Is Four Years Enough For a Peaceful President?

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?

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"?

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.

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

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