would you vote for a jewish or muslim President of the U.S.?

[Francis king]

a president or a prime minister is but a token, a figurehead, a sweetener for the ppl, someone to blame and dispose of when it all goes wrong...

personally, I would not want an overly religious anything running my country- you want to play religion? be a priest...

[path_of_one]

Unfortunately at this point, the US president is not just a figurehead. He mucks things up plenty and has 1/3 of our Federal government's powers.

I'm still where I was at on p.1 several years ago, by the way. Could care less about religious affiliation. Heck, I know some atheists I'd feel more comfy with in office than our current president. I still just want someone who is intelligent, informed, dedicated to humanitarian and environmental causes, will uphold our rights, etc. If they can fit the bill and agree to serve the nation (not themselves or their religion), I don't care about their religion.

[gp1628]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Get ready to lose your hands, and feet...Sharia law is not kind.

Then get dumped on the street to pan handle...which is another violation...it just keeps getting better....

Heehee. Thats like saying we would be stoned in the street because Bush is so pro-christian.

A muslim president would not make this a muslim-run country anymore than it has been a christian-run country in the past. It has been dangerously close to it but not to the extreme.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by gp1628

Heehee. Thats like saying we would be stoned in the street because Bush is so pro-christian.

A muslim president would not make this a muslim-run country anymore than it has been a christian-run country in the past. It has been dangerously close to it but not to the extreme.

Stand for something my friend, or fall for anything. I do not accept Sharia philosophy. I will not vote for a person who cannot embrace in totality, our constitutional law.

Because Bush is so pro-christian is precisely why no one is stoned.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Francis king

a president or a prime minister is but a token, a figurehead, a sweetener for the ppl, someone to blame and dispose of when it all goes wrong...

personally, I would not want an overly religious anything running my country- you want to play religion? be a priest...

In the US, the president is the executive branch of a three branch government. There is nothing "token" about the executive branch of our government. I would want a strongly faith based human (faith in Judeao/Christian ways), in charge as our number one servant. The reason is simple, we can see him or her coming for miles. No surprises.

That is one reason why I love this nation of mine, so dearly.

[Francis king]

presidents come and go...

policies change...

who owns the power doesn't...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Francis king

presidents come and go...

policies change...

who owns the power doesn't...

In my home land, my friend, that would be "We the people..."

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

In the US, the president is the executive branch of a three branch government. There is nothing "token" about the executive branch of our government. I would want a strongly faith based human (faith in Judeao/Christian ways), in charge as our number one servant. The reason is simple, we can see him or her coming for miles. No surprises.

That is one reason why I love this nation of mine, so dearly.

Ok, there is the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. But then you also have the Armed Forces.

One of the most important concepts in a democracy is the separation of powers. True, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are "separated." The Judiciary and the Legislature (to some extent) are independent of the Executive.

But what about the Armed Forces? This is where the notion of the separation of powers is violated. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the country's forces. This was why it was so easy to declare war on Iraq. The President should not have the power to declare war. In the same way that the Judiciary is independent of the Executive, the Armed Forces should also be independent of the Executive. The Head of the Armed Forces (as opposed to the President) should have the right to disregard instructions from the President and decide not to go to war. Let judges be judges. Let generals be generals.

The Armed Forces should be restrained by a civilian entity, but not controlled by it, particularly in a country like the U.S. where you have a large military industrial complex. Nor should the Military/Armed Forces be allowed to go to war or engage in military operations unilaterally. They must receive instructions from a civilian authority. The Armed Forces should perhaps be given instructions from the Judiciary and Legislature. This would add some self-control to a trigger-happy military industrial complex.

No, the system you have in the U.S. could be better. You need an Independent Military. What you need is some extra red tape. You need to set up more legal barriers to war.

If war is so important, then you should consult your judges and lawyers about it in case you (the Executive) are sued for damages. They should make it possible for Iraqi victims to sue George W. Bush for negligence. George better go and speak to his lawyers.

You're probably going to tell me the President doesn't need to speak to his lawyers about his conduct during the war. Well then, you have a President who has too much power. His conduct is not even reviewed by the Supreme Court. He's got immunity. Of all the offices in the country, at least one of them won't be the victim of a law suit over negligence. For some reason the President has special privileges. Nah, someone else further down in the hierachy gets busted. Some soldier who didn't believe in the war.....

You can commit manslaughter against your friend in a foreign country and be fined, but if your President does that, he may be heavily criticised, but he won't be fined.

I don't call that justice. Somewhere in your political system there is no justice. Someone is getting away with injustice. Is national security more important than justice?

Strike first? Pull the trigger, ask questions later?

Yes you have impressive weapons, but power should be used responsibly. You can eliminate enemy combatants faster and more efficiently, but this is also an opportunity to minimise unnecessary deaths. Be more responsible in war. If you can't do that, don't go to war.

The Executive is being fined $200 billion for damages due to negligent acts in war. As for you Mr. President, you're fired......all your stuff has to be out by Monday morning. You've become a liability.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Ok, there is the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. But then you also have the Armed Forces.

One of the most important concepts in a democracy is the separation of powers. True, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are "separated." The Judiciary and the Legislature (to some extent) are independent of the Executive.

But what about the Armed Forces? This is where the notion of the separation of powers is violated. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the country's forces. This was why it was so easy to declare war on Iraq. The President should not have the power to declare war. In the same way that the Judiciary is independent of the Executive, the Armed Forces should also be independent of the Executive. The Head of the Armed Forces (as opposed to the President) should have the right to disregard instructions from the President and decide not to go to war. Let judges be judges. Let generals be generals.

The Armed Forces should be restrained by a civilian entity, but not controlled by it, particularly in a country like the U.S. where you have a large military industrial complex. Nor should the Military/Armed Forces be allowed to go to war or engage in military operations unilaterally. They must receive instructions from a civilian authority. The Armed Forces should perhaps be given instructions from the Judiciary and Legislature. This would add some self-control to a trigger-happy military industrial complex.

No, the system you have in the U.S. could be better. You need an Independent Military. What you need is some extra red tape. You need to set up more legal barriers to war.

If war is so important, then you should consult your judges and lawyers about it in case you (the Executive) are sued for damages. They should make it possible for Iraqi victims to sue George W. Bush for negligence. George better go and speak to his lawyers.

You're probably going to tell me the President doesn't need to speak to his lawyers about his conduct during the war. Well then, you have a President who has too much power. His conduct is not even reviewed by the Supreme Court. He's got immunity. Of all the offices in the country, at least one of them won't be the victim of a law suit over negligence. For some reason the President has special privileges. Nah, someone else further down in the hierachy gets busted. Some soldier who didn't believe in the war.....

You can commit manslaughter against your friend in a foreign country and be fined, but if your President does that, he may be heavily criticised, but he won't be fined.

I don't call that justice. Somewhere in your political system there is no justice. Someone is getting away with injustice. Is national security more important than justice?

Strike first? Pull the trigger, ask questions later?

Yes you have impressive weapons, but power should be used responsibly. You can eliminate enemy combatants faster and more efficiently, but this is also an opportunity to minimise unnecessary deaths. Be more responsible in war. If you can't do that, don't go to war.

The Executive is being fined $200 billion for damages due to negligent acts in war. As for you Mr. President, you're fired......all your stuff has to be out by Monday morning. You've become a liability.

Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge of my government. But there is something you forgot. In this country, "Marshall law" can only be invoked by the Executive branch. This means the military can do nothing unless ordered to do so by the proper authority. Second, the Constitution forbids the Department of Defense to act against the citizens of this nation. It is called "posse comitatus". this means that though a citizen, military members are subject to the populace of the nation's authority.

Also, the president is a mouth piece for the people he/she represents, that is US. So, if you must point a finger, point at "We the People..." We allowed this to happen. We are to blame, not those that represent us. Because in this country, "We the People" can stop something in a New York second. We've done it before.

Finally, a Muslim President would be at odds with the established law of our land. He/she has no choice in the matter. To counter his/her beliefs would be in direct violation of Sharia. Not going to happen, unless one is a non practicing Muslim, or a moderate, which according to Islam, is the same thing as being an infidel.

Good debate Salt.

v/r

Q

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

....Second, the Constitution forbids the Department of Defense to act against the citizens of this nation....To counter his/her beliefs would be in direct violation of Sharia. Not going to happen, unless one is a non practicing Muslim, or a moderate, which according to Islam, is the same thing as being an infidel....

Namaste Q,

Too funny it reminds me of the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" where the priests are telling the crusaders "Killing an infidel is not a sin!!" (hehe I suppose they were referring to moderates) Again, all Muslims and all predominately muslim states do not follow Sharia law. If they did they would have issues residing in this country, I haven't read about any hands being cut off or folks being stoned despite the number of practicing Muslims here.

Lastly back to the first half of the part I quoted. Surely you remember Kent State?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Q,

Too funny it reminds me of the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" where the priests are telling the crusaders "Killing an infidel is not a sin!!" (hehe I suppose they were referring to moderates) Again, all Muslims and all predominately muslim states do not follow Sharia law. If they did they would have issues residing in this country, I haven't read about any hands being cut off or folks being stoned despite the number of practicing Muslims here.

Lastly back to the first half of the part I quoted. Surely you remember Kent State?

I find nothing funny about the "ignorance" the citizens have about the basic laws of the country they live in. I also find it grotesque when fun is poked at it.

How about you?

[Quahom1]

Kent state...ohio, when the Governor of that state used his guardsman to conduct an illegal act and 7 people died because of it...yes I remember.

[wil]

lol, yes you obviously missed the ramifications that ensued. Look it up. I expect a report in the morning.

Gonna listen to me? Didn't think so.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

lol, yes you obviously missed the ramifications that ensued. Look it up. I expect a report in the morning.

Gonna listen to me? Didn't think so.

Uh oh, something has gone terribly wrong here. Your thought are gone, and mine are listed as yours...I don't get that one.

[Quahom1]

This is what Wil said: I appreciate humor. I have issues with those that like to poke fun at other nations, peoples and nationalities, yet cannot take it themselves, something I should work on I suppose. I also like to look at all events with an open mind and try to see it from all sides. And I do find the ignorance found in many of our laws funny, funny and sad.quote=Quahom1;140545]Kent state...ohio, when the Governor of that state used his guardsman to conduct an illegal act and 7 people died because of it...yes I remember.[/quote]So I take it I missed it when the Governor and Guardsmen and officers in the chain of command were jailed for murder, not to mention constitutional violations?
***************