Iran come into the converstaion?
Yours is not a tin foil hat, more of an upside down cone.
I responded to you but that doesn't mean I accused you of saying it. I used the word those not you. Read the post. And it is untrue that I quoted something you never said. You cannot come up with that one.
Democrats are lucky they didn't have the votes. They avoided losing a Constitutional battle over the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief in time of war.
You are wrong. Those of us who support defending the U.S. constitution and our military personnel would not lose to those who think that the president should be a dictator and who have little regard for the welfare of our military personnel.