RightatNYU said:
Don't obfusticate. You could have easily said that anyone who lies has no integrity. You threw in the Christianity for a reason, to imply that Bush either doesnt follow his religion or that he's manipulating it, two falsehoods.
I said Christianity because it teaches that lying is a sin. Goerge Bush lied to cause a war, therefore he is a hypocrit to his religion. That is not integrity. When a Christian lies, they are not following their religion.
RightatNYU said:
Where in the 16th, 18th, or 25th Amendments is the government being regulated? And those are only the ones that passed. There have been, literally, over 750 amendments proposed in the past 10 years. Amendments to:
prohibit burning the flag
give equal quality health care to everyone
declare that life begins at conception
end early release of convicted criminals
make English the official language
make housing a constitutional right
protect the environment
That's a short list. None of those "regulate the government," so by your definition, everyone who proposed or supported ANY of them has no integrity. Is that what you're trying to say?
I cannot believe you used the 18th Amendment to prove your point. It did try to regulate the people, you are absolutely correct. It failed and and it was repealed (21st Amendment). This is an argument for NOT passing amendments that regulate the people. They do not work and it is not what our Constitution is for.
I think you mentioned the 25th Amendment in error. This does regulate the government in that it provides specific instructions for replacing a current president.
It would be a stretch for me to write that the 16th Amendment regulates the government. Although it does impose something on people, it does not tell the people that they cannot do something.
RightatNYU said:
...so by your definition, everyone who proposed or supported ANY of them has no integrity. Is that what you're trying to say?
Yes, anyone who swears to uphold our Constitution and then tries to abuse it by passing amendments that restrict the people, has no integrity. All those attempted amendments you mentioned did not pass for a reason-- they where not Constitutional.
RightatNYU said:
Or maybe it showed smart politicking, to say that he supported his party's efforts, but that he personally supported the idea of civil unions? Be honest, if you held every single politician to that same standard, not a damn one would have "integrity." In addition, the amendment and civil unions are not mutually exclusive. Read up.
Abusing our Constitution for political gain is not alright, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. Any politician that does it has no integrity, whether they are Republican or Democrat, or whatever.
RightatNYU said:
Right, it was a bogus war, and he (and every single other person in Washington, in every level of government) pushed for it. So it's his fault.
I'll make sure to remember that you said it's 100% his responsibility when 50 years from now teachers are teaching about the liberation of Afghanistan/Iraq as the turning point in the middle east, and John Kerry Jr. and all the other liberals are claiming that they supported President Bush 100% through all this.
Congress allowed the war because the Bush administration pushed for it. They believed the lies that the White House told them. Being responsible for "the turning point" in the middle east is not ours and it did not have to happen through war. It definitely should not have happened through war based on lies.
RightatNYU said:
One flaw in your argument: Know how that lawmaker got all that power? By following state laws. It's not illegal to do something completely legal. He's doing what he feels is the right thing, using all the avenues that are legalla available to him. You can't fault him for doing something that's accepted as the norm. These things happen all the time, recess nominations and the such.
Just because something happens all the time or because it is the law, does not make it right. It is wrong to give a single person the right to sign executive orders to pass a law or bill that congress denied.
RightatNYU said:
As opposed to draft dodger clinton, or the millions who either a) avoided serving at all, or b) happened not to be called up?
If Clinton dodged the draft, then yes, he is a coward also. I have never heard of this, so if you can direct me to the information, I would appreciate it. All the millions who avoid the draft are cowards. I am not saying that being a coward is a horrible thing. Everyone must protect their life. I am saying that when someone dodges the draft by joining the national guard, they do not have courage. Whether the are Republican or Democrat. Someone listed courage as a reason Republicans are good leaders. George Bush has no courage. If someone happens not to be called up, then they are not dodging anything.