More valuable than laying off workers, running companies into bankruptcy and profiting out of it like Mitt did?
You are truly a pathetic creature. I'm assuming you know that, and it's driving these bitter, absurd posts.
When you have to resort to insults, you've lost any argument among adults. Not sure how many times I've told you that, but you simply keep resorting to insults. I won't stoop to your level. ...and just so you know, you're teetering on the edge of my ignore list. You've been warned.
Here, I'll fix it to your liking (and personal posting history). Don't take this as a personal insult, but you are truly a pathetic creature. I'm assuming you know that, and it's driving these bitter, absurd posts.
I'm not an Obama supporter, but how can somebody say that being a community organizer and law school professor are not real jobs? Both relate directly to politics. Having an understanding of law, and knowing how that is applied in the community.
If that's the case, why did Obama execute a US citizen, and not even bother consulting the constitution regarding his "landmark healthcare reform"? FAIL
I'm against what Obama did there too, the man deserved trial. He was a citizen. But to believe Bush would have not done the same thing is ignorant.
You've been teetering on my ignore list for a long time. Considering the posts you continue to make, I find your comments about "insults" to be personally insulting. You know what you do here. You're too smart not to know what it is that you do in D&D. What motivates you is a mystery to me, because I don't think you believe half of what you post. Of course, I thought the same of basso. Eventually, he went too far. Work hard enough, and you can join his little group.
He didn't execute a U.S. citizen. What he did do, thankfully, is kill someone who was voluntarily joined with a group taking military action against the U.S. govt. Are you that weak on terror? Or you can say that he did execute an American citizen the same way Abe Lincoln did during the civil war. All of those confederate soldiers who were all American soldiers.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2005 The idiotic and revealing Civil War analogy If one wants to stay abreast of the lowly depths to which blindly loyal Bush worshipers are sinking in order to defend their leader, it is always worthwhile to pay a visit to the Powerline Blog, a virtual Bush-glorifying museum which always features up-to-date exhibits of the most intellectually dishonest pro-Bush talking points. Currently on display over there is an unbelievably vapid attempt – this one by Scott Johnson, who playfully refers to himself as Big "Trunk" -- to justify George Bush’s lawless expansion of executive power by equating it to Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and other emergency measures taken to save the Union during the Civil War. Invoking the nation-threatening crises faced by Abraham Lincoln to justify George Bush’s current law-breaking is breathtaking in both its dishonesty and stupidity. During Lincoln’s Presidency, the entire nation was engulfed in an internal, all-out war. Half of the country was fully devoted to the destruction of the other half. The existence of the nation was very much in doubt. Americans were dying violent deaths every day at a staggering rate. One million American were wounded and a half-million Americans died (a total which represented 5% of the total population), making it the deadliest war America has ever faced, by far, including all wars through the present. On multiple occasions, more than 25,000 Americans – and sometimes as many as 50,000 – were killed in battles lasting no more than three days. The scope of carnage, killing, and chaos – all within the country, on American soil – is difficult to comprehend. Making matters worse -- much worse -- the country was only 70 years old at the time. And even before the Civil War began, America was teetering precariously from these unresolved internal conflicts. The country then was a shadow of what it is today, with a tiny faction of the strength, stability and cohesion which, 140 years later, characterize the United States. Does it really even require any debate to see that we are many universes away from the existential, all-consuming crisis that a still-young America faced during its Civil War? Could our situation today be any more different from what it was then? The United States today is a nation that has not had a single attack for four years. In the last ten years, it had a grand total of one attack on its soil – an attack which took place on a single day and killed roughly the same number of Americans as suicide kills every month (somehow it's perfectly acceptable to make comparisons like this to show how safe Iraq is and what a great, un-deadly war it's been, but it's horrible to use exactly the same rationale to put the threat posed by terrorism into some perspective). The attention of Americans these days is primarily devoted to "news stories" involving pretty young girls who get abducted by teenage boys, salacious trials of pop stars, and the latest local fire. Americans spend a lot more time and energy analyzing plot mysteries on Desperate Housewives than they do discussing counter-terrorism measures. We just experienced what Amazon.com is suggesting is a record period of Christmas buying of luxury items, computer toys, and other sundry forms of light entertainment and distraction. If this is a nation at "war," it certainly is making the best of it. To compare our current situation in America to the existence-threatening crisis of the Civil War -- and to even insinuate that the extraordinary liberty-revoking measures employed by Abraham Lincoln to save the union can be used to justify similarly extreme measures now -- is a form of delusion and/or propaganda so severe that it is difficult to describe it as anything other than deranged. The Bush Administration has created a climate and a set of political mores pursuant to which we are all supposed to uncritically accept and robotically recite the decree that "we are at war," which, in turn, justifies all of the excesses and infringements of liberty which become more acceptable when "we are at war." The punishment for failing to blindly accept this war decree is to be branded an Al Qaeda-loving subversive who wants to coddle terrorists and give them therapy instead of helping win the glorious war we are waging. Constitutionally, we are not at war, because Congress has not declared any such war as required by Art. I, Section 8. Nor, by any other measure, are we at war in the way we were at "war" during the Civil War, or World War I or II. We have no defined enemy, no standard for "winning," no exit goal, no battlefields. What we have is an endless conflict, against a group of individuals motivated by religious and political convictions which guarantee its hostilities towards us, but not a war. And if that is merely a semantic distinction, if one insists that it is appropriate to call our conflict against groups like Al Qaeda a "war," this "war" could not be any more unlike what America faced during its Civil War. The word "war" has become an all-purpose political tool, to the point where it is virtually impoverished of meaning. "War" is something we wage on cancer, on poverty, on drugs, and now on "terror." "Wars" now come in the "cold" variety, the traditional form against other countries, as in Iraq, and in vague, interminable conflicts with ill-defined enemies which are capable of highly limited strikes once every few years. But whatever else one can say about our conflict with terrorists – even if one insists on calling it a "war" -- it is nothing even remotely like the Civil War, when the existence of the nation was in doubt and the whole country engulfed by killing and anarchy. That Bush defenders now invoke the incomparably severe crisis of the Civil War -- and hail the dangerous revocations of liberty which that crisis necessitated -- gives a pretty clear idea as to how extreme their fear-driven perspective is and how radical their "pro-security" aspirations have become. http://bit.ly/zy5j7v
That would be a great point if we were talking about suspending habeas corpus. We aren't. You have yet to address the fact that a person voluntarily joined a group actively involved in military actions against the U.S. If you think every citizen who does that and is then killed in a military strike against the enemy was somehow entitled to a trial then you believe every single confederate soldier killed in the civil war should have had a trial.
Jesus Franchise, sometimes you're just as bad as the conservatives are. Just because it's a democrat in office doesn't make it correct to subvert the Constitution. Alwaki didn't fight on a battlefield, he didn't go in the Afghan mountains and fire shots at American troops. He didn't mastermind or finance it. He didn't make bombs or train them. He was a US citizen who spoke out against our foreign policy. Did he inspire terrorism? Yes. Did he advocate violence? Yes. But so did William Luther Pierce, and we didn't send a missile to his house or even arrest him. We let him continue on his merry way. Both men were US citizens, both inspired terrorism, why is one a "combatant" and the other not? Don't you see the potential for abuse? You don't fear us sending drone strikes to anyone who is critical of our foreign policy?
The constitution says nothing about healthcare. The modern HMO system did not even exist until Nixon so why are you bringing up healthcare and the constitution?
It's funny, we just studied Nixon in history class. Obama's plan was almost a carbon copy of Nixon's, except Nixon wanted an employeer mandate instead of an individual mandate.
He enlisted and joined Al Qaeda. He was a part of their organization. In WWII Goebbels who was the Nazi in charge of their propaganda may not have been on the actual battlefield either but he was a valid target. Awlaki was a regional commander within Al Qaeda. To my knowledge Pierce wasn't. I will admit my ignorance but I don't know too much about Pierce's case. He was a neo-Nazi, or Klan type guy if I'm thinking of the right person, but I could be totally off.
