Truth Detector

I clearly stated "Foreign aid is more in line with the US Constitution duties of our Federal Government however."

Let me state it again: MORE in LINE with the Federal DUTIES under our Constitution of the Federal Government which is the PROTECTION of American citizens, defending the nation from hostile foreign interests and administering our laws.

As opposed to social welfare spending; which was NEVER the INTENT of the founding fathers.

You have a fascinating ability to not comprehend what is being written and project arguments that have not been made.

Truth Detector

What part of "enemy combatants" do you not comprehend? It is specious to suggest that McCain supports the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Who are you trying to kid?

I find it fascinating how the desperate Left wants to provide Constitutional rights to enemy combatants.

The United States Congress grants U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and all Article III federal judges, acting in their own right, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody, subject to certain limitations, in the following circumstances:
• Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
• Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree court or judge of the United States; or
• Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
• Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
• It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial.

Have you read the Constitution? Carry on.

Binary_Digit

Right. Foreign aid is "in line" with the Fed's Constitutional duties to protect American citizens, while social programs are NOT "in line" with the Fed's Constitutional duties to "promote the general welfare." Nice selective reasoning there, Truth Deflector.

Excuse me, but I'm not trying to kid anyone. Please try to follow along. This is really simple.

1. The Detainee Treatment Act allows for the suspension of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants." True or false?

2. The Military Commissions Act allows for U.S. Citizens to be labeled as "enemy combatants." True or false?

3. John McCain voted for both the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. True or false?

I find it fascinating how quickly you resort to a straw man instead of addressing what was actually argued. Is that because you don't have a reasonable rebuttal, or because you simply can't understand the argument?

Obviously you don't understand what you're quoting here because it doesn't refute anything I said. Here's a hint: issuing a writ of habeas corpus (as in the above) means granting habeas corpus, not withholding it. IAW: these are limitations for when habeas corpus can be granted. Not suspended. Nice try though, just keep Deflecting the Truth and pretending you're honest if it helps you sleep.

Multiple times. And I've never seen any clause which says that foreign aid is part of the Federal government's duties. Maybe you should quote the part of the Constitution that supports your claim, or stop Deflecting the Truth and admit you don't know what you're talking about. Think you can manage that?

cascadian

Obviously, earmarks are ok... in Alaska. (When I think about how many Libertarian and anti-tax folks there must be in Alaska, the fact that they so dependent on the Federal tax teat, makes me chuckle)

There doesn't seem to be anyone from the right ready to criticize her for it here.

As far as the center is concerned, I doubt anyone will vote for Obama because of her one-time support for the bridge.

Next issue plz. I think we flag lapels to discuss or something.

__________________
"Fear is the mind killer."
~Bene Gesserit

Truth Detector

I find it equally fascinating to see your desperate struggle to justify your original FALSE assertion: "And McCain supports suspending habeas corpus for American citizens."

Your spin suggests that "enemy combatants" is the same as the general statement "American Citizens."

I am sure you think everyone is as gullible as you appear to be with your DNC talking points. You would have more credibility if you just admitted you made a specious claim about John McCain.

You deliberately infer that it includes ALL Americans. I find the weak attempt to impugn the McCain as being anti-Constitutional to be another desperate partisan hack job lacking in intellectual honesty and containing nothing more than distortions, lies and hyperbole.



Obviously you are wallowing in denial because it absolutely refutes your original FALSE assertion: "And McCain supports suspending habeas corpus for American citizens."

Again it begs the question, what part of "enemy combatants" do you not comprehend?


And multiple times I have explained that I have never suggested that any clause in the Constitution claims that foreign aid is part of the federal Governments duties.

Maybe you should learn to READ and COMPREHEND what is being typed instead of projecting it into arguments no one has made?

Perhaps if you were not acting as a DNC partisan hack, you could set aside your own profound political bias and blinders and actually attempt to understand what is being stated?

Stop deflecting to arguments I haven't made and admit you made a patently FALSE and specious claim about John McCain when you typed: "And McCain supports suspending habeas corpus for American citizens."

Think you can manage that? Here let me write it out for you so that you can comprehend the difference; "And McCain supports suspending habeas corpus for American citizens who have been determined to be ENEMY COMBATANTS."

Your desperate denial has been noted. Carry on, I will leave you with the last word because credible honest and intellectual debate is perhaps beyond your abilities.

Objective Voice

No, Jerry was being attacked for trolling. Big difference.

Like Hatuey, I, also, came to this thread because I wanted to know what this reference to an Alaskan bridge project was all about. And to answer his initial question, yes, it is an issue because it shows two things about Palin the few are discusing:

1) As Alaska's governer, she will fight to earmark funds for her state at every turn...until doing so no longer suits her agenda. (Of course, isn't this true of all politicians?) Point here is she's claiming she's against earmarking government funds when clearly she was all for it not too long ago.

2) She'll be made to look like a flip-flopper or at the very least someone who only goes after the hot botton issues and not anything substantial when it truly matters, i.e., all the talk of going after issues for the Alaskian people will be made to look like she only cares for "agenda items". So far, the dems have been proven right about her. Still, I'll give the lady credit. She's fiesty...not to mention a deffinent looker!

As to the overall issue of Obama's earmarks -vs- Palin's, from what I can tell the majority of the funds Obama has requested were in line with strengthening areas of Homeland Security in and around Chicago and for community outreach/improvement issues which is what politicians are suppose to do, whereas Palin's objective seems to be obtain as much federal dollars for pet projects as she can so Alaskan's won't have to pay for it. Again, you can make that arguement for every state in the Union, except when "your" state has a substantial surplus of funds, it paints you as it's representitive in a rather dim light to seak additional funding (even through a 3rd party) for something you can easily afford to pay for yourself in whole or in part.