What is Digg?81 Comments
- purplechoe, on 04/10/2008, -3/+23Go get them Ron! A statesman among politicians, and that includes Petraeus.
- Weiln, on 04/10/2008, -3/+21Ron's awesome. He drills right through all the BS and misdirection. I'd love to hear answers to each question.
- Stryder81, on 04/10/2008, -4/+21The Lock * Question * 3:23 and the Key * Answer * 4:01
Ron Paul set them up for a simple question and they both failed miserably. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 04/10/2008, -2/+17What do you need to be called for the Trifecta? I'm going with SHEEPLE.
- richonhill, on 04/10/2008, -3/+17like deer caught in the headlights.
- pprovo1, on 04/10/2008, -5/+14He ***** owned that ***** haha. Go Ron. We need more people asking THE REAL questions in congress.
- inactive, on 04/10/2008, -6/+14Ron set these two boobs up and shot 'em down
Ron Paul 2008 Our Hope For America - SleighBoy, on 04/10/2008, -4/+12It is not about caring about Iran, he cares about our constitution and not getting our soldiers killed in preemptive strikes that will only cause more backlash against us.
- JohnReb, on 04/11/2008, -3/+11Don't tell them. The fact they so obviously have no idea is one of the few things about their posts that amuse me.
- jerger23, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7Thanks! I've filled my Ron Paul Buzzword Bingo card.
- inactive, on 04/10/2008, -6/+13commie shill government worker NWO CFR Bilderburg treasonous hater of freedom and liberty?
- 4Runner, on 04/10/2008, -5/+11Petraeus got Ron Paul'd.
- JessicaLF77, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6LMAO. I asked that once, and got no response. But it sounds ominous, doesn't it? ;)
- inactive, on 04/10/2008, -6/+12It is clear from the testimony of these two individuals that they are not seeing the writing on the wall.It is also clear that the strategy of propping up Maliki is not working. We have seen a reduction in violence but that was recently ended when Maliki sent troops in to battle the madman militia and thousands switched sides in the middle of it and abandoned the Iraqi military.
Five years we have been trying to make an Iraqi military force and the results are plain to see.
Time to cut our losses and get out before any more senseless bloodshed happens.
Of the announced presidential candidates one man dares to speak the truth and ask the right questions.
It just so happens he is also the only candidate with a plan for peace and prosperity. - LuaPron, on 04/10/2008, -6/+124 stars on his shoulder and a mile of ribbons on his chest and he can't even say he can't even declare his ignorance of or outright disrespect for the supreme law of the land without stumbling over his own words. Prime officer material there!
When military commanders say things like "I do not know the answer to that question and its not within my purview", they are really indicating their willingness to break the law on the word of the president - either by ignorance or by lack of respect. What we have is damn close to a military dictatorship masquerading as democracy, its only a matter of time before we elect a man who would say "I am the law". - inactive, on 04/10/2008, -6/+12youre a neocon. why should congress pass a hypocritical resolution about tibet, darfur, or burma when our govt is sanctioning and killing hundreds and thousands of iraqi civilians just so the govt there will keep using US$ and so we can secure their oil? its saber rattling and we have no place or right to do it. congress should be working on more important things.
- SleighBoy, on 04/10/2008, -4/+9He acknowledged that all but his last question would not be answered, but just wanted to ask the last one about upholding the constitution. They both showed complete ignorance of the document that created this country and should be the last word on these matters. Their non-answers are CYA responses, more nothingness and avoiding any responsibility.
- LuaPron, on 04/10/2008, -5/+10He was asked a question based on a fairly straightforward reading of the constitution. I expect all men serving in an official capacity to understand at a basic level what the laws are, particularly, when said official is of a very high rank. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Though there are many disagreements over interpretation, some things are clearly stated and not open to such debates. Among them are explicit rules regarding the presidency.
The laws which restrict the president's use of the military where intended to prevent something like a military dictatorship from arising. If the military simply goes along with the president's orders, then we don't have a democracy, we have a military dictatorship - its only a question of how long before we have a president and military willing to point the guns at Americans.
Its the way this country is going - the expansion and centralization of power, the increasing potency of the military and the police, the pervasive surveillance, the warmongering, and various other ongoing changes - all of it taken together doesn't lead me to think we're headed for more freedom and sanity in government. These are trends that have historically been closely closely with tyrants and empire. If these trends continue without reversal, it may well come down to hoping some group of military commanders resort to insubordination - 535 Congressmen aren't about to take up arms against a rogue president, especially if the president places a few military units outside the White House.
Furthermore, I've got a statement this general has probably made multiple times throughout his career on my side. It begins as such: "I, [name], do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC". Unless the General's constitution has had certain key elements redacted, it would suggest that he is bound by oath to disobey an order to fight an undeclared war. As evidenced by many current and past conflicts, that obligation is rarely fulfilled. - billyjack1958, on 04/12/2008, -0/+4 Ron Paul is our only hope to escape the status quo and there is no way, after having done the research, that my conscience would allow me to vote for anyone else.
- Hortnon, on 04/10/2008, -8/+12Do you even know what CENTCOM is for?
- jerger23, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4I tried to get phone service through CENT-COM, but AT&T gave me a much better rate.
- inactive, on 04/10/2008, -11/+14Ooh, I got called a socialist AND a neo-con in the same day! Ron Paul buzzword rhetoric express!
- pprovo1, on 04/10/2008, -5/+8What a pussy ass reason to not reply...A real man would be honest and truthful and give the right answer. Do you realize he has swore under oath to protect and uphold the constitution?? According to the constitution you cannot declare war WITHOUT congress. And look at where we are now. If he knew ANYTHING about the document he swore to, he would've answered NO. Instead of his pussy ass, "I'm not competent to answer that," *****.
- vault, on 04/11/2008, -3/+6No one cares what Kucinich says except a small % of the far left. His rant will do literally nothing.
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4According to LOAC, it is complicated, but the guidelines are in my last post. According to the US Constitution there are no restrictions, only the requirement that Congress declares war.
If you know this, why are you asking me? - inactive, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3this attitude is whats killing America, wake-up
- LuaPron, on 04/10/2008, -6/+9The question asked was "In your estimation, does the administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further Congressional approval?" I interpreted it as "Can the president start a war without Congressional approval?" (We aren't currently at war with Iran and bombing is an act of war)
What I am suggesting that, since military commanders like General Petraeus are not clearly demonstrating knowledge of or respect for the constitution they have sworn to uphold, that they may very well one day be complicit in unconstitutional schemes, such as the "extreme" case I previously specified.
If all commanders actually had a propensity to place the first line in their oaths ahead of career advancement, then [what should be] rhetorical questions like what Ron Paul asked would be answered with a "no", possibly with a reference to article I Section 8 of the constitution as well as the Oath of Office, rather than an evasive response. - billyjack1958, on 04/12/2008, -0/+3He's still campaigning. He has been in Pennsylvania, he's coming to Montana as well as other places. It's all right there on his campaign website. Just because his campaign is blacked out by the media doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9At-PejXNIw - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -6/+9The man who continues to accept donations for his Presidential campaign that is literally going nowhere? When was the last "Paul '08" ad on the radio you heard? When was the last speech outside of Texas he gave?
Yes, I'm talking about that man. Because by returning part of his salary and budget, he can convince fools that he's the real deal while emptying their wallet. I envision a scene with him shaking your hand and smiling while his other hand is in your pocket. - inactive, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Ron Paul should have had more time, He used it wisely to make a point.
- brad3378, on 04/11/2008, -6/+8So you're telling me that he left his job as a Doctor to become a typical "Career Politician"?
Are we talking about the same man? Are we talking about the man who returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. Can you name just one other politician that does that? - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -6/+8You didn't answer my question.
- pprovo1, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Whats your point? He should be able to give a clear answer. I personally don't give a ***** what he EXACTLY said, because he didn't even say anything in the first place...he only implied that he wasn't going to answer it because 1) (his excuse) He doesn't deal with issues in Iran and 2) Because he doesn't wanna get his ass in deep water with a response that might come back and bite him in the ass. Obviously its all leading up to an attack in Iran...and I bet he already knows this. Personally I think hes a piece of *****.
- LuaPron, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And I would contend that that evasiveness or willful ignorance, by the military, over issues like that will inevitably lead to military dictatorship (unless you have a perfect scheme for making sure someone like Bush never wins an election). It could just as easily have been a question about the meaning of Posse Comitatus that General Petraeus..
- SleighBoy, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6He is posing questions for the record that those calling the shots are ignoring. He is just asking anybody to consider that fact that we're digging a hole we cannot get out of. As far as "political *****", I don't think asking serious questions about our intentions and authority in other nations is *****. Our government has never been above propping up a foreign cause for our own benefit before, you think this is our moment of virtue?
When you say "I do not know the answer to that question, and it's not within my purview" .. That is a cop-out, because if you read article one, section of our constitution it states that the congress has the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" while in article two section 2 it 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".
So, knowing that, he could have said "no, the executive branch cannot carry out military actions on any nation without congressional approval as it states in our constitution".. instead we get "I do not know the answer to that question, and it's not within my purview" .. the second part is correct, it is not in his purview because he is not a congressman, but he should know the answer. Seems pretty clear to me. - LuaPron, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5That General damn well has the authority to answer a simple question like that. First line of the oath. End of story. Unless, of course, you take on the attitude of the Bush administration, where "its only torture if we say its torture".
The only reason there is any controversy over this is because the government is not respecting constitutional restrictions on power. If the Bush administration and Congress where acting in accordance with the law, then Ron Paul's question would have been a rhetorical one and the General would have said something to the effect of "The Constitution says the power to declare war is held by the Congress, without a declaration of war, the president has no authority to commit acts of war."
The first line of the oath is there for a reason. If military commanders aren't supposed to think, what the hell do you think they are taking the oath for? - jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Where does it say that taxpayer money is not to be used for causes outside of our borders?
- brad3378, on 04/11/2008, -5/+7Thanks for reminding me to add that to my shopping list.
- jerger23, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Typical response from someone who hasn't tried to solve a real problem outside of flaming someone online because their point of view differs.
- Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -6/+8Wait, stop right there. Show me where in the Constitution it says dropping bombs is an act of war. Hell, show me their definition of 'act of war'. I'll be waiting.
- Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6Now find the connection between act of war and requirement for declaration of war.
Out of curiosity, Army or Air Force reserves? - LuaPron, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2More or less, that if people like General Petraeus are ignorant of or unwilling to discuss pertinent laws, that they may be equally disinterested or incapable of complying with those laws. Though the fact that this has occurred over war issues should be of great concern to us, I think many will not understand the ramifications unless the same logic gets applied to Posse Comitatus, under a president as willing to commit abuses at home as Bush is abroad.
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3I do not feel like bothering to discuss the LOC (Law of Armed Conflict, sometimes referred to the Law of War). I am an Intelligence Officer in the reserves & had to study it in a class I took a few months ago, so I am certain on this one. It will be easy for you to find if you really want to. The point is that "act of war" is clearly defined and accepted by most countries. Even the soldiers in Iraq need to know the rules of engagement which are derived from it.
- jerger23, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2I've done plenty different. I've traveled to two developing nations and delivered food, clothing, and medical supplies. I also currently provide monthly contribution to charities providing food and medical support to nations in the Horn of Africa.
Why should American people be forced to deal with the situation in Dharfur? Why should people be selfish when they have some means to help someone who lives in fear of death from starvation, disease, or genocide? Our country and society was much better off when fewer people cared more about their own comfort than taking the time to make their world a better place. - pprovo1, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Horton...you've gone off on a tangent. Your last few posts seem mis-guided. The original topic of this discussion was about Patraeus's answer to Ron Paul's question.
Obviously we see this situation differently. You see his response as a legitimate, where some (including me) believe it is lacking in any substance. He just brushed that question off as if it wasn't worth *****. I personally believe he didn't want to say anything that would bite him in the ass later on. But I guess you gotta do what you gotta do when you are in his ranking...it just seems like we don't have any honest and righteous people at the top anymore - Hortnon, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I think your comment got cut off
- LuaPron, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Alright, I don't normally care for meta-topics, but for all the hot air being exchanged by both sides (including myself), you have not addressed a single point I've been trying to make about what the incident means. I'm arguing that the incident, taken in historical context, has some potentially terrible ramifications and your trying to argue over the fine points of the law and vaguely related treaties and regulations. We can argue all day over how which interpretation of what parts of the constitution applies or who is responsible or authorized to say what, for what reasons, but thats really peripheral to the issue.
Then again, I might just be describing the typical political debate on digg. - Hortnon, on 04/11/2008, -5/+63 times, and what did that get you? He wrote a book while campaigning. How dedicated to his campaign was he? Where's all that money going to go now?
- inactive, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2LOAC allows countries to declare war under certain conditions, it never requires them to declare war - I agree, what is your point?
- inactive, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Here's a 1/2 way decent summary: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm
Act of War definition: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00 ...
According the the US Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. According to LOAC (which is complicated), peacetime military action is unlawful unless done in 1. retaliation for an attack, or 2. To prevent an imminent attack. "Attack" has it's own definitions, and retaliation has several legal restrictions on it as well.
""In your estimation, does the administration have the authority to bomb Iran without further Congressional approval?" The General was professionally smart not to answer that question, but he was legally permitted to do so. Paul wanted to know his stance on the power of the Executive.
I am in the Navy Reserves. That is why I am not in Iraq. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is