I never thought I'd see the day...

[Lakhota]

Obama is whacking the evildoers. Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[Si modo]

Obama is whacking the evildoers. Thank you, Mr. President.

And you can thank simply chance or Obama's mood for the day that you aren't on the POTUS' kill list, too. "Burn the witch".

The stupid is dense in you and too many others.

 

[elvis]

Take a fucking Christmas break, will ya?

You first.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm certain you recall Obama say he was going to "fundamentally change America." Did you think he was kidding?

 

[MDiver]

Overall, the Constition works for us. However, it does have some weaknesses that weren't thought out at the time. For instance, our framers, didn't give a thought as to what might happen if a religion were to come along that was not only religious in nature, but also political, with an ideology of the total destruction of the concept of human rights and freedom. Had they known, there would have been restrictions placed on religion's practise.
As for the 2nd Amendment, our founders didn't envision a huge nationwide military of thoroughly trained troops with state of the art weapons. They envisioned untrained villagers being turned into a citizen volunteer militia trained to the point of obeying orders and ready to jump in and fight with short notice, thus they wrote it so that all men could bear (carry) arms in a community so that they could bring their weapons to a conflict. They also were very aware of the need for hunting weapons in their era, as they didn't have slaughter-houses and huge herds of cattle, so that was important as well. So, we have the Second Amendment. However, history has shown that once the government takes away the peoples weapons, controlling them is easier. So people like myself, won't give them up, without a fight.

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't know if I would call it balls, rather just plain evil arrogance and limp-dicked power grab...execution of US citizens without judicial review.

just some food for thought here. I don't agree with him being able to do so, but what should he do?

He goes and does this he basically is saying he ( or any other sitting president ) can strip you of your rights ( which honestly they always had this ability Si.)

Or he catches them and brings them to trial, but what type? Civil? Military?
The right whined when he pushed for Civil courts. saying these people are so dangerous we can't have them in our Prisons. Which is quite retarded.

He has so far played a fine line with this because these people were "terrorists" and people are not going to get outraged over this. Well not a majority that is.

I see what you're saying but the fact of the matter is these were US citizens, supposedly protected by the US Constitution. The other guys were foreigners. Not saying we shouldn't be constitutional with them, either, but they really are not guaranteed the protections that US citizens are. No due process, no judicial review, nothing but execution for US citizens that the Executive branch decided....on their own...should be on a kill list.

That and the fact that I have seen several posters declare that at least two of our amendments in our Bill of Rights are obsolete. The Bill of Rights is timeless.

right i agree with you, but that wasnt really the question. So what do we do? these are people who joined up with people who want to kill us. Do we kill them? Arrest them and send them to trial? Its a complicated issue honestly.

If the BOR was timeless we wouldnt of had to amend things, and people call for removing amendments all the time.

 

[Plasmaball]

Obama is whacking the evildoers. Thank you, Mr. President.

its not that simple.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't know if I would call it balls, rather just plain evil arrogance and limp-dicked power grab...execution of US citizens without judicial review.

Americans actively waging war on the US from foreign soil, I got no problem with that. He made himself an enemy combatant and got what he deserved.

These Americans were not in a war zone nor was there any imminent threat from them. So, the POTUS gets no excuse for summary executions. That is not his jurisdiction, rather it is that of the courts.

Your wrong there, they were actively recruiting, training, aiding terrorist and were fugitives from justice. The one supposed Imam was in direct communication with the Major at FT Hood before he started shooting. He committed many overt acts of treason witness by many more than two people as required by the Constitution, by putting out his internet videos giving aid and comfort to our enemies and by fleeing our jurisdiction he made himself a clear and present danger in both foreign theaters and the homeland.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Overall, the Constition works for us. However, it does have some weaknesses that weren't thought out at the time. For instance, our framers, didn't give a thought as to what might happen if a religion were to come along that was not only religious in nature, but also political, with an ideology of the total destruction of the concept of human rights and freedom. Had they known, there would have been restrictions placed on religion's practise.
As for the 2nd Amendment, our founders didn't envision a huge nationwide military of thoroughly trained troops with state of the art weapons. They envisioned untrained villagers being turned into a citizen volunteer militia trained to the point of obeying orders and ready to jump in and fight with short notice, thus they wrote it so that all men could bear (carry) arms in a community so that they could bring their weapons to a conflict. They also were very aware of the need for hunting weapons in their era, as they didn't have slaughter-houses and huge herds of cattle, so that was important as well. So, we have the Second Amendment. However, history has shown that once the government takes away the peoples weapons, controlling them is easier. So people like myself, won't give them up, without a fight.

Overall, the Constition works for us. However, it does have some weaknesses that weren't thought out at the time. For instance, our framers, didn't give a thought as to what might happen if a religion were to come along that was not only religious in nature, but also political, with an ideology of the total destruction of the concept of human rights and freedom. Had they known, there would have been restrictions placed on religion's practise.

Of course they considered it, hence the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, to prevent any religion from realizing political power, to prohibit the conjoining church and State, and to safeguard against codifying religious dogma into secular law.

 

[The Professor]

Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".

The constitution says something about bowel movements ???

In the spirit of this holiday season, I have given you a rep for using the word "deign" on Christmas eve. For some strange reason it has always been one of my favorite words and I try to use it in a sentence at least once each day and twice on Christmas eve. To my knowledge, this is the first time the word has ever appeared on this forum which is truly a cause of celebration.

And no, I am not being facetious. In truth, the words we use tell others much about ourselves.

Merry Christmas and stay regular.

 

[OKTexas]

Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".

The constitution says something about bowel movements ???

In the spirit of this holiday season, I have given you a rep for using the word "deign" on Christmas eve. For some strange reason it has always been one of my favorite words and I try to use it in a sentence at least once each day and twice on Christmas eve. To my knowledge, this is the first time the word has ever appeared on this forum which is truly a cause of celebration.

And no, I am not being facetious. In truth, the words we use tell others much about ourselves.

Merry Christmas and stay regular.

Did you also neg him for lacking the ability to properly read a sentence.

 

[Sallow]

And needless to say when a future republican president makes his first extra-judicial killing of an American we’ll not hear a peep out of her.

The whole enemy combatant/torture/secret prison/warrantless wiretap thing was supported by conservatives in this country. Heck..a lawyer got tossed into jail for defending a terrorist. The patriot act was pretty much of a presidential power grab..and nothing..not a thing about it from conservatives with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

But that guy is pretty much a loon.

 

[Si modo]

Americans actively waging war on the US from foreign soil, I got no problem with that. He made himself an enemy combatant and got what he deserved.

These Americans were not in a war zone nor was there any imminent threat from them. So, the POTUS gets no excuse for summary executions. That is not his jurisdiction, rather it is that of the courts.

Your wrong there, they were actively recruiting, training, aiding terrorist and were fugitives from justice. The one supposed Imam was in direct communication with the Major at FT Hood before he started shooting. He committed many overt acts of treason witness by many more than two people as required by the Constitution, by putting out his internet videos giving aid and comfort to our enemies and by fleeing our jurisdiction he made himself a clear and present danger in both foreign theaters and the homeland.

He likely was a POS but like other American PsOS, he still gets judicial review. And, the other two US citizens were denied that right as well. One of them a 16 yo.

Anyway, I will do my best not to piss off Obama so that I don't get on his list.

 

[OKTexas]

And needless to say when a future republican president makes his first extra-judicial killing of an American we’ll not hear a peep out of her.

The whole enemy combatant/torture/secret prison/warrantless wiretap thing was supported by conservatives in this country. Heck..a lawyer got tossed into jail for defending a terrorist. The patriot act was pretty much of a presidential power grab..and nothing..not a thing about it from conservatives with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

But that guy is pretty much a loon.

Not by this conservative, every time the patriot act came up for a vote I was on the phone telling my reps to vote no. On the other hand it takes a real dummy to say using the same techniques on enemies that we use to train our soldiers is torture. And if you talking about the lawyer for the blind sheik, she violated the law by passing messages for him and deserved what she got.

 

[Old Rocks]

...where there were actually Americans who are against the Constitution. And, not just one, but many, many Americans who are against the Constitution.

Never did I think I would see that. Stunning.

Any specifics, or just more flatulance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dead incorrect. The non combatant was urging war on America, tried to hide, and so got fried. No law violated at all. Even Bush's fascist judges would write a memo for the justification of this type of killing. And I sure don't hear either McCain or Kerry complaining.

I don't know if I would call it balls, rather just plain evil arrogance and limp-dicked power grab...execution of US citizens without judicial review.

Americans actively waging war on the US from foreign soil, I got no problem with that. He made himself an enemy combatant and got what he deserved.

These Americans were not in a war zone nor was there any imminent threat from them. So, the POTUS gets no excuse for summary executions. That is not his jurisdiction, rather it is that of the courts.

 

[Ernie S.]

Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".

In the 1780's, when the 2nd amendment was written, In a military context, "well regulated" meant well equipped, well trained and well disciplined.

 

[jillian]

Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".

In the 1780's, when the 2nd amendment was written, In a military context, "well regulated" meant well equipped, well trained and well disciplined.

there is zero support for that hypothesis

and if there were, it still would not require the decision scalia handed down in heller. but is what it is.

 

[Ernie S.]

Obama is whacking the evildoers. Thank you, Mr. President.

its not that simple.

But Big Chief Whines a Lot is.

 

[Ernie S.]

Since the OP did not deign to tell us just what she is talking about specifically, one has to assume it is the 2nd Amendment...which last time I checked said something about being "well regulated".

In the 1780's, when the 2nd amendment was written, In a military context, "well regulated" meant well equipped, well trained and well disciplined.

there is zero support for that hypothesis

and if there were, it still would not require the decision scalia handed down in heller. but is what it is.

There's far more than zero support now and there was near unanimous support when the 2nd amendment was written.