I Really Like Ron Paul but I'm Enthusiastically Voting for Obama!

[Oddball]

Hmmm. No points made. Topic not addressed. Juvenile bs. So then, you must be a ConservaRepub, right?

The point which you aren't bright enough to see (or honest enough to admit) is that you are not independent and that you do not employ logic.

Thus, your username is very much erroneous, wrong, dishonest, ironic and worthless.

And, no. I am not a Republican.

People who describe themselves in terms of what they aren't (i.e. "independent") are usually the biggest poseurs you'll encounter.

Why, I do believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of about a month or two ago that the particular poseur in question started a thread, proclaiming that there was no ******* way he'd vote for the Boiking again.

Found it....Poseurs gonna pose.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/200221-there-is-no-way-in-hell-im-voting-for-obama-2.html

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yeah, especially when it's your own... Or was that just a bunch of made up shit to start a Friday Night Troll Thread?

I shoulda known, dismissing the multi-trillion dollar Obamacare fiasco and the Constitution-shredding NDAA with an 'Oh well."

In hindsight, that was a pretty obvious clue.

Ha ha...

No that wasn't it. Ya see Junior, not everyone has to be a mindless drone who agrees with a candidate on everything. Some of us are able to find merit in some of Ron Paul's (or other candidates') positions, without becoming an apostle.
I know lemmings can't figure that out. Maybe if you have a friend who is one of those "Liberal Elitist", they can explain it to you!

Bullshit IL, and you know it. This was nothing more than an exercise, fishing for someone to insult with your 'rapier-like wit.' See, you got 3 MORE zingers in your reply, well done.
You're such a see-through hack...

The Pattern will be apparent in the multi-quotes here. Okay you're upset. Poor baby. That's your problem. I brought up issues but because I don't agree with you completely, I'm a secret agent troll / Liberal / Dem etc...
Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

Not exactly Independent. And no hint of logic.

Usernames are phunnee.

Hmmm. No points made. Topic not addressed. Juvenile bs. So then, you must be a ConservaRepub, right?

The point which you aren't bright enough to see (or honest enough to admit) is that you are not independent and that you do not employ logic.

Thus, your username is very much erroneous, wrong, dishonest, ironic and worthless.

And, no. I am not a Republican.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

How can you look at the enormous list of President Obama's accomplishments and even consider voting for anyone else?

The man has been amazing.

Put your mouth back on his ass and STFU

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

Not exactly Independent. And no hint of logic.

Usernames are phunnee.

"Independents" are either Obama Fluffers pretending to be "thoughtful" or just not mentally in the game

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

I have also, quite often, thought that to be the case. They avoid taking a stand, at least in public. It saves them from having to make a case. It is, "safe."

Hmmm. No points made. Topic not addressed. Juvenile bs. So then, you must be a ConservaRepub, right?

The point which you aren't bright enough to see (or honest enough to admit) is that you are not independent and that you do not employ logic.

Thus, your username is very much erroneous, wrong, dishonest, ironic and worthless.

And, no. I am not a Republican.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

People who describe themselves in terms of what they aren't (i.e. "independent") are usually the biggest poseurs you'll encounter.

Why, I do believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of about a month or two ago that the particular poseur in question started a thread, proclaiming that there was no ******* way he'd vote for the Boiking again.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response. (happens in all parties)So thanks kids. Y'all be provin my point for me!
Whackjobs of any affiliation, are so weak and stupid, they can't address issues. So they come in and say that there must be something "wrong" with the poster. He can't be Independent! That's it!

Of course their definition of "Independent" has nothing to do with overall political views. To whackjobs, "Independent" means someone who agrees with them on everything, just like the rest of the lemmings....
So disappointing not to meet their approval cuz you know, I care so much!

 

[IndependntLogic]

So what are the Republicans offering me? Romney seemed worth a look but he has been forced into Romney Version 5.9 by the other two. Now he is so socially Conservative! For now.
All these social issues leave me and pretty much everyone I know, unimpressed. Especially now...The GOP candidates suck. Really, badly.

Weeeeeeeeeellllllllllll.....be patient. Right now what we are seeing in the GOP primaries is the typical tactics. They go hard to the right in the primaries and once someone has locked up the nomination he will tack back to center. It's just the game of politics according to the way our system is set up. Social issues will be largely irrelevant once the nomination is secure and it will be all about the economy.

The problem is that securing the nomination means you must appeal to the most energized members of the base....the one's who actually bother to go vote in the primaries and those people tend to be far more extreme in their views regardless of which party we're talking about. So right now everyone is rushing around trying to prove they are "true conservatives" because it will be the hard core conservatives doing most of the primary voting. Once that's over with all these other issues will take a back seat and the nominee will start softening his stance to appeal to moderates, like myself, and Independents which is where the final election will be won and lost.

The real danger that faces the GOP is pulling a Sharon Angle and nominating someone so extreme in their views and in their record that they stand no chance of working back to the middle once the nomination is secured. Right now Santorum is the Sharon Angle of the Republican field.

Wow! An intelligent post! Addresses the Topic of the OP!!!
So yes, I agree that they will head back to Center after the nominee is picked but this one is looking like it's going all the way to the convention. And frankly, I like Obama better than any of the GOP field. I like Ron Paul on a lot of issues but some of his views are just plain insane to me. So there is no way in hell I would vote for him.

 

[Liability]

How can you look at the enormous list of President Obama's accomplishments and even consider voting for anyone else?

The man has been amazing.

* * * *

The ENORMOUS "list" of President Obama's "Accomplishments:"

• Osama bin Laden dead. Check.

• Al-Awlaki dead. Check.

• Imposing ObamaCare on America against its wishes. Check.

End of list. Note, only the first two qualify as actual "accomplishments."

Yeah.

A real cracker jack, that one.

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process and assassinated extra judicially.

How is that an accomplishment? No matter how horrible the government told you Awlaki was, he was an American citizen that was supposed to have constitutional rights.

You don't want foreign terrorists to have those rights, fine, I agree. But an American citizen that never got his day in court?

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

 

[Amelia]

So what are the Republicans offering me? Romney seemed worth a look but he has been forced into Romney Version 5.9 by the other two. Now he is so socially Conservative! For now.
All these social issues leave me and pretty much everyone I know, unimpressed. Especially now...The GOP candidates suck. Really, badly.

Weeeeeeeeeellllllllllll.....be patient. Right now what we are seeing in the GOP primaries is the typical tactics. They go hard to the right in the primaries and once someone has locked up the nomination he will tack back to center. It's just the game of politics according to the way our system is set up. Social issues will be largely irrelevant once the nomination is secure and it will be all about the economy.

The problem is that securing the nomination means you must appeal to the most energized members of the base....the one's who actually bother to go vote in the primaries and those people tend to be far more extreme in their views regardless of which party we're talking about. So right now everyone is rushing around trying to prove they are "true conservatives" because it will be the hard core conservatives doing most of the primary voting. Once that's over with all these other issues will take a back seat and the nominee will start softening his stance to appeal to moderates, like myself, and Independents which is where the final election will be won and lost.

The real danger that faces the GOP is pulling a Sharon Angle and nominating someone so extreme in their views and in their record that they stand no chance of working back to the middle once the nomination is secured. Right now Santorum is the Sharon Angle of the Republican field.

Wow! An intelligent post! Addresses the Topic of the OP!!!
So yes, I agree that they will head back to Center after the nominee is picked but this one is looking like it's going all the way to the convention. And frankly, I like Obama better than any of the GOP field. I like Ron Paul on a lot of issues but some of his views are just plain insane to me. So there is no way in hell I would vote for him.

Now you're just being a glutton for punishment - using that exact wording after someone has already linked to the thread from two months ago where you said there was no way in hell that you would vote for Obama.

 

[Liability]

No that wasn't it. Ya see Junior, not everyone has to be a mindless drone who agrees with a candidate on everything. Some of us are able to find merit in some of Ron Paul's (or other candidates') positions, without becoming an apostle.
I know lemmings can't figure that out. Maybe if you have a friend who is one of those "Liberal Elitist", they can explain it to you!

Bullshit IL, and you know it. This was nothing more than an exercise, fishing for someone to insult with your 'rapier-like wit.' See, you got 3 MORE zingers in your reply, well done.
You're such a see-through hack...

The Pattern will be apparent in the multi-quotes here. Okay you're upset. Poor baby. That's your problem. I brought up issues but because I don't agree with you completely, I'm a secret agent troll / Liberal / Dem etc...
Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.



Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.



Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

The point which you aren't bright enough to see (or honest enough to admit) is that you are not independent and that you do not employ logic.

Thus, your username is very much erroneous, wrong, dishonest, ironic and worthless.

And, no. I am not a Republican.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

People who describe themselves in terms of what they aren't (i.e. "independent") are usually the biggest poseurs you'll encounter.

Why, I do believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of about a month or two ago that the particular poseur in question started a thread, proclaiming that there was no ******* way he'd vote for the Boiking again.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response. (happens in all parties)So thanks kids. Y'all be provin my point for me!
Whackjobs of any affiliation, are so weak and stupid, they can't address issues. So they come in and say that there must be something "wrong" with the poster. He can't be Independent! That's it!

Of course their definition of "Independent" has nothing to do with overall political views. To whackjobs, "Independent" means someone who agrees with them on everything, just like the rest of the lemmings....
So disappointing not to meet their approval cuz you know, I care so much!

Your "pointless" wasn't worth addressing.

Your phoniness was.

You have been exposed as the lying sack of crap you are.

Deal with it.

Sucks to be you.

You have been fully outed by Oddball and there's nothing you can say in rebuttal, *****.

 

[Paulie]

The ENORMOUS "list" of President Obama's "Accomplishments:"

• Osama bin Laden dead. Check.

• Al-Awlaki dead. Check.

• Imposing ObamaCare on America against its wishes. Check.

End of list. Note, only the first two qualify as actual "accomplishments."

Yeah.

A real cracker jack, that one.

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process and assassinated extra judicially.

How is that an accomplishment? No matter how horrible the government told you Awlaki was, he was an American citizen that was supposed to have constitutional rights.

You don't want foreign terrorists to have those rights, fine, I agree. But an American citizen that never got his day in court?

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

 

[Ed Spacer]

How can you look at the enormous list of President Obama's accomplishments and even consider voting for anyone else?

The man has been amazing.

Put your mouth back on his ass and STFU

Probably sucking his sunni dick.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process and assassinated extra judicially.

How is that an accomplishment? No matter how horrible the government told you Awlaki was, he was an American citizen that was supposed to have constitutional rights.

You don't want foreign terrorists to have those rights, fine, I agree. But an American citizen that never got his day in court?

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

He was terrorist,american,or not,and deserved to be snuffed.

 

[Liability]

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process and assassinated extra judicially.

How is that an accomplishment? No matter how horrible the government told you Awlaki was, he was an American citizen that was supposed to have constitutional rights.

You don't want foreign terrorists to have those rights, fine, I agree. But an American citizen that never got his day in court?

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

He was an American. Yes.

He was one of the enemy, too. Yes.

He died in a war he chose to fight againt us.

**** him.

His status as a U.S. citizen doesn't change his entitlement to receive exactly what he got.

The mistake so many of you make is to confuse his behavior with mere criminality.

I am not accusing him of just a crime. I condemn him for participating in the war against America. The consequences he suffered have nothing to do with mere "crime." The consequence he suffered has everything to do with the choice he made to be one of the enemy in time of war against us.

**** him and his worthless memory. I am glad he's dead. I wouldn't waste a good piss on his face if his eyeballs were on fire.

 

[Amelia]

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process and assassinated extra judicially.

How is that an accomplishment? No matter how horrible the government told you Awlaki was, he was an American citizen that was supposed to have constitutional rights.

You don't want foreign terrorists to have those rights, fine, I agree. But an American citizen that never got his day in court?

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

They didn't even accuse him of a crime. Not one which would come close to earning a death sentence. And it LOOKS like they went after him extrajudicially because they couldn't accuse him of a crime.

 

[Paulie]

The ENORMOUS "list" of President Obama's "Accomplishments:"

• Osama bin Laden dead. Check.

• Al-Awlaki dead. Check.

• Imposing ObamaCare on America against its wishes. Check.

End of list. Note, only the first two qualify as actual "accomplishments."

Yeah.

A real cracker jack, that one.

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen who was denied due process and assassinated extra judicially.

How is that an accomplishment? No matter how horrible the government told you Awlaki was, he was an American citizen that was supposed to have constitutional rights.

You don't want foreign terrorists to have those rights, fine, I agree. But an American citizen that never got his day in court?

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

And the whole "if he had been..." argument holds no water. Because he wasn't.

If he was, then yes, he would be killed in the name of self defense of the American troops. Just like if a gunman goes out into the streets and starts shooting at people. At that point the police have legal justification for killing him.

As this stands, all there was were allegations of terrorism. That needs to be proven. What happens next time the government accuses a US citizen of a crime but provides no proof beyond a reasonable doubt? You ok with assassinating that person too?

This was the whole reason why we were given the right to due process in the first place, so a government couldn't devolve into tyranny and imprison and kill people at will.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm Enthusiastically Voting for Obama!

Hey, if failure is your thing. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Paulie]

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

He was an American. Yes.

He was one of the enemy, too. Yes.

He died in a war he chose to fight againt us.

**** him.

His status as a U.S. citizen doesn't change his entitlement to receive exactly what he got.

The mistake so many of you make is to confuse his behavior with mere criminality.

I am not accusing him of just a crime. I condemn him for participating in the war against America. The consequences he suffered have nothing to do with mere "crime." The consequence he suffered has everything to do with the choice he made to be one of the enemy in time of war against us.

**** him and his worthless memory. I am glad he's dead. I wouldn't waste a good piss on his face if his eyeballs were on fire.

You don't seem to get it. You think because the accusation was so large that it somehow transcends constitutionality. Whether he's accused of stealing a pack of gum, accused of terrorism against the US, as a US citizen he's supposed to have his day in court.

What don't you get about that? He isn't guilty until he's PROVEN guilty.

 

[Paulie]

At least Bush went and CAPTURED guys like Moussaoui and Lindh and gave them their day in court.

 

[Liability]

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

He was an American. Yes.

He was one of the enemy, too. Yes.

He died in a war he chose to fight againt us.

**** him.

His status as a U.S. citizen doesn't change his entitlement to receive exactly what he got.

The mistake so many of you make is to confuse his behavior with mere criminality.

I am not accusing him of just a crime. I condemn him for participating in the war against America. The consequences he suffered have nothing to do with mere "crime." The consequence he suffered has everything to do with the choice he made to be one of the enemy in time of war against us.

**** him and his worthless memory. I am glad he's dead. I wouldn't waste a good piss on his face if his eyeballs were on fire.

You don't seem to get it. You think because the accusation was so large that it somehow transcends constitutionality. Whether he's accused of stealing a pack of gum, accused of terrorism against the US, as a US citizen he's supposed to have his day in court.

What don't you get about that? He isn't guilty until he's PROVEN guilty.

A very nice criminal justice / "legal" notion. And where that concept actually has relevance, I agree.

But in the context of what was absolutely and unequivocally known about al-Awlaki, we were not dealing with a criminal justice matter at all. So the legal notion of a presumption of innocence simply did not obtain.

You merely persist in conflating acts of war with mere criminality.

 

[Paulie]

He was an American. Yes.

He was one of the enemy, too. Yes.

He died in a war he chose to fight againt us.

**** him.

His status as a U.S. citizen doesn't change his entitlement to receive exactly what he got.

The mistake so many of you make is to confuse his behavior with mere criminality.

I am not accusing him of just a crime. I condemn him for participating in the war against America. The consequences he suffered have nothing to do with mere "crime." The consequence he suffered has everything to do with the choice he made to be one of the enemy in time of war against us.

**** him and his worthless memory. I am glad he's dead. I wouldn't waste a good piss on his face if his eyeballs were on fire.

You don't seem to get it. You think because the accusation was so large that it somehow transcends constitutionality. Whether he's accused of stealing a pack of gum, accused of terrorism against the US, as a US citizen he's supposed to have his day in court.

What don't you get about that? He isn't guilty until he's PROVEN guilty.

A very nice criminal justice / "legal" notion. And where that concept actually has relevance, I agree.

But in the context of what was absolutely and unequivocally known about al-Awlaki, we were not dealing with a criminal justice matter at all. So the legal notion of a presumption of innocence simply did not obtain.

You merely persist in conflating acts of war with mere criminality.

Was he killed on a battlefield shooting at troops? Was he killed in self defense of an imminent attack?

If those 2 things aren't present, then as a citizen he still retains due process rights regardless of war on terror. War on terror is just a created idea by our government that DOES NOT transcend the constitution. The only way your point is valid is if there is a constitutional amendment clearly laying out the details on this war on terror, and where due process is removed.

This isn't about Awlaki. I figure he probably was guilty of terrorism, but PROBABLY doesn't equal GUILTY. This is about the idea of due process itself, and the constitution. What's the point of constitutional protection if the government can just take it away from you whenever and however it sees fit, just because there's terrorism in the world? The government's main job is to PROTECT those rights. That's what this is about.

The proper procedure is to simply request extradition from Yemen and try him. If he was SOOOO guilty, then it should be a quick trial and the punishment would likely be death anyway.

 

[Oddball]

No that wasn't it. Ya see Junior, not everyone has to be a mindless drone who agrees with a candidate on everything. Some of us are able to find merit in some of Ron Paul's (or other candidates') positions, without becoming an apostle.
I know lemmings can't figure that out. Maybe if you have a friend who is one of those "Liberal Elitist", they can explain it to you!

Bullshit IL, and you know it. This was nothing more than an exercise, fishing for someone to insult with your 'rapier-like wit.' See, you got 3 MORE zingers in your reply, well done.
You're such a see-through hack...

The Pattern will be apparent in the multi-quotes here. Okay you're upset. Poor baby. That's your problem. I brought up issues but because I don't agree with you completely, I'm a secret agent troll / Liberal / Dem etc...
Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.



Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.



Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

The point which you aren't bright enough to see (or honest enough to admit) is that you are not independent and that you do not employ logic.

Thus, your username is very much erroneous, wrong, dishonest, ironic and worthless.

And, no. I am not a Republican.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response.

People who describe themselves in terms of what they aren't (i.e. "independent") are usually the biggest poseurs you'll encounter.

Why, I do believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of about a month or two ago that the particular poseur in question started a thread, proclaiming that there was no ******* way he'd vote for the Boiking again.

Any issues of the OP discussed? No. Anything of substance at all? No. This is called the "Whackjob With Nothing To Say" Response. (happens in all parties)So thanks kids. Y'all be provin my point for me!
Whackjobs of any affiliation, are so weak and stupid, they can't address issues. So they come in and say that there must be something "wrong" with the poster. He can't be Independent! That's it!

Of course their definition of "Independent" has nothing to do with overall political views. To whackjobs, "Independent" means someone who agrees with them on everything, just like the rest of the lemmings....
So disappointing not to meet their approval cuz you know, I care so much!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/200221-there-is-no-way-in-hell-im-voting-for-obama-2.html

 

[Immanuel]

You and I have discussed this before.

al-Awlaki was one of the enemy. End of story. He died in war. I mourn him not at all and do not acknowledge AT ALL your claim that he was entitled to some kind of "due process" involving the legal system.

If he had been shot on the field of battle while shooting at American troops, he'd be just as dead and he would have gotten no help from any legal system, either.

There is no difference between that scenario and what did happen to his worthless scumbag ass. **** his memory.

Sorry my man, but he was an American citizen. He was born with those constitutional rights. The government doesn't just get to SAY someone did something, and then kill them before proving their case. It doesn't work that way in this country. What this shit leads to is a slippery slope where the government can just go ahead and slap some accusations of ANYTHING on ANYONE and as long as we think it's bad enough we'll cheer for their assassination.

**** that. You accuse an American citizen of a crime? You prove your case in court. End of story.

He was terrorist,american,or not,and deserved to be snuffed.

As an American, he was guaranteed by our Constitution certain rights including the right to a fair trial. Problem is that in this case, that guarantee didn't hold water. What's scary is that it could happen to anyone of us under any future President.

Immie

 

[Liability]

You don't seem to get it. You think because the accusation was so large that it somehow transcends constitutionality. Whether he's accused of stealing a pack of gum, accused of terrorism against the US, as a US citizen he's supposed to have his day in court.

What don't you get about that? He isn't guilty until he's PROVEN guilty.

A very nice criminal justice / "legal" notion. And where that concept actually has relevance, I agree.

But in the context of what was absolutely and unequivocally known about al-Awlaki, we were not dealing with a criminal justice matter at all. So the legal notion of a presumption of innocence simply did not obtain.

You merely persist in conflating acts of war with mere criminality.

Was he killed on a battlefield shooting at troops? Was he killed in self defense of an imminent attack?

If those 2 things aren't present, then as a citizen he still retains due process rights regardless of war on terror. War on terror is just a created idea by our government that DOES NOT transcend the constitution. The only way your point is valid is if there is a constitutional amendment clearly laying out the details on this war on terror, and where due process is removed.

This isn't about Awlaki. I figure he probably was guilty of terrorism, but PROBABLY doesn't equal GUILTY. This is about the idea of due process itself, and the constitution. What's the point of constitutional protection if the government can just take it away from you whenever and however it sees fit, just because there's terrorism in the world? The government's main job is to PROTECT those rights. That's what this is about.

The proper procedure is to simply request extradition from Yemen and try him. If he was SOOOO guilty, then it should be a quick trial and the punishment would likely be death anyway.

False premise. He was an active participant in the war. He was treated accordingly. A high ranking target worthy of getting struck.

**** his filthy memory.