Commander in Chief...
-
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
This statement is false
-
I think he is talking about those who supported Former President Bush as "Commander-in-chief", and not granting the same respect/leeway or acceptence to President Obama
-
I think he is talking about those who supported Former President Bush as "Commander-in-chief", and not granting the same respect/leeway or acceptence to President Obama
EliottA wrote:
I think he is talking about those who supported Former President Bush as "Commander-in-chief", and not granting the same respect/leeway or acceptence to President Obama
I'm sure there's no-one in the SB who would be that much of a jackass.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
...or is he talking about the other side who showed no respect for Bush as "Commander-in-chief" yet want to demand it for Obama now? Hmmmm....
-
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
This statement is false
What do you think? If done doesn't support current presidents policies should they be reprimanded by the government in some way?
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
-
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
That is just about the most hypocritical question a person could ask. But it doesn't really matter. It will never become an issue. Obama has already begun the process of violating his most sacred constitutional responsibilities by putting legal concerns for foreign combatants before his obligation to defend the country as commander in chief. Just as with those who voted for him, the man does not have a clue about what the constitution obligates him to do. He is a radical leftist who is going to promote his own agenda regardless of his legal responsibilities.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
That is just about the most hypocritical question a person could ask. But it doesn't really matter. It will never become an issue. Obama has already begun the process of violating his most sacred constitutional responsibilities by putting legal concerns for foreign combatants before his obligation to defend the country as commander in chief. Just as with those who voted for him, the man does not have a clue about what the constitution obligates him to do. He is a radical leftist who is going to promote his own agenda regardless of his legal responsibilities.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama has already begun the process of violating his most sacred constitutional responsibilities by putting legal concerns for foreign combatants before his obligation to defend the country as commander in chief.
He's just as bad as Chief Justice Roberts!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
That is just about the most hypocritical question a person could ask. But it doesn't really matter. It will never become an issue. Obama has already begun the process of violating his most sacred constitutional responsibilities by putting legal concerns for foreign combatants before his obligation to defend the country as commander in chief. Just as with those who voted for him, the man does not have a clue about what the constitution obligates him to do. He is a radical leftist who is going to promote his own agenda regardless of his legal responsibilities.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
youtube obama interview 4 minutes[^] basically the take away from the audio above is; ...But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf....
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obama has already begun the process of violating his most sacred constitutional responsibilities by putting legal concerns for foreign combatants before his obligation to defend the country as commander in chief.
He's just as bad as Chief Justice Roberts!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Roberts isn't commander in chief.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Roberts isn't commander in chief.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Roberts isn't commander in chief.
Your grasp of the obvious is quite impressive. However Justice Roberts does put legal concerns for foreign combatants before Bush's -- or your -- interpretation of a President's obligation to defend the country as commander in chief. Now if Obama had said something like "f*** this goddamned collectivist piece of sh*t country," I'd understand why you would be upset - after all then he would be agreeing with you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
What do you think? If done doesn't support current presidents policies should they be reprimanded by the government in some way?
MrPlankton
Mexican boy: Viene la tormenta! Sarah Connor: What did he just say? Gas Station Attendant: He said there's a storm coming Sarah Connor: [sighs] I know.
Haha... nah. My point is that people used the argument that we should be supporting our commander in chief out of respect for the office when others rail against him/(her maybe in the future). Such as Bush taking the heat the last 8 years. Many Bush-supporters made that argument. But these same people who argue for respect for the president aren't supplying it to Obama. Stan. Personally I find it acceptable to criticize the president and say whatever you like. He is only a servant to the people anyway. He should receive criticism. So should Obama. So, no. Whine wimper moan all you want, shout from the rooftops and drip hate if that's what you feel you need to do. But... BUT! Don't use the argument (Stan) that the office of the presidency should receive a level of respect you aren't willing to offer when your party isn't in office.
This statement is false
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Roberts isn't commander in chief.
Your grasp of the obvious is quite impressive. However Justice Roberts does put legal concerns for foreign combatants before Bush's -- or your -- interpretation of a President's obligation to defend the country as commander in chief. Now if Obama had said something like "f*** this goddamned collectivist piece of sh*t country," I'd understand why you would be upset - after all then he would be agreeing with you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
However Justice Roberts does put legal concerns for foreign combatants before Bush's
That his job. Obama's is defending the country. Why would the role of commander in chief have even been put in the constituion as an executive responsibility if the expectation was that the President was constitutionally required to confer with the courts before making a decision as cinc? They would have just given that power to the courts in the first damn place.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
However Justice Roberts does put legal concerns for foreign combatants before Bush's
That his job. Obama's is defending the country. Why would the role of commander in chief have even been put in the constituion as an executive responsibility if the expectation was that the President was constitutionally required to confer with the courts before making a decision as cinc? They would have just given that power to the courts in the first damn place.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
if the expectation was that the President was constitutionally required to confer with the courts before making a decision as cinc
"If the President does it, it's not illegal," huh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
if the expectation was that the President was constitutionally required to confer with the courts before making a decision as cinc
"If the President does it, it's not illegal," huh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
"If the President does it, it's not illegal," huh?
Which part of 'co-equal' is so difficult for you to understand. The president, as well as the judges, are ultimately answerable to congress, but, yes, the very reason to have a president is to have someone able to do what is necessary to defend the nation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Will be interesting if those who defended the "position of the commander" will carry that patriotic tradition or if they will only support their own people and show their true colors.
This statement is false
-
The notion of 'Commander in Chief' is pure BS. We are citizens, not soldiers.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Ka?l wrote:
The notion of 'Commander in Chief' is pure BS.
Possibly in your country. In ours, it is the most obvious evidence of civilian control of the military. Reporting directly to our civilian President, is our civilian Secretary of Defense. He in turn is reported to by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Airforce, each of whom, as I am sure you guessed, is the civilan head of one branch of our armed forces.
Ka?l wrote:
We are citizens, not soldiers
I retained my citizenship while serving as a soldier. I got to vote, pay taxes, all that good stuff. Are you saying that in your country this is not the case?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
The notion of 'Commander in Chief' is pure BS.
Possibly in your country. In ours, it is the most obvious evidence of civilian control of the military. Reporting directly to our civilian President, is our civilian Secretary of Defense. He in turn is reported to by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Airforce, each of whom, as I am sure you guessed, is the civilan head of one branch of our armed forces.
Ka?l wrote:
We are citizens, not soldiers
I retained my citizenship while serving as a soldier. I got to vote, pay taxes, all that good stuff. Are you saying that in your country this is not the case?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Possibly in your country. In ours, it is the most obvious evidence of civilian control of the military. Reporting directly to our civilian President, is our civilian Secretary of Defense. He in turn is reported to by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Airforce, each of whom, as I am sure you guessed, is the civilan head of one branch of our armed forces.
You didn't get my point. We civilians have the right to dissent with the President. We haven't to follow him blindly.
Oakman wrote:
I retained my citizenship while serving as a soldier. I got to vote, pay taxes, all that good stuff. Are you saying that in your country this is not the case?
Yes, it is not. Soldiers can vote and pay taxes, but they cannot adhere to an union for instance, or have political activities. Also, the expression right is limited, for instance you are not allowed to speak to journalists without the consent of your hierarchy. Things may have changed since I served but I don't think so. A nickname of the French Army is 'La Grande Muette' - The Big Silent One.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Oakman wrote:
Possibly in your country. In ours, it is the most obvious evidence of civilian control of the military. Reporting directly to our civilian President, is our civilian Secretary of Defense. He in turn is reported to by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Airforce, each of whom, as I am sure you guessed, is the civilan head of one branch of our armed forces.
You didn't get my point. We civilians have the right to dissent with the President. We haven't to follow him blindly.
Oakman wrote:
I retained my citizenship while serving as a soldier. I got to vote, pay taxes, all that good stuff. Are you saying that in your country this is not the case?
Yes, it is not. Soldiers can vote and pay taxes, but they cannot adhere to an union for instance, or have political activities. Also, the expression right is limited, for instance you are not allowed to speak to journalists without the consent of your hierarchy. Things may have changed since I served but I don't think so. A nickname of the French Army is 'La Grande Muette' - The Big Silent One.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
We civilians have the right to dissent with the President. We haven't to follow him blindly.
You seem to be confused. Civilian is not a synonym of citizen. However, Commander-in-Chief is, indeed a military title and places the President at the top of the military chain of command. No-one in their right mind assumes that it somehow means that there can be no dissent.
Ka?l wrote:
Soldiers can vote and pay taxes, but they cannot adhere to an union for instance, or have political activities. Also, the expression right is limited, for instance you are not allowed to speak to journalists without the consent of your hierarchy.
All of those strictures can be and sometimes are accepted in civilian jobs. None of them are considered inalienable rights of citizenship, as far as I know. But again, we are talking about two different countries.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface