Si modo
Diamond Member
The rest really pales. Exactly.He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The rest really pales. Exactly.He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
1.) I am happy with his promotion of the healthcare legislation. While it has some problems, it's a step in the right direction.
2.) I like the fact that he stood behind GM and Chrysler and pushed for their bailouts.
3.) I like the fact that while he got us involved in Libya, our involvement was limited, and we didn't get bogged down in another long drawn out military conflict.
4.) I like the fact that he is pushing for a tax increase on high income earners.
5.) I like the fact that he offered to make significant cuts in the budget, even though the Republicans did not approve of the cuts.
1.) While I approve of proposed tax increases on high income earners, I do not support the payroll tax cut. Revenue is down so much, cutting it more does not make sense.
2.) I am upset with Obama for giving in to the Republicans by agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Guess that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure there are more.
He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
The Bill of Rights is just a "technicality".He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
The Bill of Rights is just a "technicality".He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Wow.
Due process is non-negotiable.The Bill of Rights is just a "technicality".Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Wow.
In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.
A non-partisan assessment
Due process is non-negotiable.The Bill of Rights is just a "technicality".
Wow.
In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.
As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Non-negotiable.
Due process is non-negotiable.In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.
As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Non-negotiable.
If that's the case, why did the Booosh put the mechanisms in place to allow the CIA/Military to execute American Citizens abroad? Look. I am admittedly on the fence on this particular issue. On one hand, I have no real sympathy for the guy that got killed. On the other, I don't particularly care for shit like this.
Due process is non-negotiable.
As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Non-negotiable.
If that's the case, why did the Booosh put the mechanisms in place to allow the CIA/Military to execute American Citizens abroad? Look. I am admittedly on the fence on this particular issue. On one hand, I have no real sympathy for the guy that got killed. On the other, I don't particularly care for shit like this.
Where was the imminent threat in this case?
He was likely a POS, but I value the Bill of Rights far more.
He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Due process is non-negotiable.The Bill of Rights is just a "technicality".
Wow.
In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.
As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Non-negotiable.
The 5th.He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.
The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.
So, now the Bill of Rights is negotiable according to the left.Due process is non-negotiable.In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.
As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Non-negotiable.
Who decides that it is non-negotiable? You? John Hancock? Apparently it is negotiable considering he is dead.
He killed OBl
He honored Reagan 100th birthday
He executed a US citizen w/o a trial. After that, the rest just doesn't matter. He's a truly evil tyrant.
Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.
The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.
The 5th.Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.
The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.
Psssst. I'm not a "Ron Paul fan". I AM a fan of the Bill of Rights.But the argument these hardcore Ron Paul fans have is that he was not given a trial. Sometimes rules can be bent, however.Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.
The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.
Psssst. I'm not a "Ron Paul fan". I AM a fan of the Bill of Rights.But the argument these hardcore Ron Paul fans have is that he was not given a trial. Sometimes rules can be bent, however.Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.
The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.
Due process is for pussies.
Lame Ron Paul rhetoric... just because it technically violates the constitution, it doesn't mean that this terrorist didn't deserve to die. How else were we stop him?
Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.
Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.
The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.
But the argument these hardcore Ron Paul fans have is that he was not given a trial. Sometimes rules can be bent, however.