This country is seriously fucked

[NYcarbineer]

This is a thread about a poll in which a sizable portion of respondents supported using drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. You countered that we'd save a lot of money using drones instead of standard military action. Not only is your reading comprehension defective, but your moral core is rotten as well.

One Hellfire missile cost between 58000 AND 70000 dollars and their kill radius is pretty big I would think. There are other options, which may be cheaper but doubtful, they could drop laser guilded 500 pound bombs.

That said the poster to whom you refer is just making light of the killing of American citizens, as you said their moral core is rotten if not hollow.

American citizens who go to war against America don't get any special hall pass from their citizenship. Their citizenship is all but rendered meaningless under that circumstance.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is a thread about a poll in which a sizable portion of respondents supported using drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. You countered that we'd save a lot of money using drones instead of standard military action. Not only is your reading comprehension defective, but your moral core is rotten as well.

One Hellfire missile cost between 58000 AND 70000 dollars and their kill radius is pretty big I would think. There are other options, which may be cheaper but doubtful, they could drop laser guilded 500 pound bombs.

That said the poster to whom you refer is just making light of the killing of American citizens, as you said their moral core is rotten if not hollow.

Still trying to deflect from my question to you.

Poor baby.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is a thread about a poll in which a sizable portion of respondents supported using drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. You countered that we'd save a lot of money using drones instead of standard military action. Not only is your reading comprehension defective, but your moral core is rotten as well.

One Hellfire missile cost between 58000 AND 70000 dollars and their kill radius is pretty big I would think. There are other options, which may be cheaper but doubtful, they could drop laser guilded 500 pound bombs.

That said the poster to whom you refer is just making light of the killing of American citizens, as you said their moral core is rotten if not hollow.

American citizens who go to war against America don't get any special hall pass from their citizenship. Their citizenship is all but rendered meaningless under that circumstance.

I absolutely agree and so would all the rw's IF it were a pub president doing it.

Where an enemy was born has nothing at all to do with this.

 

[boedicca]

This is a thread about a poll in which a sizable portion of respondents supported using drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. You countered that we'd save a lot of money using drones instead of standard military action. Not only is your reading comprehension defective, but your moral core is rotten as well.

You wrote

Ah, so now you want Obama to be able to declare war on domestic terrorists?

Really?

Quit trying to weasel out and just show me EXACTLY where I wrote that, or admit you fucking lied. As usual.

You always do this. You lie and then change the subject. It is YOU who is 'rotten to the core'.

I'm done with you because you will just keep on lying about what I wrote.

=======

The rw's are saying that the "left" has been supportive of President Obama's targeting of American citizens who are also enemies of the US.

My question is twofold:

One, were you rw's against dubya's use of drones against US enemies?

Two, why are you now NOT against President Obama's use of drones against US enemies?

Or, put another way, who's side are you on? and why are you not on the side of the US?

Now you've jumped another shark.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A lot of people didn't care, but the only source of constant criticism you saw on the topic was from the left (Glenn Greenwald, et al.).

That was the only source you saw, that is hardly the only source.

In fairness, I guess there are a few Ron Paul types complaining as well.

You think Michelle Malkin is a Ron Paul type? Should I post one of her rants about Muslims invading America to prove you wrong?

Michelle Malkin » Jay Carney: Drone strikes constitutional, ethical, wise, and completely within the province of a Nobel Peace Prize winner

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993

Please send me some mushrooms

 

[Samson]

The point is AMERICAN citizens IN AMERICA and by extention Americans abroad. So try and stay on point. 41 percent of democrats said it was OK to kill Americans in America only by the say so of the POTUS, that should scare you. One day you might be standing next to a Tea Party grandma when the POTUS decides to take that threat out.

Isn't question 30 like asking if you approve of using an F16???

Agreed, but the point is that Americans agree with the "preemptive" Bush Doctrine, that, given even the SUSPICION of immanent threat, the US President is ultimately responsible for protecting Americans, and therefore has a "license to kill."

Obviously, ANY president can abuse his authority, and this is why they are impeachable.

We are in a state of war against Al Qaeda. This is not preemption. We were attacked on 9/11/01, you may recall.

What the ever-loving-FUCK are you babbling about?

Obviously we were attacked on 9/11/01.

That was 12 years ago.

Everything SINCE then has been PREEMPTIVE and there has not been a second attack.

Jaysus, do I need to fucking spell out everything, even when I agree with Obama's use of drones.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I don't support the President being able to unilaterally decide to kill American citizens without due process.

But I don't understand what the big deal is about "drones".

What can a "drone" do that a police helicopter can't already do?

I'll be happy to answer that!

A drone is usually outfitted with Hell Fire missiles or, in some cases JDAMS. A police helicopter is unarmed with the possible exception of an on-board sniper from SWAT.

I understand that the left has no problem whatsoever giving their "messiah" the power to kill American citizens with impunity (and I am not necessarily opposed to killing Americans working AGAINST the armed forces on FOREIGN SOIL) but in THIS country, there is a little thing called "due process".

You know, the same "due process" that that piece of crap Nidal Hassain has been getting since he murdered all those GIs at Fort Hood? - Or whatever the hell his name is....

 

[Polk]

We are in a state of war against Al Qaeda. This is not preemption. We were attacked on 9/11/01, you may recall.

God, I never realized Carb was Clarence Thomas doing his impression of a liberal 90% of the time.

Have you ever read the Afghan war authorization? Do you understand it?

Yes and yes. And what it does not contain is a grant of unlimited power to the executive.

 

[Polk]

Why are rw's against the killing of terrorists?

Never mind where they were born because it does NOT matter. What matters is that weprotect our country and rw's are against that.

If you are against keeping the US safe, leave.

Believe me, you will not be missed.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. While you're okay with Obama doing it, would you be okay with Rubio doing it?

I hope I'll never have to answer that question because I do not want Rubio in any office, especially POTUS.

BUT, I was okay with Bush using drones.

Its the 21st century and so-called "boots on the ground" war is stupid and wasteful. President Obama has taken out quite a few of our enemies without it costing thousands of American lives, millions of innocent bystanders and costing $trillions.

I've said I don't like drones but I really hate old fashioned war.

Was it you above who pointed out the obvious - that if it were Romney, the rw's would be in favor of drones.

But, Romney/Rs would not use drones the way Obama has because it does not benefit the war machine and those who make huge profits from killing American soldiers.

That's going off-topic. We're not talking about the ethics of drone war generally. We're talking about the specific issue of targeting Americans, without any sort of due process.

 

[Polk]

That was the only source you saw, that is hardly the only source.

In fairness, I guess there are a few Ron Paul types complaining as well.

You think Michelle Malkin is a Ron Paul type? Should I post one of her rants about Muslims invading America to prove you wrong?

Michelle Malkin » Jay Carney: Drone strikes constitutional, ethical, wise, and completely within the province of a Nobel Peace Prize winner

We were talking about people who have been consistent of the issue. Malkin was all in favor of this policy when Bush was implementing it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't support the President being able to unilaterally decide to kill American citizens without due process.

But I don't understand what the big deal is about "drones".

What can a "drone" do that a police helicopter can't already do?

I'll be happy to answer that!

A drone is usually outfitted with Hell Fire missiles or, in some cases JDAMS. A police helicopter is unarmed with the possible exception of an on-board sniper from SWAT.

Military Drones, in the battlefield, are usually outfitted with Hellfires - just like military helicopters are also outfitted with missiles.

There's absolutely no reason to think that domestic drones would be outfitted the same way - just like domestic law enforcement helicopters don't have Gatling guns and missiles.

I understand that the left has no problem whatsoever giving their "messiah" the power to kill American citizens with impunity (and I am not necessarily opposed to killing Americans working AGAINST the armed forces on FOREIGN SOIL) but in THIS country, there is a little thing called "due process".

When you make ridiculous blanket statements like this, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

You know, the same "due process" that that piece of crap Nidal Hassain has been getting since he murdered all those GIs at Fort Hood? - Or whatever the hell his name is....

I'm a "leftist", and I don't believes the President should have the power to kill American citizens without due process.

Nor do I know what the fuck Nidal Hassan has to do with anything.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I don't support the President being able to unilaterally decide to kill American citizens without due process.

But I don't understand what the big deal is about "drones".

What can a "drone" do that a police helicopter can't already do?

There's absolutely no reason to think that domestic drones would be outfitted the same way - just like domestic law enforcement helicopters don't have Gatling guns and missiles.

That wasn't your question, genius. You asked about the differences.

I understand that the left has no problem whatsoever giving their "messiah" the power to kill American citizens with impunity (and I am not necessarily opposed to killing Americans working AGAINST the armed forces on FOREIGN SOIL) but in THIS country, there is a little thing called "due process".

When you make ridiculous blanket statements like this, it becomes hard to take you seriously.

I couldn't care less about how "seriously" you take me. You mean nothing to me.

You know, the same "due process" that that piece of crap Nidal Hassain has been getting since he murdered all those GIs at Fort Hood? - Or whatever the hell his name is....

I'm a "leftist", and I don't believes the President should have the power to kill American citizens without due process.

the Fort Hood shooter has sat in the stockade at Fort Hood since this hapened several years ago. Barry's administration can't even make up their incompetent minds if it was terrorism or "workplace violence" . How's that for "due process"?


Nor do I know what the fuck Nidal Hassan has to do with anything.

Genius, aren't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In fairness, I guess there are a few Ron Paul types complaining as well.

You think Michelle Malkin is a Ron Paul type? Should I post one of her rants about Muslims invading America to prove you wrong?

Michelle Malkin » Jay Carney: Drone strikes constitutional, ethical, wise, and completely within the province of a Nobel Peace Prize winner

We were talking about people who have been consistent of the issue. Malkin was all in favor of this policy when Bush was implementing it.

Sigh. Bush did not use drones to target Americans, it would have been impossible for anyone to support it under Bush and oppose it under Obama. I am sure I can find plenty of Democrats who opposed the Bush use of drones that fully support Obama's expanded use of drones.

 

[Freewill]

This is a thread about a poll in which a sizable portion of respondents supported using drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. You countered that we'd save a lot of money using drones instead of standard military action. Not only is your reading comprehension defective, but your moral core is rotten as well.

One Hellfire missile cost between 58000 AND 70000 dollars and their kill radius is pretty big I would think. There are other options, which may be cheaper but doubtful, they could drop laser guilded 500 pound bombs.

That said the poster to whom you refer is just making light of the killing of American citizens, as you said their moral core is rotten if not hollow.

Still trying to deflect from my question to you.

Poor baby.

Not sorry I missed your questions, I realize you believe the Sun rises and sets on your butt but I do not share that opinion and for the sake of my sanity usually ignore whatever it is you post. But I did happen upon this bit of tripe and I did go back and I think I found your question.

Actually I had already answered the question but being a true liberal you just keep asking the same questions.

Here is one article on Obama raining death down onto those who may not be as guilty as you want to assume just because Lord Obama says so:

I Met a 16-Year-Old Kid. 3 Days Later Obama Killed Him

Here is another.

American drone deaths highlight controversy

Now as interesting as it is that the left wing has gotten up their blood lust and have finally admitted that there is a war on terror, after years of denial of the same. It is interesting that in spite of the reports of the innocents that have been killed, innocents being non-combatants, you pursue the defense of the indefensible.

NO one on the right is against killing terrorists that pose an intimate threat to Americans. That is why when our men were attacked at Benghazi we wanted the predators in the area used to stop the terrorists, didn't happen. But an American 16 year old boy having dinner with his cousin being taken out because the CIA says so, or someone on the CIA take targeting him, THAT we have questions about.

Yes, we know that the American citizens killed by Obama were spewing anti-American rhetoric to that there is little doubt, if the CIA and Obama are to be believed. But were they actual enemy combatants? Was there an actual intimate threat? These questions need asked and answered in a court of law when it comes to American citizens, in the least. Sure I don't like these people and their rhetoric, nor do I like Rodman's rhetoric and going to North Korea but I don't believe him giving aid to our enemy is a reason to drop a Hellfire on him and his friends.

The other problem is that Obama has told us so many things that just are not true, how can we believe anything this ONE man has to say?

 

[Freewill]

You think Michelle Malkin is a Ron Paul type? Should I post one of her rants about Muslims invading America to prove you wrong?

Michelle Malkin » Jay Carney: Drone strikes constitutional, ethical, wise, and completely within the province of a Nobel Peace Prize winner

We were talking about people who have been consistent of the issue. Malkin was all in favor of this policy when Bush was implementing it.

Sigh. Bush did not use drones to target Americans, it would have been impossible for anyone to support it under Bush and oppose it under Obama. I am sure I can find plenty of Democrats who opposed the Bush use of drones that fully support Obama's expanded use of drones.

Drones are the weapon of choice for the liberal left. They can rain death onto whomever they say is an enemy combatant in the non-existent war on terror without fear of harm to themselves. A glorified version of "Call to Duty." I say non-existent because that is what they claimed not too many years ago.

 

[Polk]

You think Michelle Malkin is a Ron Paul type? Should I post one of her rants about Muslims invading America to prove you wrong?

Michelle Malkin » Jay Carney: Drone strikes constitutional, ethical, wise, and completely within the province of a Nobel Peace Prize winner

We were talking about people who have been consistent of the issue. Malkin was all in favor of this policy when Bush was implementing it.

Sigh. Bush did not use drones to target Americans, it would have been impossible for anyone to support it under Bush and oppose it under Obama. I am sure I can find plenty of Democrats who opposed the Bush use of drones that fully support Obama's expanded use of drones.

I'm absolutely sure you can find plenty of hypocrites on this issue. Several of them have been active in this thread. The claim that "Bush did not use drones to target Americans" is supposition based on non-disclosure.

 

[Samson]

I'm a "leftist", and I don't believes the President should have the power to kill American citizens without due process.

Nor do I know what the fuck Nidal Hassan has to do with anything.

I'm more of a "rightist" and believe the President should have the power to kill anyone who threatens the lives of others without due process.

Police do it every day. They do not just kill ANYONE with impunity, and when they cannot prove just cause, they are prosecuted. Why shouldn't they president have the same authority?

Should we wait for a nuclear device to explode in Manhattan, then ask, "Hey, Mr. President, WFT? Did you know about this?"

Mr. President: "Yeah, we had the guys in the cross-hairs, and could have easily prevented the holocaust, but, you know, so many people on USMB thought I shouldn't have the power to kill an American, so we just let the guy go."

 

[Polk]

I'm a "leftist", and I don't believes the President should have the power to kill American citizens without due process.

Nor do I know what the fuck Nidal Hassan has to do with anything.

I'm more of a "rightist" and believe the President should have the power to kill anyone who threatens the lives of others without due process.

Police do it every day. They do not just kill ANYONE with impunity, and when they cannot prove just cause, they are prosecuted. Why shouldn't they president have the same authority?

Should we wait for a nuclear device to explode in Manhattan, then ask, "Hey, Mr. President, WFT? Did you know about this?"

Mr. President: "Yeah, we had the guys in the cross-hairs, and could have easily prevented the holocaust, but, you know, so many people on USMB thought I shouldn't have the power to kill an American, so we just let the guy go."

Imminent danger is a pretty significant different.

 

[boedicca]

Strawman. The only two alternatives are not assassination and letting someone go.

How about apprehending U.S. citizens who are suspected of terrorism and trying them in a military court? We'd need to change the law to create a definition for terrorists as being engaged in war activities, but that should have been done long ago.