Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hitler came into power as the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful..........
simple things like 'nationalizing' corporations, removing the guns from the people,,blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists'),,duty of the state(government) to PROVIDE for the people,,division of profits (redistribution of wealth), nationalized health care, ,......,,, DO THESE SOUND FAMILIAR, YES THEY ARE THE TALKING POINTS OF THE DNC AND MOVEON.ORG...............THEY ARE ALSO PART OF HITLERS 25 POINTS
He (Hitler) was also a great orator, very charismatic, and a Narcissist.
Sound like anyone we know????? obama
Up until ww2, fascist and progressives were the same thing....But they dropped the term fascist due to public outcry and stuck with the term progressive ever since. Aside from being a complete nut of a dictator, Hitler had extremely liberal political policies and highly regulatory government agencies. He even had unviersal health care.
"National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a new world order." ...hitler
"This year will go down in history. For the first time,
a civilised nation has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler
Do you support state legislation to: ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?.... Yes....obama...1996
hmm hitler the candidate of Hope and change..and so was obama
Last edited by workingclasshero; 10-06-2011 at 12:33 PM..
Your argument doesn't hold water as the place for constitutionality to be challenged is in the supreme court, and most of the death penalty cases end up there. Thus their deaths are perfectly constitutional.
So, to be able to kill an individual is constitutional?
Quote:
My problem isn't with a scumbag being killed, my problem is with Obama abusing his executive powers. It is the same problem I had with Bush abusing his executive powers. This sets a very dangerous precedent.
How exactly did Obama abuse his power? That he did not order ground troops, put Americans at risk, to capture him alive? You might want to consider WHY he had to make the decision. And WHY Awlaki was where he was and did not care a bit to exercise his rights. Yet, you worry more about his rights than he clearly did for himself.
And you still haven't explained why you put Awlaki's death right along the lines of the victims of holocaust, hence attempting to draw a parallel between Obama and Hitler. Would you mind at least trying?
How about I play this card:
Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html - broken link)
"They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process."
This is executive power that is out of control. That's the comparison to Hitler. Whether you like it or not-- the fact that Obama can order US citizens be executed is very similar to dictatorships. This is just fact.
How about this for a Fact, you are defending a known terrorists.
I didn't ever say I supported that scumbag. Try again. Listen-- it is about the abuse of executive power.
It is NOT OKAY in America to PICK AND CHOOSE when to follow the constitution. You must think it is?
No I didn't take your comments out of context. What would you have done? Answer that first. Nobody is picking and choosing when to follow the constitution. Cops kill american citizens everyday they perceive to be threats. Is that unconstitutional too?
He ignored the 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
This sets a precedent that it is okay to assassinate US citizens without giving them a trial.
Once again, it isn't about how bad the man-- it is about ignoring the constitution.
hitler came into power as the candidate of 'hope and change',, his plans slowly moved from being helpful to dreadful..........
:
He (Hitler) was also a great orator, very charismatic, and a Narcissist.
Sound like anyone we know?????
Ronald Reagan. Not sure though, if Hitler preached God and Christianity more or less than Reagan. We do know that neither was a fan of liberalism and communism.
No I didn't take your comments out of context. What would you have done? Answer that first. Nobody is picking and choosing when to follow the constitution. Cops kill american citizens everyday they perceive to be threats. Is that unconstitutional too?
He should have been extradited to the US, given a trial. He probably would have been sentenced to death-- but that is up to the courts to decide (not Obama).
He ignored the 5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
This sets a precedent that it is okay to assassinate US citizens without giving them a trial.
Once again, it isn't about how bad the man-- it is about ignoring the constitution.
The Fifth Amendment is actually a bit longer than you quoted. Here it is in its entirety:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Now, do you expect an American firing back (in whichever capacity) at Americans to be protected and not be killed because that can't be done due to fifth amendment? And don't forget to share your idea about how the military and the President was supposed to bring the "citizen" to justice.
Still waiting to hear why you thought that there was no difference between holocaust victims and Awlaki.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 10-06-2011 at 11:55 AM..
Now, do you expect an American firing back (in whichever capacity) at Americans to be protected and not be killed because that can't be done due to fifth amendment?
Oh was there a gunfight that caused the death? Last I checked he was hit with predator drones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Still waiting to hear why you thought that there was no difference between holocaust victims and Awlaki.
Of course there is no comparison between awlaki and holocaust victims. The comparison is between Obama ordering assassinations and Hitler ordering assassinations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
