Originally posted by Don Smitty:
Why doesnt he look up the phone numbers of all the people who lost someone on 9-1-1 and tell them its all phony? Go ahead dontomasso call them all up 1 by 1.
I'm sure many of them would agree. I would be so furious with this administration if I heared a close friend/relative died and the way we took care of it was by going to a different country when you are fully aware, Afghanistan is the main target.
Originally posted by Don Cardi:
Where did Smitty or any of us for that matter suggest anything like that? 
When he said, "the president should do whatever he and congress thinks is necessary". That's what he (our president) is currently doing, infringing on the Bill of Rights one amendment at a time. We're still on number one, which is our Fourth Amendment. If Americans say it's okay with this one, what will stop him from moving on to other parts of the constitution? Hey! As long as we can keep our guns, right?
I'm into gun rights as much as the next guy, but wouldn't that be a more reasonable amendment to disregard? The 2nd?
I'm only making a point, I'm not "anti-gun".
Originally posted by Don Cardi
Actually in a twisted way you contradict yourself because
the President is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The people of the United States are afforded many freedoms under the Constitution so therefore the President has a responsibility to the American people to accomplish the defeat of our enemies in any part of the world where the safety of America and it's people demands such defeat.
:) It's kind of funny, it seems as if it's hard to discuss this topic without contradicting ourselves (or at least.. myself). When it comes to how we follow the constitution: the president says he's defending the constitution (which is possible, though it doesn't seem like it). But the way he's going about it, is unconstitutional. He's defending the rules by not playing by the rules. The main problem, is the people are supposed to be keeping him in check (that's you, congress), are not doing their job by defending what's left of the constitution.
It comes to this matter, as it comes down to many political matters, in opinion. If you believe he's sincerely trying to get the country back on track, you believe he should take these extra precautions. If you're a skeptic of the folks in Washington (like myself), you believe this administration has its own best interests at heart instead of keeping the country in check. Many times, people such as myself get accused of following "conspiracy theories". If you're too far the other way, then you're naive (Kay). I'm just trying to stay some place between the two.
Originally posted by Don Cardi
Tell me something Tony, and I ask you this not with any malice of sarcasm, but with sincere curiosity ; If the United Nations fails to act on these actions taken by North Korea, or enforce the laws of the United Nations, and North Korea decides to launch a missile pointed towards the United States Of America, then what do you suggest that the President and Congress do?
Focus our attention on North Korea. Pull out of Iraq, they can handle it on their own. Hopefully use a diplomatic approach and gain enough support from other countries, because lord knows we'll need it. Don't try anything bold, because we'll get attacked if we try some of this cowboy shit I've read about in the past.
I really can't come up with a Grade A approach at nuclear-powered North Korea. I may seem like the right guy for the job (ha..ha... riiiiight!) but it's decisions like that which prevent me from entering the political field (plus I'm too focused on making everyone happy, like George Castanza). If I come up with an idea, I'll let ya know, DC
but don't hold your breath, it takes a while to get this mind to work.
Here's as far as I've gotten:
-Fire Rumsfeld
===================
Anyway, thanks for the chat, but I'm out.
