<p>Hi Zoosermom:</p>
<p>Be careful. The last guy that speculated such was thrown in to the category of the right-wing conspiracy. I was wondering the same thing. I’m not really a right -winger. More of a moderate. :D</p>
<p>FYI. S voted absentee on Friday in NH. He joined the right wingers! ;)</p>
<p>That’s what we get for allowing him to attend college in the conservative south…
(just kidding…)</p>
<p>"Be careful. The last guy that speculated such was thrown in to the category of the right-wing conspiracy. I was wondering the same thing. I’m not really a right -winger. More of a moderate. "</p>
<p>I’m already a right-winger and have a target on my back, so it’s ok!</p>
<p>yes, but which right winger :giggle:</p>
<p>Hey everybody counted good ole bill out too, yet he sat in a oval room for 8 years.</p>
<p>I am still waiting for anyone to answer why Obama should be pres., beside his charisma. I guess I am on the outside looking in, b/c I want experience, I need to see proof that he has followed through… actions do speak louder than words. Everyone says he has a vision for change, but how is he going to follow through with that vision. I guess I am too skeptical and I do not place much value on the promises, I place more on the character of the candidate, thus as it stands right now, unless someone can show me solid evidence I will be supporting McCain</p>
<p>just as I thought - you have no clue.</p>
<p>“just as I thought - you have no clue.”</p>
<p>But does he/she have a violin?</p>
<p>“It is interesting how those who are uninformed accuse the informed of lies”</p>
<p>Where were you accused of lies? FF’s post that set you off was very clear. You may not agree with it, as is certainly your right, but the sarcasm and namecalling weren’t warranted.</p>
<p>Okay where is post 141, I know its Monday and I may e slow, but my page only goes to 90</p>
<p>I think Obama is naive enough to actually follow through with what he says he will do. That’s a fine and noble thought, but with it, one must be intellectually honest and admit that they are willing to let innocent people die because they didn’t do what was necessary to get the information to protect them.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand what you mean
Are you saying we shouldn’t vote for someone because you do think that they will do what they say?
It is better if someone says one thing & does another?
We’ve had that already haven’t we?</p>
<p>What FF was saying is that people need to be aware when casting their votes that Obama holds a certain set of principles and to weigh the consequences of those principles. One could legitimately make the case that the principles involved are so important as to trump security, but one needs to know that in supporting those principles, the consequence might be that people die because the privacy of people planning attacks, for example, was a principle so deeply held as to never be compromised.</p>
<p>EK,
No, my point is that I disagree with what Obama says he will do (or, actually not do) to protect us from terrorism. I believe that he will substantially weaken our ability to get intelligence about future terrorist plots and that this will result in loss of lives. Because I believe that he will do what he says, I can not support him.</p>
<p>“just as I thought - you have no clue.”</p>
<p>bulletandpima, it looks like teacher22 has been zapped from the system along with all of her/his posts. This makes it look like my above comment applies to your post. It does not.</p>
<p>Emerald,</p>
<p>I think what was being said is that the naivete in the global world could create more problems. Do you believe the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> We should have talks with IRAN and allow them to continue withe nuclear capabilities without an oversight…remember IRAQ even says their problem is Iranians coming into their country</li>
<li> That all of his proposals (health, immig., ss., education and military) can occur without substantial tax increases —the death tax will hit farmers the hardest, their land alone is worth millions, a small business owner also gets hit because they may only be an LLC</li>
<li> He has enough credibility within the beltway to get things done…they don’t call it the good old boy system for nothing (no offense to women, I am one)…you need that respect from MOC’s to get things done…</li>
<li> Bush for all purposes had to make concessions to the MOCs. That’s our systme</li>
</ol>
<p>thanks for explaining zoosermom</p>
<p>I would agree that actions have consequences- but it seems it boils down to is it going to benefit the individual or the group?</p>
<p>These Q & A- were helpful to me to get picture of the candidates in the race
( four ea party)
Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?</p>
<p>No. The President is not above the law.
I strongly oppose George Bush’s illegal spying on American citizens. Surveillance that takes place within the United States should be performed with judicial oversight, as the law provides.</p>
<p>The candidate declined to answer this question.</p>
<p>There are some areas where the statutes dont apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.</p>
<p>Absolutely not.
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe.</p>
<p>In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites – a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)</p>
<p>The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action including any kind of strategic bombing against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.</p>
<p>None.</p>
<p>The Constitution assigns to Congress, not to the President, the power to declare war. However, in the case of an imminent threat, when there is no time to go to Congress, the Commander in Chief may, and indeed must, act to protect the United States. Given that the Iranian nuclear program does not pose such an imminent threat, if the President believed it was in the US national interest to attack Iranian nuclear sites, he should seek prior authorization from Congress.</p>
<p>A President must always act in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat, including a nuclear Iran. Naturally, it is always preferable to seek agreement of all leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.</p>
<p>The candidate declined to answer this question.</p>
<p>As I’ve said many times, we do not need a march to war with Iran. I strongly oppose George Bush’s doctrine of “preventive war” and believe that force always should be an option of last resort. I opposed the recent Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which I believed was the first step on the administration attacking Iran. I believe that the 2002 bill authorizing force in Iraq does not in any way authorize the use of force in Iran.</p>
<p>Well he doesn’t. But if there is an imminent threat, the president has to act in America’s security interest.
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.</p>
<p>As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.</p>
<p>As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress. The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>EK, </p>
<p>Problem here the DOJ must have the patriot act re-visited every 2 yrs and for that to occur, they have to go to the Senate Oversight Committe for approval, thus in the end the Senate gave the permission for it to occur. I have yet to hear for the Senate Foreign Affairs, Senate Intelligence,Senate Oversight or the GAO that the Senate was uninformed of what was occuring. If we hold the President to a high standard shouldn’t we also hold the MOC’s to the same std?</p>
<p>Okay we crossed posted, sorry! </p>
<p>I am a little confused with your colors, who are the respondents?</p>
<p>EK,</p>
<p>Are you going to provide a link or at least a legend to the color codes as to who said what? Or is this one of things that there will be a quiz at the end? </p>
<p>As to the bombing without Congressional authority, I wonder how Hillary comes out on that since that was her husband’s favorite military maneuver.</p>
<p>“I would agree that actions have consequences- but it seems it boils down to is it going to benefit the individual or the group?”</p>
<p>THat is certainly something a voter could consider in casting a vote, but there are other things. Mine would be something along the lines of “what’s the worst case scenario.” For me (and only me), if the worst case scenario would be death or injury, my principles would say to heck with privacy. But, again, reasonable people can have different priorities and still be reasonable people. What FF said is true, though. Candidates have to be honest about the consequences of their principles/policies and voters have to take that seriously.</p>
<p>[Boston.com</a> - Special reports - News](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question1/]Boston.com”>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question1/)</p>
<p>Here is the link</p>
<p>I quoted in order
( alphabetically)
Clinton- orange
Edwards-navy
Huckabee-olive
McCain-purple
Obama-green
Paul-brown
Richardson-blue
Romney-red</p>
<p>I did post a link earlier- #21</p>