Ann Coulter being interviewed by Cavuto on Fox, states that this is a country of checks and balances where we have rule of law and prefer to see many guilty go free than to see any innocent go to prison; HOWEVER, during a time of war that is all reversed and we invest the President with Commander in Chief powers to do as he sees fit to protect our country. I wonder why that was never part of the civics class I took in High School; nor was there any mention of that in the Constitutional Law class I took in College.

Now, can we expect Ann to take a break from promoting her book and stop in at the SC to straighten out those fool-hardy Justices who dared to go against Bush and his tribunals at Gitmo?


(By the way, would their be any public outcry if she said "blacks" instead of Democrats, or "Jews" instead of liberals? I bet their would be charges of hate crime/hate speech. We really need to shed these nuts from the Conservative side of the fence.)

I don't know why you're arguing. Ms. Coulter is a respected constitutional scholar. Just read the subtitle under her name during interviews.

(By the way, would their be any public outcry if she said "blacks" instead of Democrats, or "Jews" instead of liberals? I bet their would be charges of hate crime/hate speech. We really need to shed these nuts from the Conservative side of the fence.)
Oh, that's just Ann being Ann. While normally suggesting or recommending the death of a public official -- such as a SCOTUS judge -- could get you in trouble, she's just that way, ya know?

Oh that Ann... such a scamp!

Also.. Ann believes in creationism.
And that the book "The Bell Curve" is true fact!

She is a loon. Keep puting microphones in her face, she is talking her way into obscurity. (book sales not included)

The President's appointment as Commander in Chief is set forth in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Like you, I am surprised this section was not studied in your civics or con law class. I hope the other portions of Section 2 were not also skipped.

The President's appointment as Commander in Chief is set forth in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Like you, I am surprised this section was not studied in your civics or con law class. I hope the other portions of Section 2 were not also skipped.

Yeah and then guys like Jefferson screwed it all up and wrote in that damn part about needing 2/3 of the Senators in order to do shit.

Yeah and then guys like Jefferson screwed it all up and wrote in that damn part about needing 2/3 of the Senators in order to do shit.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=22010&catcode=13

Under the Constitution, it is the business of Congress alone, to ?declare war.? Contrary to many assertions on the news and the Internet, Congress did declare war. Here?s what it said in the Joint Resolution of Congress, folded into the Patriot Act, and repeated a year later:



There are 24 whereas clauses in this resolution on reasons for the ?authorization to use military force.? Before anyone raises the bugaboo that this is not ?a declaration of war,? the authority given by Congress to President Bush in 2001 and 2002 is nearly identical that given to President Jefferson, two centuries before, about the Barbary Pirates.



Here are the causus belli which Congress declared: See how many you have ever heard discussed in Congress, in the press, or on television talk shows:



That Iraq did not abide the conditions of the cease fire in Gulf War I after Iraq?s troops were forcibly removed from Kuwait. That Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and plans to develop nuclear weapons. That Iraq forced out the international inspectors charged with the task of affirming that Iraq?s weapons programs had been ended.



That Iraq was in continuing violation of U.N. Resolutions, including by brutal repression of its civilian population. That Iraq had used weapons of mass destruction (chemical warfare) against its own citizens and those of other nations. That Iraq attempted to assassinate former President Bush, and on thousands of occasions had fired on coalition aircraft. That members of Al Qaida were known to be in Iraq, and Iraq harbored and supported other terrorist organizations as well.



That Iraq was likely to provide whatever weapons of mass destruction it had, or developed, to terrorist organizations for use against the United States. That Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 with the ultimate conclusion that the regime in Iraq must be changed.



This clause deserves quotation, word for word: ?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, ...?

As always an excellent copy and paste of someone elses opinion Sixee. How do you find the time?

It must take me at least 4-6 minutes to write a post based on my own opinion and you come along and show me that I've wasted my time when the only thing I needed to do was copy and paste other peoples opinions.

I will contact all of those who post here and suggest that we just copy and paste articles and writings of other people in threads and stop wasting our time by having debates and discussions based on our own opinions.

In fact I'm going to suggest this to as many other discussion forums as I can find on the Internet.

Oh knock it the fuck off.

WE ARENT AT FUCKING WAR.

SJ Res. 23 was war vs Afganistan.

HJ Res. 114 was war vs Iraq.

Both have ceased offensive operations and are now in occupational phases. Want a war on Terror or some other vague emotion, such as a War On Melancholy, then DECLARE IT. Get it signed.
Then maybe we can go on to declare war on other inanimate objects or emotions. It can almost be like we INVENT our enemies.. >shock<

This panic striken, henny penny.. Oh Lordy DEY GON KILL US MISS SCARLET... . is a fucking joke. The world was infinitly more dangerous in 1966 and people werent cowed into giving up rights or giving an out of control administration carte blanche. We survived 40 years of near NORAD code yellow where the escalation would have not been 3000 dead and a the WTC down, but the elimination of all human life on the planet.

STOP BEING A BUNCH OF FUCKING SHEEP.

Oh knock it the fuck off.

WE ARENT AT FUCKING WAR.

SJ Res. 23 was war vs Afganistan.

HJ Res. 114 was war vs Iraq.

Both have ceased offensive operations and are now in occupational phases. Want a war on Terror or some other vague emotion, such as a War On Melancholy, then DECLARE IT. Get it signed.
Then maybe we can go on to declare war on other inanimate objects or emotions. It can almost be like we INVENT our enemies.. >shock<

This panic striken, henny penny.. Oh Lordy DEY GON KILL US MISS SCARLET... . is a fucking joke. The world was infinitly more dangerous in 1966 and people werent cowed into giving up rights or giving an out of control administration carte blanche. We survived 40 years of near NORAD code yellow where the escalation would have not been 3000 dead and a the WTC down, but the elimination of all human life on the planet.

STOP BEING A BUNCH OF FUCKING SHEEP.

Pointing out facts dose nothing to further your argument nor does it do anything with respect to supporting our president and the decisions he is saddled with making as directed by god. Have you no sympathy for a man who god speaks directly to? Put yourself in his place and think real hard about what you would have done if god told you to attack Iraq...I bet you would have done the same thing.

Its people like you that are causing the flooding in here in the northeast with your throwing of facts in the face of god and those he speaks to.

The President's appointment as Commander in Chief is set forth in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. Like you, I am surprised this section was not studied in your civics or con law class. I hope the other portions of Section 2 were not also skipped.

While I believe By was taking issue more with the "to do as he sees fit" part of that sentence than the "Commander in Chief" portion, I join you in hoping everyone knows Article II Section II. Especially those parts reading "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and "shall be established by Law".

Important ideas in those words.

Fil

Ann is a twat and I really don't know why anyone cares what she has to say. Both sides have their extremes I just ignore her. Though the picture of her and Hitlet meshed was probably the best thing dealing with her I've ever seen :D

Yes, the president's CIC appointment is spelled out in Article 2, Section 2. But, does it say anything about tossing out the innocent until proven guilty idea, or following the rule of law? Does it say the President can do as he sees fit, with no checks and balances?

That is what the Wasp of the Month is saying.

What exactly defines it as a war, anyway? Why are you so quick to dismiss it as not being a war? We're fighting...soldiers are still dying, being assigned overseas...life is still disrupted...deathtolls mount. So just because it isn't on paper in some office, it isn't a war? Ask a Vietnam vet how they feel about that stance.

Personally I think this would be much easier if the US population viewed it as a war and acted accordingly. Not necessarily giving up rights, which I'm very opposed to, but actually stopped gossiping about the latest rerun of Friends and cared about what happens around the rest of the world. This board is an exception; people at work aren't nearly as interested in what is happening in Iraq.

Politicians live and die by the approval of the public. As an example, Bush is starting to drop lower in the polls, and as a result other Republicans are starting (slowly) to distance themselves from his policies. Maybe if the masses would pull their heads out of their rears and take this serious we could make positive progress, instead of worrying about whether or not it's a good time to debate evolution or burning of flags.

Not being sheep is right - but lets get real about what is going on. Might even help in defending some of those threatened freedoms.

I was able to get the a copy of article II as it was only available for a few moments to download on the website of the White House.

From The Office of The President The Exalted George W. Bush: This scanned image that we have made available for download will only be available for 3 minutes as a matter of national security in this time of war. We have made every effort to create an accurate scan of the document. However as noted earlier, this is a time of war and to preserve national security the Department of Homeland Security in conjunction with the CATO Institute and the American Society of Secrets (ASS) we have been forced to block out certain words and phrases that are no longer necessary and would in all likelihood embolden our enemies in this time of war. We have also where necessary replaced outdated language used in an effort to modernize this document.

http://www.mivadesigners.com/politics/constion.jpg

poof

What exactly defines it as a war, anyway? Why are you so quick to dismiss it as not being a war? We're fighting...soldiers are still dying, being assigned overseas...life is still disrupted...deathtolls mount. So just because it isn't on paper in some office, it isn't a war? Ask a Vietnam vet how they feel about that stance.

Personally I think this would be much easier if the US population viewed it as a war and acted accordingly. Not necessarily giving up rights, which I'm very opposed to, but actually stopped gossiping about the latest rerun of Friends and cared about what happens around the rest of the world. This board is an exception; people at work aren't nearly as interested in what is happening in Iraq.

Politicians live and die by the approval of the public. As an example, Bush is starting to drop lower in the polls, and as a result other Republicans are starting (slowly) to distance themselves from his policies. Maybe if the masses would pull their heads out of their rears and take this serious we could make positive progress, instead of worrying about whether or not it's a good time to debate evolution or burning of flags.

Not being sheep is right - but lets get real about what is going on. Might even help in defending some of those threatened freedoms.

I think a majority of people in this country are concerned with what is going on. That is why you see a drop in the polls for Bush and for a large segment of congress and senators.

I think it is of great concern that congress is debating such issues as you mentioned. One would think that perhaps other issues would be given a higher priority at this time. I am certain it is not of great concern to most people whether there is a flag burning amendment or the like.

I will go out on a limb here and say that I am most certain that L2 is completely aware that there are soldiers dieing every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and that indeed those soldiers are in a shooting war. I take it as he, like many others are sick of the rhetorical use of the word "war" as it is used as a way to create fear among the populace. That seems to be the basis of his commentary.

It is the job of government to mobilize the country in a time of war. To implement a draft to build up the military to a viable force, this was done in WW II, Korea and Vietnam, but oddly enough it isn't being done on any level beyond activating National Guard and Reserve units for duty in those countries. This is a time when we as a nation look to our government for leadership, sadly as most see it, we have received no leadership, only rhetoric in the form of slogans and such.

Healthy debate is good, its the foundation that we believe this country was created on. We also believe that this country was created on a foundation of truth and justice. Unfortunately it seems all of those have been sorely lacking within our government since 9/11 occured.

It is a difficult situation when the slightest difference of opinion is met with an assault on ones allegiance, patriotism and resolve. The debate is no longer healthy nor is it possible in that environment.

I've posted my opinions on this many times on this board, I discuss it with many people during the day and night off of this board, I don't see those dissenting towards this administration as being a minority in this country.

Time and time again this administration has failed in its endeavors, failed in its tests of competency, and time and time again we have seen it lay the blame on anything and everything but itself. It takes no responsibilty other than in words, has done nothing to correct the course in things that it has acknowledged have been misjudged, misguided or just plainly done for the wrong reason.

We the people are the ones who can affect the change that is needed, we will have our opportunity in November.

What exactly defines it as a war, anyway? Why are you so quick to dismiss it as not being a war? We're fighting...soldiers are still dying, being assigned overseas...life is still disrupted...deathtolls mount. So just because it isn't on paper in some office, it isn't a war? Ask a Vietnam vet how they feel about that stance.

The problem is that this administration is using the "war on terror" as an excuse to expand presidential power. The "time of war" argument is troublesome and appalling when you consider that they have said that this war has no foreseeable end in sight and will probably last decades. What we are then talking about is not the temporary granting of emergency powers, but a radical redefining of America. There are people in the administration that believe in the concept of a "unitary executive" or a president who is supreme over the other two branches of government.

An undeclared war is the perfect subtext under which to follow this "will to power". It is far too convient when the "enemy" is very vague concept. It has no nation or homesoil, it can never be defeated in the sense that a war is over. It is eternal struggle and fear.

AlQuedas numbers are estimated to be about 5,000 people worldwide. What does it say about our nation of 400 Million people to be cowed and herded like sheep, frightened and manipulated at every opportunity that this administration has.

History will not be kind to this administration or the American people when time looks back on this last few years.

What exactly defines it as a war, anyway? Why are you so quick to dismiss it as not being a war?

"Mission Accomplished!"

History will not be kind to this administration or the American people when time looks back on this last few years.

Unless these are the correct courses of action.
Remember, victors tend to write the history books. And nothing is as dire as the times in which we live.
Now before you hit the negative rep button for me daring to post something in opposition to your opinion, think on this:
Believe it or not, there were people that thought getting mixed up in World War II was a bad idea until Pearl Harbor. In thier minds they were right, and everyone else was wrong.
Then the Japanese attack, and kill 2390 Americans. America is brought into the war, and we win.
Now I've heard several times over the years that Roosevelt had knowledge that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked through various intelligence agencies, but did nothing to stop it. He knew this would solidify public opinion of his stance to want to go to war, so he allowed the attack to happen.

Was he right? Five to Seven million Jews lost their lives because of America's inactions at the time. Did we save more lives, by losing 2390 people in Pearl Harbor and getting involved in the war? History shows that we "came to the rescue" of Europe and Asia. The people that didn't want to get involved were "wrong".

What would be the cost to America if we had kept our heads in the sand, and not gotten involved in this Middle East conflict? Another five to seven million Jewish dead? How about 10 million or 100 million Infidels dead in the name of Allah? Why stop there? Why not 3 billion Infidels? A cleansing of the planet of all non Muslims? When would it stop? Who would be there to stop it?

Oh, I forgot, we are only in this war to make money, not actually stop anything. Nothing this Administration does can have any redeeming value, whatsoever.

Lets distinquish between the WOT and Iraq first off all. The Administration really wants to tie the two together, but they are two totally seperate ventures.

Imagine a cop gets a warrant to conduct a search and seizure of a person at their house for owning weapons.. He gets in the house, arrests the principle guy on priors, but doesnt find any of the weapons.
As he is there, a domestic dispute breaks out between the mother and father of the principle suspect.
Thats the situation we are in.
Now the cop can stay there, and any cop will tell you that being in the middle of a domestic dispute is one of the most dangerous situations a cop can be in. Often times the parties will redirect their anger at each other at a common enemy. Now the cop can leave, because that aint what he came for, but once he leaves the two parties are going to fucking kill each other. Or he can stay, and wait for one of them to put a knife in his back when he is dealing with the other one.

Meanwhile, outside, while the officer is inside playing peace keeper.. Drug dealers go on with their business laughing at the cop for getting involved with those crazy fuckers.

Meanwhile, outside, while the officer is inside playing peace keeper.. Drug dealers go on with their business laughing at the cop for getting involved with those crazy fuckers.
Call for back up.

Actually.. I think we decided to go this one alone..
Remember that whole "diplomacy is a waste of time" thing?

Call for back up.

...all the other cops in that town are Barney Fife-like and hate that big bad cop. ;')

Seriously though, is there anyone that's takes this bitch seriously? Any more than say Fred Phelps or Ted Kennedy. :devil

She appeared on Jay Leno recently. Another guest was George Carlin of all people. Carlin was first, then gave up the seat by the desk for Ann, saying, ~"I never thought that when Ann Coulter came out, I would have to move to the right."

Unfortunately, she gets plenty of air time to spew away.