Congress Wants to See Obama's "License to Kill"

reply to post by nunyadammm


Once you're done backpedaling, the topic is Congress wants to see Obama's "License to Kill". My personal take on this story is that Congress could care less who the President kills as long as that President seeks Congressional approval. I really shouldn't have to explain that to you, but since you insist you're attempting to stay on topic, then stay on topic.

Originally posted by beezzer
Sorry to be on-topic here, I know how many enjoy bashing the OP, any thought to what Romney will new with this "power to kill" if he gets elected?

Actually, the whole "power to kill", should be used with "only" congress at the helm. The same for going to War. We have become the "new" Rome.

reply to post by sonnny1

Actually, the whole "power to kill", should be used with "only" congress at the helm. The same for going to War. We have become the "new" Rome.

Bingo! Congress has not declare war since World War II. Congress has consistently and disingenuously approved all sorts of adventures and conflicts pretending they're not responsible for the outcome and now huff and puff for no other reason than to create an appearance that they stand with the People.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by beezzer
Sorry to be on-topic here, I know how many enjoy bashing the OP, any thought to what Romney will new with this "power to kill" if he gets elected?

Actually, the whole "power to kill", should be used with "only" congress at the helm. The same for going to War. We have become the "new" Rome.

I don't think it should be used at all, personally.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm still unclear on how this can be justified at all!

reply to post by beezzer

I'm still unclear on how this can be justified at all!

You've placed the key to understanding that in your sentence. Justifications are never made for just behavior. Justifications are what are made to defend bad behavior.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You've placed the key to understanding that in your sentence. Justifications are never made for just behavior. Justifications are what are made to defend bad behavior.

They are going to have to justify their jobs this election cycle, then.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You've placed the key to understanding that in your sentence. Justifications are never made for just behavior. Justifications are what are made to defend bad behavior.

They are going to have to justify their jobs this election cycle, then.

LOL, yeah. Sure they will.

I hear the same thing every quadrennium.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by nunyadammm

 

Once you're done backpedaling, the topic is Congress wants to see Obama's "License to Kill".

Which I have addressed and yet have no response that is actually on topic and applies to what I said.

My personal take on this story is that Congress could care less who the President kills as long as that President seeks Congressional approval.

I got your personal take.

I really shouldn't have to explain that to you, but since you insist you're attempting to stay on topic, then stay on topic.

I never asked you to explain your personal take on it for me. You have done nothing but avoid that point I made. If you are going to ignore what I write, then ignore me. Why bother interacting with me over and over again without ever addressing what I was saying?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by WorkingClassMan

 

You claim to be such yet when the hypocrisy of your gov and in a lot of cases your people is shoved down your throat you still can't just say yes American policy is crap & no we shouldn't kill anyone instead of you shouldn't kill anyone American.

Not only am I long on record for calling U.S. policy on their crap the entire point of this thread was to do that. You're just licking your wounds because I called you on your ignorant generalizations.

If the entire point of your thread was to point that out then you would of agreed with this post I made.

"Kill millions of innocent civilians = no problem.
Kill foreigners = no problem.
Kill surrounding women & children just to kill one man = no problem
Kill 1 American overseas = Ohh my god, how dare he do such a thing doesn't he realise Americans are better than everyone else.
Who does this guy think he is violating our constitution, didn't someone tell him there is due process and innocent until proven guilty, bloody hell the nerve to lower an American to the standards of foreign people.

It just beggars belief it really does.

It beggars belief how self centered & arrogant you people are, it really does.
Finally getting a taste of your own medicine & from your own leader no less."

Instead you acted to the contrary (like a butt hurt American) and went on the defensive, you even considered yourself to be one of the self centered & arrogant people, or was that a Freudian slip?

Lucky you were only riding that pony & didn't have far to fall cowboy.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by WorkingClassMan

This post tells me that you obviously have run out of clues. You really, really just don't get it.

The OP was not saying that it was ok to kill anyone but Americans. It was calling out Congress for the desire to be in on the killing.

Really...you should just stop, go read the op, then discuss it. Don't cherry pick a nonargument by misconstruing. And when you do it with such a large ego, it makes me embarrassed for you. Like a guy who boldly exclaims he needs no light, he knows where he is going, then walks with resolve right off a cliff.

edit on 3-8-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

The guy who posted the message is different from the message posted, so define OP.
The message was posted loud & clear if you cared to read it have a look below & notice how it is not about people but Americans, take your time but thats why they keep useing words like " kill American, killing Americans, kill American citizens" now tell me again how I'm cherry picking and misconstruing.
"legislators are pushing the administration to explain why it believes it's legal to kill American terror suspects overseas."

" outlining the legal justification for killing Americans overseas without charge or trial."

"Mr. Attorney General, will you please tell us the legal authority by which you claim the authority to kill American citizens abroad?"

This post tells me you might have an IQ of roughly 50.
You post this.
"The OP was not saying that it was ok to kill anyone but Americans. It was calling out Congress for the desire to be in on the killing"

Then you post this in response to me calling out Americans for thinking it's ok to violate others civil rights while crying about your own.
"While there is plenty of senseless killing, what is being pointed out by JPZ is that Obama is ordering the killing of US citizens abroad as well. This is a circumventing the whole right to due process that is afforded US citizens"


Actually I'm starting to think 50 might have been a bit generous especialy after the rest of the drivel you posted.

edit on 7-8-2012 by WorkingClassMan because: (no reason given)

reply to post by WorkingClassMan


The mess you made out of the quote tags made that an incredibly difficult read.

OP, as used above, would refer to "original post".

When he refers to americans, the reference seems to be mostly legal in its context, not moral. However, the moral condemnation comes in the form of the entire post, which is basically saying that all Congress wants is to be in on the killing.

Listen, you can take his word for what he meant, or not. That is your choice. i am not going to argue with you about it.

ETA: to be honest, i am surprised to see you responding to such an old debate. I have been working 18 hour days for the last week or so, and the "garbage in/garbage out" cycle has moved my memory of this thread to that space right next to the aft cargo door. With only about an hour of internet free time per day lately, i am not likely to go back to read what it was we were even talking about. Sorry. Perhaps a more timely response would yield more for you, but my busy schedule is not really your problem.