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.
For those who support Obama I have a few questions.
Does his extension of the Patriot Act concern you?
Does the NDAA (indefinite detainment) concern you?
Does the justification to use deadly force via drones against U.S. citizens overseas concern you?
{snip}
Yes it does. They say Obama can kill you if you work with al Qaeda, but it's easy enough to add any name or group to that list, as long as our politicians and bureaucrats thinks the group is a danger to them.
The example Limbaugh gave of Nixon killing the leaders in the Weathermen, or the Black Panther party, might just be envisioned as applicable to this new line of thinking.
If we do not need a trail before we pronounce a death penalty on you, do we need a trail to prove you and your organization are guilty of being a threat in the first place? In other words, can Obama and his lieutenants decide you, or your group are a threat, and that you must be killed, all without a trial?
Look at ruby ridge under Clinton, this new authorization would have allowed Clinton to just blow the place up and be done with it. Threat identified, threat eliminated, all without that messy freedom and civil rights crap getting in the way.
Yes it does. They say Obama can kill you if you work with al Qaeda, but it's easy enough to add any name or group to that list, as long as our politicians and bureaucrats thinks the group is a danger to them.
The example Limbaugh gave of Nixon killing the leaders in the Weathermen, or the Black Panther party, might just be envisioned as applicable to this new line of thinking.
If we do not need a trail before we pronounce a death penalty on you, do we need a trail to prove you and your organization are guilty of being a threat in the first place? In other words, can Obama and his lieutenants decide you, or your group are a threat, and that you must be killed, all without a trial?
Look at ruby ridge under Clinton, this new authorization would have allowed Clinton to just blow the place up and be done with it. Threat identified, threat eliminated, all without that messy freedom and civil rights crap getting in the way.
Let's just go over what they claim they can do. They don't say they can't kill you here. They don't say they must reveal any info on who they did kill. They don't say who can "decide" is not subject to change on their whim.. They don't say that what they claim they do is legally binding. They claim they can do anything they want in the name of some Presidential power. Anything. If they are letting us know anything, it's because they are such good guys. Nothing of what they do is subject to review from any other Branch, unless they feel like giving the info out.
It's shocking that this is being considered. If there was any justice, Obama and his cult who started this policy would be given a fair trial, convicted, and spend the rest of their lives in prison.
They won't because the Nation's government is rotten. My only agreement with the NRA. Yes, government can get so corrupt and lawless that citizens need guns to fight real, genuine tyranny, when it comes. And letting elites break the constitution is just huge leap in that direction.
Last edited by padcrasher; 02-07-2013 at 12:32 PM..
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,002 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
This is a slippery slope situation. We are killing someone based on: association. what they might do in the future. But the "moral outrage" puzzles me given that babies in the birth canal can be dismembered legally. So what next in this morality play? One day we perhaps will have death committees that will start off helping our most seriously ill to die (I'm for that if the person wants it) but then it will lead to no choice in the matter. And it is also puzzling to me how we really care if an American citizen is knocked off versus a wedding party in Pakistan or Afghanistan. All of this is situation ethics, situation morality. We are ok with what we believe is right and not ok with what we believe is wrong. Who sets the standard? Typically, we have allowed the courts to establish standards on all sorts of things. They will do this one as well. Quite a slide down though. Wonder what things will look like at the end of the ride?
Thanks Ollie.
I believe those are very interesting comments which touch upon principles underlying all these issues.
Their is a definite relationship between principles and values, which show the values our country which represents us, express. Are we comfortable with this?
I appreciated another's comment where they noted 'concern' is an appropriate adjective as these are complex issues and not as simple colored black or white as many in opposing parties paint them. (me often included)
A. give me the names of the scholars so I can research that.
So what, we can post competing list of legal scholars. This isn't going to be won or lost based upon on who has the most scholars on their side (see the scholarly betting on Obamacare) but seven men and maybe two women (Sotomayor might recuse herself) and until then the program will continue.
Quote:
B. You should look up what Godwin himself (he's still alive) said about "Godwin's Law" and see how foolish you are.
... takes deep sigh, and brushes the bugs off his shoulder.
For those who support Obama I have a few questions.
Does his extension of the Patriot Act concern you?
Does the NDAA (indefinite detainment) concern you?
Does the justification to use deadly force via drones against U.S. citizens overseas concern you?
Do you see an authoritarian side to President Obama or do you believe this is just exaggeration and political slant/bias?
For those who oppose Obama I have a few questions.
Did the creation of the Patriot Act concern you?
Do you believe expansion of the Executive Branch under Bush was wise?
Do you believe the long term military occupation of foreign sovereign nations is justified?
Do you believe the continued militarization of domestic police under the guise of War on Drugs is wise?
For both groups.
Do you think powers granted under one parties administration will not be used/exploited by the other party?
Do you truly believe either party is concerned with limiting government encroachment upon civil liberties?
I support the GOP right now because I see it currently as the lesser of two evils, however I don't really see much difference between the parties in regards to the expansion of government authority, the indiscriminate growth of spending and the promotion of international interests over domestic business.
I didn't like the Patriot Act to begin with. It completely flushed Due Process. I like it less when drones are involved.
During Clinton administration JaNUT Reno came down very hard on American citizens in Waco and with the Cuban boy Elian.
Big tanks and guns used against Americans..
During Bush administration Bush had a situation come up , another Waco..
Bush administration waited it out and no one hurt.
Democrats are harder on American citizens and use powerful weapons to save face in adversity situations and because of that history I don't trust them regarding our personal freedoms .
I don't care if you're a putative American citizen or not. If you're waging war on my country from foreign soil, I hope you get a drone missile up your ass.
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.
