PDA

View Full Version : There Goes Obama, Palling Around with Terrorists Again!



Buzz
09-30-2011, 04:09 PM
The Terrorist Notches on Obama’s Belt


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/

road kill
09-30-2011, 04:14 PM
The Terrorist Notches on Obama’s Belt


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-terrorist-notches-on-obamas-belt/

WOW!!!

What a WARRIOR!!!

Better re-elect him!!!!:D

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic..................


RK

Buzz
09-30-2011, 04:34 PM
This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic..................


RK

You want to know what's pathetic?
Arse hat republicans who won't give him an ounce of credit for ANYTHING.
No, he's not a warrior, but if it was a Republican in charge he would at least get some credit for his POLICIES. Wouldn't surprise me to see an action figure (see below).

This from the end of the article.


Remember when Rudy Giuliani warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. played defense, not offense, against the terrorists?

If this is defense, what does offense look like?


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413KJlAr-UL._SS500_.jpg


http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/images/gwbfigure.jpg

http://newdandyism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/newdandyism-bush_actionfigure.jpg


OK, nevermind...

http://gamu-toys.info/sonota/sw/obama/DSC_4681.JPG

huntinman
09-30-2011, 09:31 PM
Here's what your "warrior" thinks of our country:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7MvraEnGz4

Hew
10-01-2011, 02:48 AM
This thread won't be complete until Cotts wrings his hands about the US killing two terrorists/putative citizens and Franco defends Ron Paul's insane blather/condemnation of the killings.

Franco
10-01-2011, 05:53 AM
You should be ashamed of yourself!

Because of our failed Foreign Policy, we have sent thousands of wonderful young Americans to thier death. Forget the trillions spent and thousands of innocent civillians killed. We have grown anti-USA sentiment around the world and we have grown terrorism with our failed policy.

I'll stick with what Thomas Jefferson warned us about in regards to being interventionist. Had we adobted Ron Paul's Foreign Policy from the get-go, we wouldn't be sending young Americans to thier death and we woudn't be broke!

I will add that had the USA and British NOT interviened in the middle east back in the late 1940's, we wouldn't have this situation today. The Israelis would have grown thier boarders making it easier to defend themselves and they would have pacified th entire area. One would think we would have learned a lesson after Vietnam in regards to intervention but we did not.

Hew
10-01-2011, 10:10 AM
LOL. We're half way to thread nirvana.

Btw, thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Peabody, but I don't know wtf any of that has to do with Ron Paul condemning the killing of two terrorists. Couldn't find the picture of the bunny with the pancake on its head?

Franco
10-01-2011, 01:01 PM
LOL. We're half way to thread nirvana.

Btw, thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Peabody, but I don't know wtf any of that has to do with Ron Paul condemning the killing of two terrorists. Couldn't find the picture of the bunny with the pancake on its head?

I know that your reading comprehension is better than your denial admits.

Or Foreign Policy is sick and has been sick for decades!

Hew
10-01-2011, 01:20 PM
Or Foreign Policy is sick and has been sick for decades!
If you say so. But what does that have to do with this thread topic? It's a simple premise, really...do you agree with Ron Paul in condemning the killing of the two terrorists? Yes? No?

Buzz
10-01-2011, 01:35 PM
If you say so. But what does that have to do with this thread topic? It's a simple premise, really...do you agree with Ron Paul in condemning the killing of the two terrorists? Yes? No?

My answer is no. I think the world is a better place than it was with those two in it.

BonMallari
10-01-2011, 02:29 PM
If you say so. But what does that have to do with this thread topic? It's a simple premise, really...do you agree with Ron Paul in condemning the killing of the two terrorists? Yes? No?

agree with Ron Paul...not this time...I am concerned about the legality but not the morality of the action taken...the next one will be that Adam Gadahn kid , there has gotta be crosshairs on him too

charly_t
10-01-2011, 04:06 PM
...I am concerned about the legality but not the morality of the action taken...

That's the best way of saying it that I have seen.

JDogger
10-01-2011, 07:29 PM
If you say so. But what does that have to do with this thread topic? It's a simple premise, really...do you agree with Ron Paul in condemning the killing of the two terrorists? Yes? No?

I would have to say no.

It is the global war on terrorism.....and any and all means justify the ends.

Que no Pogo?

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/pogoplaque.jpg

JD

Franco
10-01-2011, 08:33 PM
If you say so. But what does that have to do with this thread topic? It's a simple premise, really...do you agree with Ron Paul in condemning the killing of the two terrorists? Yes? No?


First, let get the facts straight. Ron Paul said that it was a "sad precedent" in disregarding The Constitution and killing an American citizen without due process.

Second, because of our policy all we are doing is growing worldwide terrorism not ending it.

Third, can't you guys beat Bama in the Swamp? 2nd quarter Bama 17 Florida 10. I'm a Gator fan for the next two hours!

charly_t
10-01-2011, 08:44 PM
First, let get the facts straight. Ron Paul said that it was a "sad precedent" in disregarding The Constitution and killing an American citizen without due process.................

I have what may be a dumb question. Was the man still considered to be a citizen of the USA ?

Franco
10-01-2011, 09:09 PM
I have what may be a dumb question. Was the man still considered to be a citizen of the USA ?

Yes, he was still a citizen. And, there are situations like in the case of war that citizens abetting the enemy can be killed without due process.

However, my problem with the entire situation is that I agree with Ron Paul in that our Foreign Policy is not only growing terrorism but costing us in life and treasure.

charly_t
10-01-2011, 09:20 PM
Yes, he was still a citizen. And, there are situations like in the case of war that citizens abetting the enemy can be killed without due process............

Treason ?

I agree to some degree with the second part of your post.

Franco
10-02-2011, 07:50 AM
Treason ?

I agree to some degree with the second part of your post.

I think the term used by the administration was Sedition.

The first Sedition Act was passed by Congress in 1797 because of the X,Y, Z Affair.

"
At the same time, two opposing political parties were developing in the U.S. Tending to sympathize with France in foreign policy were the Thomas Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans. Their loyalty was called into question by the Federalists, who dominated Congress during Adams's administration. It was a dangerous time both for the security of the young Republic and the freedoms its citizens enjoyed.

"

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law_(United_States)) 65-150, 40 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917) to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. One historian of American civil liberties has called it "the nation's most extreme antispeech legislation."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-0)
It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for 5 to 20 years.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-1) The act also allowed the Postmaster General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postmaster_General) to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-2) It was repealed on December 13, 1920.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-3)

caryalsobrook
10-02-2011, 08:12 AM
I think the term used by the administration was Sedition.

The first Sedition Act was passed by Congress in 1797 because of the X,Y, Z Affair.

"
At the same time, two opposing political parties were developing in the U.S. Tending to sympathize with France in foreign policy were the Thomas Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans. Their loyalty was called into question by the Federalists, who dominated Congress during Adams's administration. It was a dangerous time both for the security of the young Republic and the freedoms its citizens enjoyed.

"

The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law_(United_States)) 65-150, 40 Stat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large) 553, enacted May 16, 1918) was an Act of the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917) to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds. One historian of American civil liberties has called it "the nation's most extreme antispeech legislation."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-0)
It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for 5 to 20 years.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-1) The act also allowed the Postmaster General (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postmaster_General) to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-2) It was repealed on December 13, 1920.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918#cite_note-3)

Would you not say that Foreign Policy is always the couse of War. and would you not say that we are in effect in a current undeclared war?

Franco
10-02-2011, 09:06 AM
Would you not say that Foreign Policy is always the couse of War. and would you not say that we are in effect in a current undeclared war?

To your first question, yes. Big difference however in fighting a war such as WW2 where we were attacked by the Japs and Germany declared war on the USA to us being Interventionist. Our Interventionist Foreign Policy is why we were attacked on 9/11 and the threats continue today and made worse by our intervention in Iraq and A'stan. When no WMD's were found we should have gotten the hell out of Iraq and when we learned that OBL fled A'stan we should have left there too! For everyone of these thugs we kill, five more pop up. Our Foreign Policy has grown terrorism not curtailed it.

To the second question, Congress did approve the actions.

Taking care of ourself and America First is a concept long overdue!

Hew
10-02-2011, 10:11 AM
Me = Bold


First, let get the facts straight. Ron Paul said that it was a "sad precedent" in disregarding The Constitution and killing an American citizen without due process. Bullsh!t...he said the American Govt. assassinated an American citizen without charges. If you want to pretend that's not a "condemnation" I suppose that's your perogative to play semantics. Whatever. Since you'd rather play word games than respond to the gist of the question I'll infer that you're embarrassed that the crazy little chipmunk you support for president is critical (is that word more appetizing to you?) of the decision to kill terrorists. Congrats...you're in the same boat as 98% of Americans.

Second, because of our policy all we are doing is growing worldwide terrorism not ending it.

Third, can't you guys beat Bama in the Swamp? 2nd quarter Bama 17 Florida 10. I'm a Gator fan for the next two hours! Dammit...you hoodoo jinxed us by your support. We were sure to rally. ;-)

...................

ppro
10-02-2011, 10:16 AM
I am sorry I am having problems with the statement it is unconstitutional to kill an American citizen without due process. I thought throughout our history including today that we have given dead or alive orders or shoot to kill orders. I think this dead thug knew he was wanted and could have received his due process if he wanted it. The use of the term unconstitutional from such a well versed scholar as Dr. Ron Paul seems to be overboard.

Franco
10-03-2011, 04:26 PM
Actually Hew, I am proud of Dr Paul for standing up for The Constitution. He appears to be the only one since the Democrats and the Republicans have trashed The Constitution with every opportunity!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65035.html