I'm not drunk on the kool-aid, but how can you say that Obama does the same **** (at least with regards to the topic of the links)?
Re: Ron Paul-- you could vote for him and still not violate your 'no republican' policy.
Maybe it's my moderate side, but I really don't have that much of an issue with the foreign policy aspects of the Obama presidency. He's used drone strikes to take out wanted terrorists, he apparently threaded the needle on how to respond to the Egyptian crisis, took out Gaddafi with no loss of American lives (and international support), etc. Hell, by this time in the GWB presidency we'd invaded two countries and hand ~150,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Obama's bringing the last combat troops in Iraq home by the end of the year. I'd say there's quite a bit of a difference on how Obama operates compared to W.
which other presidential candidate or biased news media told you this?
Really? I actually find these pretty insidious. President Nobel Peace prize is carrying out military actions that amount to declarations of war on foreign soils and that doesn't kind of worry you? Your okay with executions of American Citizens without due process? We all know Al-waki(SP?) was guilty as sin but he was still an American who is granted certain rights under the constitution.
Nope, don't care in the slightest. There's precedent going back to WWII (at least) of Americans killing other Americans (who had taken up arms against the US) on the field of battle without any type of due process. If the guy manning the machine gun in the German uniform happens to be an American citizen, are you really going to avoid killing him so that you can use due-process to bring him to justice? Al-waki (?) wasn't unarmed and trying to surrender, he was actively on a foreign battlefield and had taken up arms against the US. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. As for a "declaration of war", against who? Al Qaeda? I thought we're already at war with them. Yemen? The Yemeni government didn't take the drone strike as an act of war...
Obama tried to transfer the Guantanamo detainees to US Federal courts to have them tried, but was blocked by Congress.Pesqueeb said:
Of course not. But there is a difference between stumbling across some treasonous douche in a pill box and hunting him down specifically with your fancy R/C plane.
Exactly. The bogey man near as I can tell.
Of course they don't. Just like Pakistan doesn't, because we ship them crates full of money and weapons and they don't want the teat taken away.
I am actually genuinely curious about this. I hear the racist/bigot thing thrown around alot but have never seen it for myself. I have a friend that goes on and on about him like he is the Savior. Would LOVE to shut him up. Anyone got any unbiased (so no counter-arguments or excuses) links on hand?
Not really. Stumbling across a treasonous douche in a pill box is exactly the same as targeting the top members of Al Qaeda regardless of their nationalities. I haven't heard anyone claim that we went after him solely because he was an American. We went after him because he was part of the Al Qaeda hierarchy, regardless of his nationality. I'm ok with that.
If Yemen / Pakistan don't care, why should I?
Well, I'm of the opinion that if this country is going to claim it owns the thrown as the upright, moral, center of the Democratic universe that everyone should emulate, perhaps it should act like it. I might have apostatized, but I still believe hypocrisy is the greatest sin.
Quite possibly. I have been accused of seeing things in only black and white.I guess I'm more of a pragmatist/realist...
Pakistan cares. Now, regardless of whether or not we should care what those evil fvcks in the Pakistani government and security services think, you have to also deal with the drone attacks that take out weddings and stuff like that. Drone attacks are easier from an American political perspective, and stupid American foreign policy is a ratchet, it only tightens one way.
See syadasti's link. Paul is either a racist, incredibly ignorant of what is done in his name (and he wants to be POTUS, when he can't manage a fvcking newsletter? Even Reagan in the grips of Alzheimer's wasn't that out of it...) or he's wiling to profit off pandering to racists.
I was getting more of a, "if you conspire with our enemies to kill us, you are against us" vibe.
Yup. It's definitely a "If you're against us........... you're against us and don't complain when we shove a missile up your ass" thing.
To what degree, and in which situations? Some businesses should have the right to exclude people based on uncontrollable qualities. I wouldn't exactly expect an Asian woman to play the part of Martin Luther King in a movie. If a business sees fit that a person of certain uncontrollable qualities best represents their interests, why shouldn't they choose that person?
+1...
How so? I call that efficency, utilizing the core concept of economy of force. If some nipplehead at Creech/Indian Springs can take out a AQ operative with a drone strike vs. storming a bunker and losing a bunch of 19 year olds in the process, I say score 1 for the good guys.
Rand Paul On 'Maddow' Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill (VIDEO)
When pressed for specifics this was his attempt to defend the position.
Perfect response. It's freedom of speech, freedom of choice, religion, etc. It comes with the responsibility of facing the wrath of being an idiot, but if that's what someone believes, it's their right.Rand Paul said:
It's the perfect response if you're discussing speech. Business operations are not speech. It's a bull**** dodge of the question in the form of a trite irrelevant textbook truism. An actual perfect response would have been to provide the specific wording he would prefer to see in the Civil Rights act.
Discrimination based on race is not speech, its actions.
And that's where you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions. You can't just criminalize an idea.
