Can you name 5 policies of Obama that you like and 5 policies that you don't like?

[Si modo]

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 rest really pales. Exactly.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Just so I don't have to re write.... I agree with Auditor.

There are a couple things on the "don't like" side that I'd like to add.

3.) Fast and Furious- Didn't like Iran/Contra... Don't like this.

4.) South Korean Free Trade agreement...yeah like we need MORE jobs pouring out of the country.

 

[Billy000]

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?

 

[Si modo]

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".

Wow.

 

[Billy000]

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".

Wow.

In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.

 

[Full-Auto]

A non-partisan assessment

 

[Si modo]

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".

Wow.

In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.

Due process is non-negotiable.

As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Non-negotiable.

 

[KissMy]

A non-partisan assessment

Billy Zero is just a narrow minded hack. The kind that kids avoided on the playground when he was young.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

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.

 

[Si modo]

In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.

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.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

After the September 11th attacks, then-President Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, the authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad “if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests."

Where in the quoted part of the segment does it say "imminent threat"?

 

[Sallow]

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.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Due process is non-negotiable.

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.

 

[Si modo]

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.

 

[Si modo]

In that particular case? Yes. The Founding Fathers didn't have it all figured out, ya know.

Due process is non-negotiable.

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.

So, now the Bill of Rights is negotiable according to the left.

 

[Billy000]

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.

But the argument these hardcore Ron Paul fans have is that he was not given a trial. Sometimes rules can be bent, however.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Ah..so it's your contention that when a person actively decides to essentially "declare war" against this country..and take up arms with the enemy..and hide in places overseas..they should be allowed to complete their operations.

Correct?

Because it's this kind of thinking that brought us 9/11.

So..no thanks.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Psssst. I'm not a "Ron Paul fan". I AM a fan of the Bill of Rights.


Due process is for pussies.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Psssst. I'm not a "Ron Paul fan". I AM a fan of the Bill of Rights.


Due process is for pussies.

Fuck up, Move up, The obama justice dept way.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Fuck that.

There are 2 ways to deal with a terrorist hell bent on killing Americans.

One involves a hellfire missile. The other involves a bullet to the head.

However if they "surrender"...then like most POWs they get 3 hots and a cot.