Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So we learn in American Civics, presidents of the United States have more control in the foreign field than they do domestically. Certainly we see this with former President W when we compare his eight years with Obama's three.

Is Obama's promise of change wrapped in red tape, bouncing from Congress to pork barrels to committees? Or is he just not trying hard enough?

I, personally find it hard to believe that such an idealist has been shut down.

What do you think?

are you really suggesting that Obama is a peaceful president? Or that his ideology is underlined by a desire for peace?

I was unsure about that position, as well.


Obama may be considered every bit as violent and bad as Bush because of Bin Laden and that other dude he had killed...and his campaign in Afghanistan...


It's hard to call Obama peaceful in light of those. He's no different than Bush and in some regards he's worse because he killed two dudes via orders.



And he also lied/redacted his ideas about pulling out of Iraq super quick and closing down Guantanamo. So that would make him worse...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Obama may be considered every bit as violent and bad as Bush because of Bin Laden and that other dude he had killed...and his campaign in Afghanistan...

The CIA is currently active in over 100 nations, an expansion thanks to Obama. They have a "murder list" that contains the names of American citizens, like that "other dude", who are to be killed with no due process. Not to mention the treatment of Bradley Manning or the expansion of the war on drugs to now target legal medicinal marijuana dispensaries in California.

America is actively now, under Obama, waging war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and the administration is trying to use the "Iranian plot" to foment support for action in Iran and along the Mexican border.

not being critical of what you said, I just honestly feel that Obama is a very militant leader. It might be hard to compare to Bush because of apples and oranges, but man... if you think he is peaceful (i know you don't) you might be an ostrich

EDIT: whoops, forgot Libya

j.e.s.u.s.c.h.r.i.s.t.

ZTL9GJ7g9KM

so ya, if anyone thinks obama is a peaceful president, ive got something they can put in their mouth

Originally posted by inimalist
The CIA is currently active in over 100 nations, an expansion thanks to Obama. They have a "murder list" that contains the names of American citizens, like that "other dude", who are to be killed with no due process. Not to mention the treatment of Bradley Manning or the expansion of the war on drugs to now target legal medicinal marijuana dispensaries in California.

America is actively now, under Obama, waging war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and the administration is trying to use the "Iranian plot" to foment support for action in Iran and along the Mexican border.

not being critical of what you said, I just honestly feel that Obama is a very militant leader. It might be hard to compare to Bush because of apples and oranges, but man... if you think he is peaceful (i know you don't) you might be an ostrich

EDIT: whoops, forgot Libya

I don't think you're being critical of what I said. I think you're making my point but with much more examples.


And that "other guy"...I'll never remember his name. Ever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you're being critical of what I said. I think you're making my point but with much more examples.


And that "other guy"...I'll never remember his name. Ever.

Anwar al-Awlaki

Originally posted by inimalist
Anwar al-Awlaki

'I read the name 5 times in my head, in a row.

Then looked away from the screen, and still could not remember it.

Four years is enough for the president we have now. I reather it be alot shorter.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Four years is enough for the president we have now. I reather it be alot shorter.

I agree really, the sad thing is that the alternatives are probably worse. Oh well, I guess the US is screwed for at least 4 more years. Lets hope it won't be too late to turn it around.

Sorry, let me clarify. I didn't mean "Peaceful," persay, but rather not actively seeking war. Or am I just talking out of my arse and need to do some more research.
My idea was based on FDR and how much he was able to do because he served so many terms - and then comparing that to W actively seeking war/ declaration of war without congress' permission, etc.
I hope this makes more sense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree really, the sad thing is that the alternatives are probably worse. Oh well, I guess the US is screwed for at least 4 more years. Lets hope it won't be too late to turn it around.
Bardock you live in Europe...

...don't you want Obama's cock or something?

Yes

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree really, the sad thing is that the alternatives are probably worse. Oh well, I guess the US is screwed for at least 4 more years. Lets hope it won't be too late to turn it around.

I am glad that someone argees with me and yea I hope not. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Bardock you live in Europe...

...don't you want Obama's cock or something?

Nah, has been up America's ass far too long.

America's future is grim, considering the fact that ALL of the forerunners in the presidential candidacy are nutters.
They're far worse than Bush Jr.

That said, I will be definitely moving to Canada next year.
I heard they have a huge Fil-Am community there.

Anyone from Canada here? Where's the warmest weather in Canada?

West Coast

Originally posted by siriuswriter
So we learn in American Civics, presidents of the United States have more control in the foreign field than they do domestically. Certainly we see this with former President W when we compare his eight years with Obama's three.

Is Obama's promise of change wrapped in red tape, bouncing from Congress to pork barrels to committees? Or is he just not trying hard enough?

I, personally find it hard to believe that such an idealist has been shut down.

What do you think?

Obama...a president for idiots...voted by idiots.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Sorry, let me clarify. I didn't mean "Peaceful," persay, but rather not actively seeking war. Or am I just talking out of my arse and need to do some more research.

There is a difference, sure, as in, Obama is much more willing to use the CIA and proxies to fight wars, much like was done prior to W. Bush. He isn't invading nations with ground troops like Bush did, but he doesn't shy away from violence.

And even in terms of the "troops on the ground" definition of war, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and will not be committing to a full pull-out from Iraq. He, with no congressional approval, began a bombing campaign in Libya, and his use of drone warfare is by far more illegal (under both American and international law) than were W. Bush's invasions.

So, in terms of "initiating-new-wars-specifically-defined-as-invading-with-ground-troops", no, Obama is not as "war-like" as Bush. In terms of using American military power, attacking foreign nations and flagrantly violating the rule of law, Obama has in fact expanded the Bush legacy and is now operating in a much more militaristic fashion than Bush ever did.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
My idea was based on FDR and how much he was able to do because he served so many terms - and then comparing that to W actively seeking war/ declaration of war without congress' permission, etc.
I hope this makes more sense.

Sure, and there are some valid arguments against term limits. However, I think you have pointed to a poor example of a president who "just needs more time"

It is incorrect to think that Obama isn't getting what he wants in terms of policy. He has capitulated to Republican and "right-of-center" interests from day one. This idea that he is being held back by republican intransigence is a talking point he is using on the campaign trail; it does not reflect reality at all.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Obama...a president for idiots...voted by idiots.

I agree with you that Obama is a bad president. But what makes him bad are the decisions he makes that are in line with what Republicans want of him. So Obama may have been a bad choice, but likely still better than McCain, who would have done at least the same.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with you that Obama is a bad president. But what makes him bad are the decisions he makes that are in line with what Republicans want of him. So Obama may have been a bad choice, but likely still better than McCain, who would have done at least the same.

Good points.


Here are the things I think he did bad or morally wrong:

1. Wars (lol)
2. Not withdrawing troops.
3. Not closing gitmo.
4. Neutering his healthcare plan.
5. Not repealing the temporary tax breaks on the rich and/or reforming taxes.
6. Giving orders to kill a US citizen.




Those are all republican pushed policies/changes.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Sorry, let me clarify. I didn't mean "Peaceful," persay, but rather not actively seeking war. Or am I just talking out of my arse and need to do some more research.
My idea was based on FDR and how much he was able to do because he served so many terms - and then comparing that to W actively seeking war/ declaration of war without congress' permission, etc.
I hope this makes more sense. Actively sought war in Libya.

Originally posted by inimalist
West Coast
You are staying in Manitoba right now, rite? How is the weather conditions there? And how fast/how much is the 3.5G/4G there?

On second thought, Canada is headed by Queen Elizabeth.

I hate monarchy. **** those useless kings and queens.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
On second thought, Canada is headed by Queen Elizabeth.

I hate monarchy. **** those useless kings and queens. But their profiles look so dapper on our money.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
On second thought, Canada is headed by Queen Elizabeth.

I hate monarchy. **** those useless kings and queens.

bhyYgnhhKFw


Though, I suppose that doesn't help Canada.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
On second thought, Canada is headed by Queen Elizabeth.

I hate monarchy. **** those useless kings and queens. You do realise that it's pretty much a constatutional monarchy. QE2 has no real power here in the UK... and absolutely none in Canada. She's just a tourist attraction.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Obama...a president for idiots...voted by idiots.

Lets hope the same idiots don't vote for him again.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Lets hope the same idiots don't vote for him again. But do you think Herman Cain would be better? Do you think Rick Perry would be better?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But do you think Herman Cain would be better? Do you think Rick Perry would be better?
I think Mitt Romney would potentially be much better (or potentially much worse).

Too bad the Republican party is too stupid to realize he's the only candidate who really has a prayer of swaying independent voters.

It's like they don't realize that they only account for 25-30% of all voters and their candidates win elections based on how well they appeal to moderates and independents.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Mitt Romney would potentially be much better (or potentially much worse).

Too bad the Republican party is too stupid to realize he's the only candidate who really has a prayer of swaying independent voters.

It's like they don't realize that they only account for 25-30% of all voters and their candidates win elections based on how well they appeal to moderates and independents.

I think Romney is going to win the nomination. I just put Cain and Perry cause they are insane.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Mitt Romney would potentially be much better (or potentially much worse).

Too bad the Republican party is too stupid to realize he's the only candidate who really has a prayer of swaying independent voters.

It's like they don't realize that they only account for 25-30% of all voters and their candidates win elections based on how well they appeal to moderates and independents.
With 1/3rd of republicans saying they will never vote for a Mormon, whatever independent voters he may bring is a lost cause.

Sad...Obama is going to be a one term president because he's faced unprecedented pushback from republicans even when he includes their own fukin ideas in legislation. George II never got this treatment...Dubbya was barely a barely literate, treason committing bastard who purposely invaded the wrong country after 9/11 when it was common knowledge the hijackers were Saudis. He stole 2 elections and used the most horrific act ever on american soil to kick off 2 wars to make his posse even more filthy rich. I fully expected him to use his "Emperor" authority granted by the Patriot Act to stay in a third term but was thankfully spared from having to see him on the tube any more (at least on a regular basis). Idiots supported him like he was a godsend when in truth he made it very hard for intellectuals to respect the office of the president.

But Obama's the idiot president right? GTFOH...to quote a great american, "Republicans played hide and seek with Bin Laden fort 10 years and lost". Obama got him. He's consistently killed top terrorist leaders with air strikes even before he got Momar. Under Obama, U.S. intelligence has thwarted every attempt to hurt us on our soil since he took office, shoe bombers included. People are actually bitching about him killing an american who'd committed treason against the U.S. and couldn't be bought to justice when they would've applauded Dubbya for the all of the above.

Even though I believe Obama won't win reelection due to the economy, I can't wait to go vote in the general election anyway. And if ole Herman is your nominee, I'm gonna pull up a lawn chair just to enjoy the anguish on the face of closet racists who have to choose between not voting or voting for "one a em"

huh, I had heard about such Obama cock riding, but had yet to come across it first hand...

Originally posted by inimalist
huh, I had heard about such Obama cock riding, but had yet to come across it first hand... Haha, sounds dirty.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Haha, sounds dirty.

and just like porn, it moves from entertaining to saddening when you realize it is someone's kid

:P

I joke, I joke

Originally posted by dadudemon

6. Giving orders to kill a US citizen.

I'm still unclear on that whole issue. Isn't it okay to kill someone engaging in rebellion according to the law?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm still unclear on that whole issue. Isn't it okay to kill someone engaging in rebellion according to the law? Yeah.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm still unclear on that whole issue. Isn't it okay to kill someone engaging in rebellion according to the law?

The US government has provided no evidence about Al-Awlaki's connection to terrorism or rebellion.

in fact, the US government does not officially acknowledge that there is a drone program in the first place.

Any "news" you have heard about Al-Awlaki's connection to terrorism comes from "leaks" from official government sources to friendly reporters.

The issue is that it was done with absolutely no process at all, and the government refuses to acknowledge what Al-Awlaki has done, show their evidence against him, or provide any justification for their actions other than through anonymous leaks to press sources that are happy to repeat them unquestioningly.

There is an argument to be made about the specifics we know in the case, but ultimately, the problem is one of accountability in terms of how America deals with its own citizens. Without knowing the evidence, how can we be sure Al-Awlaki was really an insurgent and not just a radical who deserves his right to freedom of speech?

Originally posted by Darth Creasy
Sad...Obama is going to be a one term president because he's faced unprecedented pushback from republicans even when he includes their own fukin ideas in legislation. George II never got this treatment...Dubbya was barely a barely literate, treason committing bastard who purposely invaded the wrong country after 9/11 when it was common knowledge the hijackers were Saudis. He stole 2 elections and used the most horrific act ever on american soil to kick off 2 wars to make his posse even more filthy rich. I fully expected him to use his "Emperor" authority granted by the Patriot Act to stay in a third term but was thankfully spared from having to see him on the tube any more (at least on a regular basis). Idiots supported him like he was a godsend when in truth he made it very hard for intellectuals to respect the office of the president.
This is why people have no respect for the democrats these days. Like you said, the Republicans blocked everything Obama did, even when they were the extreme minority. Meanwhile, the democrats failed to significantly oppose Bush, even when they controlled congress. When he was in the senate Obama did absolutely nothing to lead them against Bush, and now he can't lead democrats to pass bills when they have a supermajority!

If complete intransigence can stop a strong president, why the **** didn't the democrats do that to Bush! They are bought losers for the most part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was unsure about that position, as well.


Obama may be considered every bit as violent and bad as Bush because of Bin Laden and that other dude he had killed...and his campaign in Afghanistan...


It's hard to call Obama peaceful in light of those. He's no different than Bush and in some regards he's worse because he killed two dudes via orders.



And he also lied/redacted his ideas about pulling out of Iraq super quick and closing down Guantanamo. So that would make him worse...

Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

Originally posted by Stoic
Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.
Obama has created his own shyt as well and failed to clean up that that was left before him.

Originally posted by Stoic
Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

when has obama acted to turn back bush era policies, especially with regard to military matters?

Originally posted by inimalist
when has obama acted to turn back bush era policies, especially with regard to military matters?


I forget exactly what law Bush signed into effect just before he left office, but it was done in such a way that it could not be overturned until after a certain amount of time. Perhaps there is someone else out there that can put what I am saying into better terms.

Originally posted by Stoic
Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

The issue is that he's created a lot of new stuff. Drone assassinations are basically all Obama. Bush used them, sure, but he made them into a common tool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Obama has created his own shyt as well and failed to clean up that that was left before him.

Obama's hands are tied on many things, and he has been voted down time and again, on things that would help people like health insurance, but the big ballers or 1% aim to make sure that things like that will never happen. The republican party are at fault here too, maybe moreso than Obama. Everything done by them is to discredit the President. People say that he needs to act, and do something, and when he does, he is outvoted. Was it Obama's fault when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fell apart at the seams?

Why the hell shouldn't the rich pay the same percentage in taxes as the impoverished, or middle class? They certainly aren't creating jobs onshore, but rather outsourcing jobs overseas, and ruining peoples lives to place billions more in their pockets that help them do absolutely nothing.

Obama tried to push for clean energy, and what happened? The Republicans help the rich, place the burden of debt, and all sorts of other things that we don't know of on the poor to middle class. Good luck buying a house these days because the age of keeping a job for more than 5 years is over.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The issue is that he's created a lot of new stuff. Drone assassinations are basically all Obama. Bush used them, sure, but he made them into a common tool.


The US needs to stay out of other peoples back yard, but when that happens other countries decide to call on whom to help bail them out? When a typhoon hits who is sending massive amounts of aid? Would it be better to send troops in and have them risk life and limb, or does drones seem to be a far safer approach? You can't blame Obama for the rise in technology. Shit maybe if the people running around walking into weddings strapped with tnt realize that drones may ruin their day, perhaps they'll think twice about killing in the name of....

Originally posted by Stoic
The US needs to stay out of other peoples back yard, but when that happens other countries decide to call on whom to help bail them out? When a typhoon hits who is sending massive amounts of aid? Would it be better to send troops in and have them risk life and limb, or does drones seem to be a far safer approach? You can't blame Obama for the rise in technology. Shit maybe if the people running around walking into weddings strapped with tnt realize that drones may ruin their day, perhaps they'll think twice about killing in the name of....

That's a really scary argument.

We might help them some day so its okay for us to kill their innocent citizens? No I don't think I'm going to accept that.

People who are planning to die in explosions that kill innocent people aren't usually worried about dying in explosions that kill innocent people. Hell, I bet drone strikes are better for recruitment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a really scary argument.

We might help them some day so its okay for us to kill their innocent citizens? No I don't think I'm going to accept that.

People who are planning to die in explosions that kill innocent people aren't usually worried about dying in explosions that kill innocent people. Hell, I bet drone strikes are better for recruitment.


You do realize that being in the armed forces is a career, and that particular career helps to insure that you, me, and every other person that you know live in a free world right. Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary. There are those out there that would force their will on the world, and if these people aren't put in check there would be another bad situation for you to be concerned about, one far worse than what you see going on now.

Should I bring up the fact that women in those countries aren't allowed to drive without permission, and if they do, they are whipped? Obama is certainly not perfect, but do you think any president that will follow in his footsteps will be or do better?

Originally posted by Stoic
You do realize that being in the armed forces is a career, and that particular career helps to insure that you, me, and every other person that you know live in a free world right.

Thus we should let them kill and cripple innocent people? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.

Originally posted by Stoic
Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary.

Then explain why its necessary.

Originally posted by Stoic
There are those out there that would force their will on the world, and if these people aren't put in check there would be another bad situation for you to be concerned about, one far worse than what you see going on now.

There is no reason to think that the drone attacks are responsible for keeping them in check. In fact violating the airspace of sovereign nations to kill their citizens is probably making things worse.

Originally posted by Stoic
Should I bring up the fact that women in those countries aren't allowed to drive without permission, and if they do, they are whipped?

I'm not sure how killing them and pissing off their government does anything to improve that.

Originally posted by Stoic
Obama is certainly not perfect, but do you think any president that will follow in his footsteps will be or do better?

I really hope so.

Originally posted by Stoic
You do realize that being in the armed forces is a career, and that particular career helps to insure that you, me, and every other person that you know live in a free world right. Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary. There are those out there that would force their will on the world, and if these people aren't put in check there would be another bad situation for you to be concerned about, one far worse than what you see going on now.

Should I bring up the fact that women in those countries aren't allowed to drive without permission, and if they do, they are whipped? Obama is certainly not perfect, but do you think any president that will follow in his footsteps will be or do better?
There is nothing necessary about military adventurism in the Middle East. If anything all of our recent endeavors have only been haphazard attempts at fixing our past mistakes.

Do you believe that America should have been invaded during the 1950s for Jim Crow laws?

Obama is even worse than Bush on some issues. Bush ordered US citizens tortured, but Obama straight out executes them without trial. This was not something forced on Obama but something that was initiated at the highest levels of command with his full knowledge.

BTW, Obama was not "outvoted" on health care, he simply "couldn't" get over the Republican filibuster. When democrats controlled both house and senate. Why didn't Obama ever filibuster when Bush was president? We have seen nothing but weakness from Obama. Bush trounced the congressional majority while Obama let the minority push him around. What a failure.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There is nothing necessary about military adventurism in the Middle East. If anything all of our recent endeavors have only been haphazard attempts at fixing our past mistakes.

Do you believe that America should have been invaded during the 1950s for Jim Crow laws?

Who put America into the middle east? Who signed into legislature an agreement that would insure that the troops remained in the middle east for 3-4 years after his term was over?

Originally posted by Stoic
Who put America into the middle east?
Not Bush.

Goes back decades.

And besides, absolving Obama because Bush got us into this mess is as irrational as blaming it all on Obama because he's yet to get us out of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obama is even worse than Bush on some issues. Bush ordered US citizens tortured, but Obama straight out executes them without trial. This was not something forced on Obama but something that was initiated at the highest levels of command with his full knowledge.

BTW, Obama was not "outvoted" on health care, he simply "couldn't" get over the Republican filibuster. When democrats controlled both house and senate. Why didn't Obama ever filibuster when Bush was president? We have seen nothing but weakness from Obama. Bush trounced the congressional majority while Obama let the minority push him around. What a failure.

Dude.


You're mad about it.



I DO remember you supporting Obama back in 2008, so I guess it is understandable that you're upset over his fumbles and "wrongs"?

Sorry guys I have to bail. All I have to say is that if you guys know what residual income is, and how it works, Bush left residual bullshit for us to eat. Laterz

Originally posted by Stoic
I forget exactly what law Bush signed into effect just before he left office, but it was done in such a way that it could not be overturned until after a certain amount of time. Perhaps there is someone else out there that can put what I am saying into better terms.

so let me just get this clear

you think obama has failed to change any of bush's policies because he made up a law about them?

Originally posted by Stoic
Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary.

in what way was it necessary to kill, through a drone strike, Anwar Al-Awlaki?

I personally don't see why people care so much about killing that one Taliban dude who was American born. He was an ******* who was actively plotting the countries downfall at the time of his death, and who had already admitted to performing treasonous crimes.

Out of all the "illegal" things Obama/America has done, that ranks pretty high on the list of "forgivable due to being the only logical course of action".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
who was actively plotting the countries downfall at the time of his death,

based on?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
and who had already admitted to performing treasonous crimes.


source?

Originally posted by inimalist
based on?



source?

Both answers are "US Intelligence" or "US Government".


Which you won't accept as definitive proof.


So there's no point in him answering either of those questions.


However, we can use a third party source: Yemen. But I do not think that does much better to support the position that he was bad withOUT invoking the "killing party's" information as "proof".

You could just Google search his name and find something...but something tells me that you already know much more about this fella than I and you HAVE done so...which is why I concluded, above, what I did.

Originally posted by inimalist
based on?



source? Why are you asking me these questions? I'm 99.999% sure you're not an ignorant ****face, so I'm assuming you're going to lead me toward a revelation.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are you asking me these questions? I'm 99.999% sure you're not an ignorant ****face, so I'm assuming you're going to lead me toward a revelation.

well, think of it like this:

if the police arrest you and throw you in jail without any due process, that would be illegal, because you have the right to defend yourself against their accusations.

however, in the case of Al-Awlaki, there is no such evidence, there was no trial, it was all done in secret, and afaik America doesn't even officially recognize their drone program, let alone killing otherwise innocent people with them.

Yemen isn't an active warzone, and Al-Awlaki has the same protections any American would have.

Like, I suppose you could argue some sort of realpolitik in that whatever the government thinks is good for America is good, but then, the whole idea of freedom in the first place would be subordinate to that pragmatism. Otherwise, why is it ok that the state just killed him?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude.


You're mad about it.



I DO remember you supporting Obama back in 2008, so I guess it is understandable that you're upset over his fumbles and "wrongs"?
I'm mad because America is going to suffer greatly if he continues on this path. There are many things Obama could do to help improve the situation, and he isn't interested in fighting for them. He only fights for corporations. And this clown is trying to market himself to the Occupy crowd this campaign season. I hope they don't buy it.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, think of it like this:

if the police arrest you and throw you in jail without any due process, that would be illegal, because you have the right to defend yourself against their accusations.

however, in the case of Al-Awlaki, there is no such evidence, there was no trial, it was all done in secret, and afaik America doesn't even officially recognize their drone program, let alone killing otherwise innocent people with them.

Yemen isn't an active warzone, and Al-Awlaki has the same protections any American would have.

Like, I suppose you could argue some sort of realpolitik in that whatever the government thinks is good for America is good, but then, the whole idea of freedom in the first place would be subordinate to that pragmatism. Otherwise, why is it ok that the state just killed him?

I wrote a rather winded response to you here, but thinking about it, I think my point would be easier to get across if I kept it short and summarized. So,

If the dude wanted to be protected by American law, he shouldn't have tried to fight America. -shrug-

To that, you might point out that there is no real definitive proof that he was trying to fight America because he never received a trial. I'd respond to that by pointing out that because the justice system is imperfect, there would be no definitive proof he did or didn't do anything, regardless. So it doesn't really make a difference wither or not we killed him before or after giving him a trial, outside of the legal matter, which would be redundant since I already stated America acted illegally.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are you asking me these questions? I'm 99.999% sure you're not an ignorant ****face, so I'm assuming you're going to lead me toward a revelation.

I'd hope that if you can't answer these questions and aren't an ignorant ****face, you'd already have your revelation...

Well, you can put your fears to rest, as I knew what revelation he was going to produce; hence why I basically told him to just make his point and be done with it, as opposed to going through the motions.

the justice system is imperfect therefore we should not hold the government to any legal standard

I completely disagree with convicting someone without trial. What reason is there to do it, other than your evidence being insufficient in the first place?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm mad because America is going to suffer greatly if he continues on this path. There are many things Obama could do to help improve the situation, and he isn't interested in fighting for them. He only fights for corporations. And this clown is trying to market himself to the Occupy crowd this campaign season. I hope they don't buy it.

I do not disagree with you. You just seemed quite upset over Obama's "track record"/"performance." More so than others. I did not support Obama when he ran in '08. However, I did have certain expectations: pull out of Iraq, close gitmo, let the bush tax breaks expire for the rich, get a UHC plan (basically, something that would act like extending Medicare to all), and a couple of other items that I am forgetting.


As a non-supporter, I was not really upset. However, a supporter, understandably, should be quite upset. I was not taking the piss out of you: I just noticed you were upset with Obama and wanted your perspective.



Edit - I remember one of them: his green initiatives. I forget the specifics of his campaign promises on that, but it sounded like it was in the right direction. He did not really uphold those promises.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not disagree with you. You just seemed quite upset over Obama's "track record"/"performance." More so than others. I did not support Obama when he ran in '08. However, I did have certain expectations: pull out of Iraq, close gitmo, let the bush tax breaks expire for the rich, get a UHC plan (basically, something that would act like extending Medicare to all), and a couple of other items that I am forgetting.


As a non-supporter, I was not really upset. However, a supporter, understandably, should be quite upset. I was not taking the piss out of you: I just noticed you were upset with Obama and wanted your perspective.



Edit - I remember one of them: his green initiatives. I forget the specifics of his campaign promises on that, but it sounded like it was in the right direction. He did not really uphold those promises.
I did "support" him, but, only in the sense that I preferred him to McCain (much like I supported Kerry even though he was not anywhere close to what I wanted). I never volunteered or anything.

Green Initiatives, what a joke. How about how Obama treated his green adviser Van Jones? Now Biden says he doesn't even know who he is? Green initiatives are the farthest thing in the world from their minds.

BTW, you think i'm mad now, you should have heard me when Bush was president.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I did "support" him, but, only in the sense that I preferred him to McCain (much like I supported Kerry even though he was not anywhere close to what I wanted). I never volunteered or anything.

Green Initiatives, what a joke. How about how Obama treated his green adviser Van Jones? Now Biden says he doesn't even know who he is? Green initiatives are the farthest thing in the world from their minds.

I didn't vote in '08 because "none" was the option. Not even the green-party, independent, or even the front libertarian candidate were someone I would vote for.

And, I do not remember the specifics on the green inititives...only that my hopes were dashed shortly after election. I could go to political fact check and find the specifics, but it is really not worth it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, you think i'm mad now, you should have heard me when Bush was president.

lol


There are literally thousands of angry democrats (Angry at Obama) that voted for Obama. I do not see or hear about them (the angry voters) in any reasonable fashion except...on NPR and Fox News.

Originally posted by inimalist
the justice system is imperfect therefore we should not hold the government to any legal standard Wow, is that really what you believe? That's... kind of sad.

inimalist's lack of punctuation and enormous forehead always make it hard to tell when he's kidding.

As a general rule of principle, I don't take Canadians seriously. In this case though, I know what he's trying to do, but I'm not falling for his attempt to steer our discussion to a different subject.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
As a general rule of principle, I don't take Canadians seriously.

:c

haermm

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
inimalist's lack of punctuation and enormous forehead always make it hard to tell when he's kidding.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/EECummings_pd4.jpg

?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Wow, is that really what you believe? That's... kind of sad.

well like, at its base, you said you think it was illegal.

that you can accept that is fine, but the big deal about this case is that it was illegal and sort of sets a new precedence without any judicial or democratic oversight.

idk, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss on the issue. We don't seem to be disagreeing on anything factual /shrug

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
inimalist's lack of punctuation and enormous forehead always make it hard to tell when he's kidding.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/EECummings_pd4.jpg

?

when i reread posts, i often find the words i decide to capitalize much more interesting than those i dont. mainly, i just cant be bothered to hit the shift key

Originally posted by inimalist
well like, at its base, you said you think it was illegal.

that you can accept that is fine, but the big deal about this case is that it was illegal and sort of sets a new precedence without any judicial or democratic oversight.

idk, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss on the issue. We don't seem to be disagreeing on anything factual /shrug

Have you ever noticed that our discussions tend to follow a similar pattern?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Have you ever noticed that our discussions tend to follow a similar pattern?

oh ya, it seems to play out like that most of the time