I would like for you all knowing all seeing poster to explain theses two things for me.
1. When Bush poured a little water on some muslim terrorists, you socialists went into a frothing at the mouth rage. This was going to end our civilization. Now your leader will KILL citizens with a drone, and there is just a peep about it. No trial, no due process, just boom.
2. Your leader says he would have to think about letting his son play football, but it is fine to put girls in the front line fox holes.
:rolleyes:
Again; PROVE IT!
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141
Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens
woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.
Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.
" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.
Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.
But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.
taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.
Quote from: me on February 06, 2013, 11:39:08 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141
Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens
woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.
Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.
" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.
Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.
But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.
taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: RC on February 06, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
I would like for you all knowing all seeing poster to explain theses two things for me.
1. When Bush poured a little water on some muslim terrorists, you socialists went into a frothing at the mouth rage. This was going to end our civilization. Now your leader will KILL citizens with a drone, and there is just a peep about it. No trial, no due process, just boom.
2. Your leader says he would have to think about letting his son play football, but it is fine to put girls in the front line fox holes.
Cuz jeebus hates you and makes you wonder about such things.
http://wamc.org/post/holder-spells-out-why-drones-target-us-citizens
Holder Spells Out Why Drones Target U.S. Citizens
Attorney General Eric Holder discusses the controversial U.S. drone program during a speech at Northwestern Law School in Chicago on Monday.
Originally published on Tue March 6, 2012 12:01 am
Listen
4:24
It's one of the most serious actions the U.S. government could ever take: targeting one of its own citizens with lethal force.
Since last year, U.S. drones have killed three Americans overseas. But Attorney General Eric Holder says the ongoing fight against al-Qaida means those kinds of deadly strikes are now a way of life. And judging from the reaction to his national security speech at Northwestern University Law School on Monday, so is the hot debate over the legality of the U.S. drone program.
Since President Obama took office, he's deployed drones against terrorism suspects in an unprecedented way. But the program is covert, so although foreign governments and reporters have chronicled those strikes, no U.S. official is supposed to mention them directly. Instead, as Holder acknowledged, they use euphemisms like targeted killing or use of force.
"The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen," Holder said Monday.
Why The Critics Object
That bothers Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"They are claiming the authority to kill any American citizen whom the president deems to be an enemy of the state," Jaffer says, "and that authority is not reviewable before the fact by any court and it's not reviewed after the fact by any court."
Jaffer is working with the family of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico, who was killed by a drone in Yemen last September.
Prosecutors say Awlaki instructed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, to blow up a plane flying over Detroit in 2009, and inspired several other homegrown terrorists. They say Awlaki, an influential cleric, became a leader in the group al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. But they never publicly charged Awlaki with a crime, so he never had his day in court, raising questions about whether he got due process under the U.S. Constitution.
The Justice Department has refused to even acknowledge it prepared a memo authorizing the strike against Awlaki. Instead, after months of internal debate, the attorney general gave a speech setting out the broad legal rationale for targeting Americans overseas — never mentioning Awlaki by name.
When U.S. Acts
Holder said the government analysis starts with the question of geography: "Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan."
The Obama administration says al-Qaida has mostly moved out of Afghanistan and spread into Yemen and Somalia. Holder said the legal authorization Congress passed a week after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, stretches to cover military action there.
But that point is hotly challenged by Notre Dame Law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell.
"Killing persons far from armed conflict zones must follow law enforcement rules to comply with fundamental human rights," she says. "The president cannot assert that the U.S. is in a worldwide war or use the interstate right of self-defense to do an end run around law enforcement principles."
Holder said the administration acts after considering whether it has "the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States."
In other words, the U.S. wants to know whether the foreign country has the law enforcement power, and the political will, to capture a suspected terrorist who's still alive.
Trusting The Administration
There's precedent for taking out an enemy leader. During World War II, the U.S. tracked the airplane flying the commander of the Japanese Navy — the man who presided over the attack on Pearl Harbor — and shot it down. But modern technology, in the form of drones, has introduced a new wrinkle, as Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson pointed out in his own recent speech at Yale University.
"What is new is that with advances in technology, we are able to target military objectives with much more precision, to the point where we can identify, target and strike a single military objective from great distances," Johnson said.
Jaffer, of the ACLU, says the Obama administration is playing it both ways: giving speeches on the controversial targeted killing program, but claiming the program is a state secret when it gets sued.
Jaffer cites recent polls that say many Americans seem to accept Obama's "just trust us" approach. But, he asks, "Do you trust the next administration as well? Are you confident the next president will use this power in a way that you think is responsible?"
Matthew Waxman, who teaches law at Columbia University, says neither end of the political spectrum is likely to feel satisfied with the status quo.
"Even if the administration comes forward with further disclosures, many of the details about this operation are going to remain opaque," Waxman says.
They'll remain hidden from view, Waxman says, because that's the nature of the modern fight against terrorism, which clashes with Obama's promise of transparency.
Quote from: me on February 06, 2013, 11:39:08 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141
Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens
woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.
Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.
" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.
Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.
But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.
taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.
Terrorists that are U.S. citizens and are outside the boundaries of the U.S. pose the threat of murdering other citizens. Do you prefer they do that?
Terrorists that have essentially declared war on the U.S. are guilty of treason, punishable by death.
If we have them within our control (i.e., at Gitmo) we have the ability to apply judicial system procedures.
When they are not under our control, we have no choice if we wish to protect other citizens.
Of course, you would piss and moan until you bleed if this dirtbag (or another p.o.s) were to order a strike and kill hundreds (perhaps thousands) of American citizens and you knew that it could have been averted by a simple strike.
You know I'm right and you're done.
Quote from: me on February 06, 2013, 11:39:08 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/license-kill-government-authorizes-drone-strikes-us-citizens-18414141
Transcript for License to Kill: Government Authorizes Drone Strikes on US Citizens
woe, we turn to that secret document, 16 pages long and stirring up so much controversy tonight. It is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. Abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today.
Reporter: By one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to drop strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. But today we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. A newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informs, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat.
" But the documents say, it, quote, does not quire the goo have clear evidence. Case in point, anwar al awlaki, top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. He was killed in a 2011 drone strike.
Human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. And -- justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. Reporter: As soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding that he considered torture.
But this justifies outright killing of a suspect ed terrorist. How does dropping a bomb on american citizens without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions, or more human rights questions, than something like waterboarding? The president understands the gravity of these issues.
taking very seriously his responsibilities. Reporter: The white house says that the president's top priority has been to protect the american people in a way consistent with our values. But you can expect that his choice to run the cia if face sharp questions later this week, and diane, some in congress say they want to impose limits on the min straight's ability to use drone strikes.
Rift with grammatical / spelling errors which erodes credibility of the news agency's ability to write and obtain facts; not to mention assimilate said facts.
There is a distinct difference between acts of war and policing. Had the government been able to scramble jets quickly enough to shoot down those airliners on 9/11/2001, they would have done so. Would that have been wrong? No.
So if today they had a terrorist spotted via drone, that was in possession of a dirty bomb and moving to detonate it, and they kill that terrorist, whether US citizen of foreigner, is it wrong?
Or shall we await a judicial review of the situation and a ruling, and provide the perp the time to do the deed(s) and kill thousands?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Moreover, I noticed a lot of you tea-billies were in full support of water-boarding. . .
Oh. . . and how about we discuss this second bit of balderdash?
Again, there is a distinct difference between war and parenting.
Making women eligible for placement onto the front lines of war is an act of equality as it relates to service to our country within the military. A lot of women serving WANTED that, as is their right. They are subject to the same rules, the same pay scales, and the same responsibilities as male members.
As a parent, given the fact that football is a dangerous sport that has a demonstrated likelihood to impose serious injury and death, I too would have to think about whether or not to allow my son or daughter to participate within the sport.
WTF is wrong with that? :confused:
You people PH Wolf, give me a great laugh. Not one honest bone in either of you. Just drink the obama kool-aid and get going. Terrorists that are citizens deserve the Constitution protections that are for all citizens. If they are found guilty of a crime, then give them the death penalty. Non citizens, deserve nothing and what every they do to get info is fine.
Women are unique and special, and deserve to be honored and protected. They are in deed equal in all regards except in the front lines of combat. I want no part of a culture that says it is alright to send them to the front line.
You all need some new insults I am getting tired of the old ones. Put your brain cell to work and come up with some.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 06, 2013, 12:14:05 PM
Rift with grammatical / spelling errors which erodes credibility of the news agency's ability to write and obtain facts; not to mention assimilate said facts.
There is a distinct difference between acts of war and policing. Had the government been able to scramble jets quickly enough to shoot down those airliners on 9/11/2001, they would have done so. Would that have been wrong? No.
So if today they had a terrorist spotted via drone, that was in possession of a dirty bomb and moving to detonate it, and they kill that terrorist, whether US citizen of foreigner, is it wrong?
Or shall we await a judicial review of the situation and a ruling, and provide the perp the time to do the deed(s) and kill thousands?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Moreover, I noticed a lot of you tea-billies were in full support of water-boarding. . .
So I guess ABC is just short of being classified as not being a reliable news source now too. You all really need to quit ignoring and excusing some of these things that are going on.
Quote from: RC on February 06, 2013, 02:14:25 PM
You people PH Wolf, give me a great laugh. Not one honest bone in either of you. Just drink the obama kool-aid and get going. Terrorists that are citizens deserve the Constitution protections that are for all citizens. If they are found guilty of a crime, then give them the death penalty. Non citizens, deserve nothing and what every they do to get info is fine.
Women are unique and special, and deserve to be honored and protected. They are in deed equal in all regards except in the front lines of combat. I want no part of a culture that says it is alright to send them to the front line.
You all need some new insults I am getting tired of the old ones. Put your brain cell to work and come up with some.
You wouldn't understand anyway.
I'll bet "me" is dancing with joy.
Someone with fewer skills has finally joined the fray.
He's your savior, "me."
I know -------- this will just further convince you that there is a jeebus. He sent rc to take the heat off you.
If you play your cards right, you'll come off looking like a genius by comparison.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 06, 2013, 12:14:05 PM
Rift with grammatical / spelling errors which erodes credibility of the news agency's ability to write and obtain facts; not to mention assimilate said facts.
There is a distinct difference between acts of war and policing. Had the government been able to scramble jets quickly enough to shoot down those airliners on 9/11/2001, they would have done so. Would that have been wrong? No.
So if today they had a terrorist spotted via drone, that was in possession of a dirty bomb and moving to detonate it, and they kill that terrorist, whether US citizen of foreigner, is it wrong?
Or shall we await a judicial review of the situation and a ruling, and provide the perp the time to do the deed(s) and kill thousands?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Moreover, I noticed a lot of you tea-billies were in full support of water-boarding. . .
Uh, water boarding does not kill drones do.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 06, 2013, 03:30:39 PM
You wouldn't understand anyway.
I'll bet "me" is dancing with joy.
Someone with fewer skills has finally joined the fray.
He's your savior, "me."
I know -------- this will just further convince you that there is a jeebus. He sent rc to take the heat off you.
If you play your cards right, you'll come off looking like a genius by comparison.
Yep, if ya can't come up with something constructive to say about the subject reply with a put down of some sort. Right out of the play book.
Only for certain posters.
Those who do not deserve respect.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 06, 2013, 04:41:58 PM
Only for certain posters.
Those who do not deserve respect.
Once again, right out of the play book.
In other words --
You got nothin'.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 06, 2013, 05:02:23 PM
In other words --
You got nothin'.
Which is why you come back with things like you do, 'cause you've got nothin'.
Quote from: RC on February 06, 2013, 02:14:25 PM
. . .
Women are unique and special, and deserve to be honored and protected. They are in deed equal in all regards except in the front lines of combat. I want no part of a culture that says it is alright to send them to the front line.
. . .
Is this Biblical wisdom you are trying to turn into law, or just a spin you want to impart upon it to leverage your racist hate filled agenda?
Fell free to move to Israel or Canada if you want no part of it. And for the record, they (women) voluntarily joined and assumed the risks themselves.
Quote from: me on February 06, 2013, 03:18:22 PM
So I guess ABC is just short of being classified as not being a reliable news source now too. You all really need to quit ignoring and excusing some of these things that are going on.
Did I say that? No. . . but feel free to continue ignoring the point(s). . . Right out of YOUR playbook. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on February 06, 2013, 04:32:27 PM
Uh, water boarding does not kill drones do.
Had you ever been subjected to water-boarding you would not be so quick to dismiss it's abusiveness and abject denial of basic human rights. . .
And for the record water-boarding can indeed kill, and has. . . One can drown on a teaspoon of liquid.
And as my esteemed colleague stated earlier, (I paraphrase), would you rather our sons and daughters be sent to confront these miscreants face-to-face, rather than the utilization of the technology that allows us to reach out and touch them from a distance?
Quote from: RC on February 06, 2013, 02:14:25 PM
Terrorists that are citizens deserve the Constitution protections that are for all citizens. If they are found guilty of a crime, then give them the death penalty. Non citizens, deserve nothing and what every they do to get info is fine.
That isn't how our justice system or our Constitution works; everyone, citizen or not, has the same rights in our legal system.
That notwithstanding, if I had irrefutable proof that you were a terrorist who'd taken arms against this country, I would have no compunction whatsoever about skipping the legal process and putting a bullet in your head. In fact, I think it far more egregious for a U.S. citizen to join the enemy than somone who is not and would probably be inclined to make your death as slow and painful as possible.
Ditto.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 07, 2013, 01:25:47 AM
Is this Biblical wisdom you are trying to turn into law, or just a spin you want to impart upon it to leverage your racist hate filled agenda?
Fell free to move to Israel or Canada if you want no part of it. And for the record, they (women) voluntarily joined and assumed the risks themselves.
There is no privacy in a fox hole and there are times when women need and should have privacy not to mention the "extra supplies" which would be needed. Serving "on" the front lines and "serving" the front lines are two different things. As a combat pilot or flying a rescue helicopter, yes, but shoulder to shoulder in combat, no.
Quote from: Palehorse on February 07, 2013, 01:30:01 AM
Had you ever been subjected to water-boarding you would not be so quick to dismiss it's abusiveness and abject denial of basic human rights. . .
And for the record water-boarding can indeed kill, and has. . . One can drown on a teaspoon of liquid.
And as my esteemed college stated earlier, (I paraphrase), would you rather our sons and daughters be sent to confront these miscreants face-to-face, rather than the utilization of the technology that allows us to reach out and touch them from a distance?
Even the ACLU who loves Obama sees a problem with this.
Let me see if I am getting this correct here. It was wrong for the Bush Administration to allow Water Boarding to KNOWN terrorist, who HAD vital information, that could prevent the loss of American lives by applying a method, that did NOT kill. But is entirely okay to actually KILL someone who MIGHT be associated with terroists or the terrorist themselves? Killing is better than a harsh interrogation technique?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 10:36:40 AM
Let me see if I am getting this correct here. It was wrong for the Bush Administration to allow Water Boarding to KNOWN terrorist, who HAD vital information, that could prevent the loss of American lives by applying a method, that did NOT kill. But is entirely okay to actually KILL someone who MIGHT be associated with terroists or the terrorist themselves? Killing is better than a harsh interrogation technique?
HH don't you know that to disagree with the current administration you have to be able to withstand being ridiculed and there are those who just cannot stand that so they will agree with anything this administration does rather than open themselves up for what they dish out.
Quote from: me on February 07, 2013, 09:50:47 AM
Even the ACLU who loves Obama sees a problem with this.
They have a problem with water-boarding too, but don't let that stop you. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 10:36:40 AM
Let me see if I am getting this correct here. It was wrong for the Bush Administration to allow Water Boarding to KNOWN terrorist, who HAD vital information, that could prevent the loss of American lives by applying a method, that did NOT kill. But is entirely okay to actually KILL someone who MIGHT be associated with terroists or the terrorist themselves? Killing is better than a harsh interrogation technique?
No, you don't have it correct. But don't let that stop you.
Quote from: me on February 07, 2013, 11:25:45 AM
HH don't you know that to disagree with the current administration you have to be able to withstand being ridiculed and there are those who just cannot stand that so they will agree with anything this administration does rather than open themselves up for what they dish out.
Wow. . . the victim card. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 07, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
No, you don't have it correct. But don't let that stop you.
don't let it stop me from what? Asking you to answer a question?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 11:33:00 AM
don't let it stop me from what? Asking you to answer a question?
He did answer your question.
Now let's explore your fallacies...first of all, there is no "might" to these people...they are U.S. citizens who have publicly ackowledged that they are enemy combatants. If Bush had been taking these people out with drones, you'd have been lining up to suck his dick.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 07, 2013, 12:00:20 PM
He did answer your question.
He did? I dont' have it correct by saying it is wrong for the Bush Administration to allow Water Boarding to KNOWN terrorist, who HAD vital information, that could prevent the loss of American lives by applying a method, that did NOT kill. But is entirely okay to actually KILL someone who MIGHT be associated with terroists or the terrorist themselves?
That is the way he answered it.
As for the rest of your response........ :rolleyes: Typical.
Quote from: me on February 07, 2013, 11:25:45 AM
HH don't you know that to disagree with the current administration you have to be able to withstand being ridiculed and there are those who just cannot stand that so they will agree with anything this administration does rather than open themselves up for what they dish out.
You finally got it right.
brilliant
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 12:03:05 PM
He did? I dont' have it correct by saying it is wrong for the Bush Administration to allow Water Boarding to KNOWN terrorist, who HAD vital information, that could prevent the loss of American lives by applying a method, that did NOT kill. But is entirely okay to actually KILL someone who MIGHT be associated with terroists or the terrorist themselves?
That is the way he answered it.
As for the rest of your response........ :rolleyes: Typical.
(Let's try it without the commentary shall we?)
No, you don't have it correct. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on February 07, 2013, 12:22:04 PM
(Let's try it without the commentary shall we?)
No, you don't have it correct. . .
me thinks I do.
Had Bush been doing drone strikes YOU and others would NOT have approved. Based upon your logic, Killing is better than harsh interrogtions.
For the record, I have zero problems with either. As long as we are keeping Americans safe.
You have no problems with torture because you have no moral compass.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 12:37:57 PM
Had Bush been doing drone strikes YOU and others would NOT have approved. Based upon your logic, Killing is better than harsh interrogtions.
For the record, I have zero problems with either. As long as we are keeping Americans safe.
Bush did indeed use drones, in fact the use of predator, raven, and sky hawk drone units increased substantially between 2003 and January of 2008. And they were used int he exact same ways that they are being used today.
. . .UAV usage across all the military services jumped from nearly 165,000 flight hours in the 2006 fiscal year, to more than 258,000 for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2007.
Those figures, compiled by the Pentagon, include some training flights, but the overwhelming majority was on the warfront. A majority of the flights are in Iraq, which has seen the biggest increase. But they are also used extensively in Afghanistan. . . http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22463596/#.URPnwKVmg20 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22463596/#.URPnwKVmg20)
I never was opposed to the use of drones, but water-boarding is another matter entirely. Torture is unacceptable in any form, and its use is more likely to elicit untruths than otherwise.
Why (2) are you now opposed to drone use when it has been used in the exact same way since the Bush Administration began using them?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 07, 2013, 12:53:05 PM
Bush did indeed use drones, in fact the use of predator, raven, and sky hawk drone units increased substantially between 2003 and January of 2008. And they were used int he exact same ways that they are being used today.
. . .UAV usage across all the military services jumped from nearly 165,000 flight hours in the 2006 fiscal year, to more than 258,000 for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2007.
Those figures, compiled by the Pentagon, include some training flights, but the overwhelming majority was on the warfront. A majority of the flights are in Iraq, which has seen the biggest increase. But they are also used extensively in Afghanistan. . .
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22463596/#.URPnwKVmg20 (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22463596/#.URPnwKVmg20)
I never was opposed to the use of drones, but water-boarding is another matter entirely. Torture is unacceptable in any form, and its use is more likely to elicit untruths than otherwise.
Why (2) are you now opposed to drone use when it has been used in the exact same way since the Bush Administration began using them?
I never said I was opposed to drone use, did I?
How about if a drone strike is used on a citizen on US soil.?
Quote from: RC on February 07, 2013, 12:59:06 PM
How about if a drone strike is used on a citizen on US soil.?
Then we could have a big problem.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 01:18:22 PM
Then we could have a big problem.
If a citizen can be subject to a drone strike over seas, it is just a short leap to do it here. We are on a slippery slope. The Constitution applies to all citizens all the time or it does not.
What if that citizen was driving a truck with a dirty bomb in it on his way to a population center and the drone had the opportunity to take him out in an unpopulated area?
C'mon, man.
That's too hard.
Like science.
'Way too hard.
Forget all the na na na na na! Double, triple the drone strikes. If there is a terrorist in a house, building, car, truck, drone it. Kill all of the bastards. Let's do the world a favor. Kill all of the Muslim bastards. :yes: :trustme:
When a farmer or anyone find a rat nest full of babies, they kill them. Why? Because they will grow up to be full size rats. :rant:
Quote from: RC on February 07, 2013, 01:21:19 PM
If a citizen can be subject to a drone strike over seas, it is just a short leap to do it here. We are on a slippery slope. The Constitution applies to all citizens all the time or it does not.
The only "slippery slope" around here is the one that clearly exists with the synaptic membrane connecting the nerves contained within your miniature brain cavity.
Has it happened yet? No. Will it happen? Not likely.
Hell, an asteroid the size of Texas is more likely to come down on top of your head! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 08, 2013, 12:43:36 AM
Hell, an asteroid the size of Texas is more likely to come down on top of your head! :rolleyes:
"CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. Feb 7 (Reuters) - A small asteroid will pass closer to Earth next week than the TV satellites that ring the planet,........http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/space-asteroid-flyby-idUSL1N0B7HIV20130207
:biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 07, 2013, 01:25:52 PM
What if that citizen was driving a truck with a dirty bomb in it on his way to a population center and the drone had the opportunity to take him out in an unpopulated area?
The Constitution applies!
Quote from: The Troll on February 07, 2013, 06:58:04 PM
Forget all the na na na na na! Double, triple the drone strikes. If there is a terrorist in a house, building, car, truck, drone it. Kill all of the bastards. Let's do the world a favor. Kill all of the Muslim bastards. :yes: :trustme:
When a farmer or anyone find a rat nest full of babies, they kill them. Why? Because they will grow up to be full size rats. :rant:
I agree so long as they are not citizens covered by the Constitution.
Quote from: RC on February 08, 2013, 09:24:47 AM
The Constitution applies!
The Constitution allows for the use of deadly force; how is a drone strike materially different from a LEO using his sidearm?
Quote from: RC on February 08, 2013, 09:25:49 AM
I agree so long as they are not citizens covered by the Constitution.
Is there still some part of the Constitution covering citizens and non-citizens alike that you're having difficulty understanding?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2013, 11:11:27 AM
Is there still some part of the Constitution covering citizens and non-citizens alike that you're having difficulty understanding?
Due process should be given to citizens. Under your plan the police could just shoot anyone they see doing a crime. No need for the courts. Do you support drone strikes on US soil?
The police are authorized to use deadly force under certain conditions, no due process necessary.
Yes, I support drone strikes on U.S. soil if they're used to eradicate scumbag rednecks in places like WV.
Quote from: RC on February 08, 2013, 11:51:48 AM
Due process should be given to citizens. Under your plan the police could just shoot anyone they see doing a crime. No need for the courts. Do you support drone strikes on US soil?
Police can now to protect lives.
*Crickets*
Amazing, eh?
So what's to discuss? It's pretty apparent that ya'll think it's ok for this administration to get by with things you wanted Bush crucified for. You will excuse anything he does just because he's a fancy talker and you don't even see the BS dripping from the corners of his mouth.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2013, 01:37:32 PM
It's pretty apparent that ya'll think it's ok for this administration to get by with things you wanted Bush crucified for.
Please provide links to the posts in which anyone was critical of the Bush administration's use of drones and be aware that I am going to call you out (again) for being a liar if you can't.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2013, 01:56:24 PM
Please provide links to the posts in which anyone was critical of the Bush administration's use of drones and be aware that I am going to call you out (again) for being a liar if you can't.
She's not going to find any. A quick search of the forum didn't turn any up. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on February 11, 2013, 03:18:20 PM
She's not going to find any. A quick search of the forum didn't turn any up. ;D
Of course she isn't. :wink:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 08, 2013, 11:59:39 AM
Yes, I support drone strikes on U.S. soil if they're used to eradicate scumbag rednecks in places like WV.
Especially that!
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2013, 01:56:24 PM
Please provide links to the posts in which anyone was critical of the Bush administration's use of drones and be aware that I am going to call you out (again) for being a liar if you can't.
Where in that sentence does it specifically mention drones? There is the "everyone" is entitled to a trial" part too. I can only imagine the outcry if it had been discovered Bush had a kill list.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2013, 05:41:05 PM
Where in that sentence does it specifically mention drones? There is the "everyone" is entitled to a trial" part too. I can only imagine the outcry if it had been discovered Bush had a kill list.
Do you ever wonder why we think you're an idiot?
"US President George W Bush has authorised the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to kill about a dozen terrorist leaders named on a secret list prepared by the White House, US media has reported."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576949.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576949.stm)
Quote from: Olias on February 11, 2013, 05:46:39 PM
Do you ever wonder why we think you're an idiot?
"US President George W Bush has authorised the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to kill about a dozen terrorist leaders named on a secret list prepared by the White House, US media has reported."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576949.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576949.stm)
LMAO!!! :rotfl:
You beat me to it!! I was just going to tell her that Bush
DID have a kill list. :biggrin:
Quote from: Olias on February 11, 2013, 05:46:39 PM
Do you ever wonder why we think you're an idiot?
"US President George W Bush has authorised the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to kill about a dozen terrorist leaders named on a secret list prepared by the White House, US media has reported."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576949.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2576949.stm)
And I've got a deck of cards that shows 52 of his targets. I suppose you forgot all about the pig Latin brothers eh?
Quote from: me on February 11, 2013, 05:41:05 PM
Where in that sentence does it specifically mention drones? There is the "everyone" is entitled to a trial" part too. I can only imagine the outcry if it had been discovered Bush had a kill list.
How about this, the Big Red Headed Broad writing check her big broad butt can't cash. :haha: :haha:
Did this include on US soil? No, it didn't nor was it as broad.
Quote from: Locutus on February 11, 2013, 05:50:08 PM
LMAO!!! :rotfl:
You beat me to it!! I was just going to tell her that Bush DID have a kill list. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on February 11, 2013, 10:30:26 PM
Did this include on US soil? No, it didn't nor was it as broad.
US Boarder patrol has been using them for years. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 12, 2013, 12:31:47 AM
US Boarder patrol has been using them for years. . . :rolleyes:
To monitor not attack there is a difference. .
Quote from: me on February 12, 2013, 01:42:47 AM
To monitor not attack there is a difference. .
It has always been an option and nothing has changed. No one has been attacked in the US. . .
You guys are acting like a bunch of sheep who just noticed the wolves! :rolleyes:
They've been there for years. They are at most every intersection in cities like Chicago and Muncie, Indiana. You've been seeing them all along, but now you want to start bleating because one of them is black? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 12, 2013, 01:45:25 AM
It has always been an option and nothing has changed. No one has been attacked in the US. . .
You guys are acting like a bunch of sheep who just noticed the wolves! :rolleyes:
They've been there for years. They are at most every intersection in cities like Chicago and Muncie, Indiana. You've been seeing them all along, but now you want to start bleating because one of them is black? :rolleyes:
Oh boy, here we go pulling the race card again. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on February 12, 2013, 06:41:02 AM
Oh boy, here we go pulling the race card again.
What other fucking explanation is there?
Quote from: me on February 12, 2013, 06:41:02 AM
Oh boy, here we go pulling the race card again. :rolleyes:
If you can liberally play the victim card, then you shouldn't be surprised when the race card is played. Especially when it is appropriately played.
I will say once again that race card crap is getting mighty old as is the "playing the victim card" excuse for using it. This administration is not above being criticized in spite of what you think. Being black is not the problem here it is the policies. Conservatives can see that he's black and know that he is mixed so why do the liberals think they have to keep reminding us? They do it because they are using it as a means to brow beat people into agreeing and keep things stirred up between the races which is racist in itself. Every time someone disagrees with something he wants to do the media pulls out the race card and ya'll get on behind the train and go with it. If you would stand back and look at it you would see how ridiculous it's getting.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2013, 01:35:59 PM
Being black is not the problem here it is the policies.
What's getting old is your claims of, "policies," about which you have illustrated you know nothing, as an excuse for your overt racism. Why not just say what you really feel instead of being such a coward about it?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2013, 02:07:53 PM
What's getting old is your claims of, "policies," about which you have illustrated you know nothing, as an excuse for your overt racism. Why not just say what you really feel instead of being such a coward about it?
You're way too subtle. She'll never figure out that her slip is showing if you keep beating around the bush. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on February 12, 2013, 01:35:59 PM
I will say once again that race card crap is getting mighty old as is the "playing the victim card" excuse for using it. This administration is not above being criticized in spite of what you think. Being black is not the problem here it is the policies. Conservatives can see that he's black and know that he is mixed so why do the liberals think they have to keep reminding us? They do it because they are using it as a means to brow beat people into agreeing and keep things stirred up between the races which is racist in itself. Every time someone disagrees with something he wants to do the media pulls out the race card and ya'll get on behind the train and go with it. If you would stand back and look at it you would see how ridiculous it's getting.
I agree you are right!!!!!!!!!!
Leave the race card out of this discussion and it still boils down to one concept. Here is absolute proof (as if we needed it) that 'me' is an abject idiot and a liar.
First she claims that Bush never had a "kill list."
Quote from: me on February 11, 2013, 05:41:05 PM
I can only imagine the outcry if it had been discovered Bush had a kill list.
Then when confronted with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary ...
Quote from: me on February 11, 2013, 10:30:26 PM
Did this include on US soil? No, it didn't nor was it as broad.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2013, 01:42:47 AM
To monitor not attack there is a difference. .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2013, 08:20:41 AM
The fact is he killed an innocent woman. He is nuts and needs to be "harvested". I hope the DID get him. Four DEAD because of him. He had a grudge against the LAPD, so he was going to take it out on the innocent.
Sure his manifesto sounded good. He perhaps had very good reasons for despising the LAPD. But, NEVER, killing innocent people is an excuse or does it justify his actions.
So given your position here surrounding the WACO Style ending of the ex-LAPD officer's life, how would you have felt had the SBPD used a drone to do what they did yesterday to end that situation?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 13, 2013, 11:06:53 AM
So given your position here surrounding the WACO Style ending of the ex-LAPD officer's life, how would you have felt had the SBPD used a drone to do what they did yesterday to end that situation?
Again, when have I ever said I was against a drone being used? I think it would have been great! I am all for keeping our soldiers and law enforcement folks the safest they can be.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
Again, when have I ever said I was against a drone being used? I think it would have been great! I am all for keeping our soldiers and law enforcement folks the safest they can be.
Right here you imply it. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 07, 2013, 10:36:40 AM
Let me see if I am getting this correct here. It was wrong for the Bush Administration to allow Water Boarding to KNOWN terrorist, who HAD vital information, that could prevent the loss of American lives by applying a method, that did NOT kill. But is entirely okay to actually KILL someone who MIGHT be associated with terroists or the terrorist themselves? Killing is better than a harsh interrogation technique?
Again, my friend YOU are WRONG.
I never IMPLIED anything.
I was making a comparison to the liberals outrage of Bush's waterboarding, but then are okay for Obama to use drones, even though many innocent civilians are being killed along with many of those strikes.
Mostly, I was being sarcastic....
Hey, I am for both, if it keeps Americans safe....go back and look, I also said that too....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2013, 11:24:49 AM
Again, my friend YOU are WRONG.
I never IMPLIED anything.
I was making a comparison to the liberals outrage of Bush's waterboarding, but then are okay for Obama to use drones, even though many innocent civilians are being killed along with many of those strikes.
Mostly, I was being sarcastic....
Hey, I am for both, if it keeps Americans safe....go back and look, I also said that too....
Instead of constantly attempting to prove me, and others, wrong over something, how about you just clarify your position for a change?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 13, 2013, 11:42:24 AM
Instead of constantly attempting to prove me, and others, wrong over something, how about you just clarify your position for a change?
I just thought it was noteworthy to remind some on here that just how horrible BUSH was for allowing a handful of terrorists to be waterboarded, but some on here are okay with those same terrorists being KILLED by drones, and several civilians are usually involved with these attacks.
Not that I am trying to PROVE anybody WRONG...but isn't a harsh interrogation technique much more mild than a drone strike that has collateral damage and death?
Perhaps you are right, maybe I will just clarify my thoughts from now on, instead of drumming up an arguement. :)
As I've said before, you don't recognize the difference between torturing someone and killing him outright because you lack a moral compass.
I heard a Vietnam vet who was held as a POW for 6 1/2 years say on the radio yesterday that his captors were too cruel to let him die.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 13, 2013, 12:23:10 PM
As I've said before, you don't recognize the difference between torturing someone and killing him outright because you lack a moral compass.
I heard a Vietnam vet who was held as a POW for 6 1/2 years say on the radio yesterday that his captors were too cruel to let him die.
I think my moral compass is just fine. We DID get information by those interrogations that led to bin laden's death, and others who were involved in 9/11. I am all in favor of getting the bad guys, and saving the good guys.
Waterboarding is NOT the same form of punishiment/torture as our Vietnam Vets had to endure... like the guy you mentioned who was there for 6 1/2 years
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2013, 12:08:21 PM
I just thought it was noteworthy to remind some on here that just how horrible BUSH was for allowing a handful of terrorists to be waterboarded, but some on here are okay with those same terrorists being KILLED by drones, and several civilians are usually involved with these attacks.
Not that I am trying to PROVE anybody WRONG...but isn't a harsh interrogation technique much more mild than a drone strike that has collateral damage and death?
Perhaps you are right, maybe I will just clarify my thoughts from now on, instead of drumming up an arguement. :)
Notice how they keep avoiding the collateral damage part. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 13, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
I think my moral compass is just fine.
Of course you would.
QuoteWe DID get information by those interrogations that led to bin laden's death, and others who were involved in 9/11.
You might want to do a little more research on this claim.
QuoteWaterboarding is NOT the same form of punishiment/torture as our Vietnam Vets had to endure... like the guy you mentioned who was there for 6 1/2 years
And you would know this how? According to him, the torturous part was simply the endless days of nothingness.
You got to remember that Henry and "ME" don't have any morals nor good common sense. :yes: Why? Because their are Republicans. :doh:
:zoners:
Quote from: RC on February 06, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
I would like for you all knowing all seeing poster to explain theses two things for me.
1. When Bush poured a little water on some muslim terrorists, you socialists went into a frothing at the mouth rage. This was going to end our civilization. Now your leader will KILL citizens with a drone, and there is just a peep about it. No trial, no due process, just boom.
2. Your leader says he would have to think about letting his son play football, but it is fine to put girls in the front line fox holes.
I knew the stench of a familiar idiot was on you. You're just wearing a cutoff dress.
1. A drone in this instance isn't any different than a gun in the hand of an LEO. They both fall under the rule of the use of deadly force. If you're going to cry about drones just because there's a 'black' man in your 'White' House, then you'd better be crying about the use of deadly force by LEOs which occurs without Due Process or Trial.
2. That is a plainly stupid comparison. Especially since I don't believe you could give a crap about who sits in a foxhole as long as it's not you. Otherwise, you'd have been crying - and I do mean crying - over the several thousand American casualties in the two unconstitutional military escapades that were started by the former President.
I'd like to just chalk it all up to your racism, but I prolly have to say it's as much your stupidity.
Quote from: Y on March 15, 2013, 09:27:43 PM
I knew the stench of a familiar idiot was on you. You're just wearing a cutoff dress.
1. A drone in this instance isn't any different than a gun in the hand of an LEO. They both fall under the rule of the use of deadly force. If you're going to cry about drones just because there's a 'black' man in your 'White' House, then you'd better be crying about the use of deadly force by LEOs which occurs without Due Process or Trial.
2. That is a plainly stupid comparison. Especially since I don't believe you could give a crap about who sits in a foxhole as long as it's not you. Otherwise, you'd have been crying - and I do mean crying - over the several thousand American casualties in the two unconstitutional military escapades that were started by the former President.
I'd like to just chalk it all up to your racism, but I prolly have to say it's as much your stupidity.
If you want to start a thread about out of control police good. I agree, the will, spray, taze, or shoot anyone for any reason they might think is a good one.
Just like any weak minded socialist, one disagrees with you , scream racism and repeat as necessary. You forgot to say I live in trailer and get SSI. I bet that was your next post. I remember you to, took the first semester of philosophy and now you fancy yourself as a philosopher.
Quote from: RC on March 18, 2013, 12:48:57 PM
I agree, the will, spray, taze, or shoot anyone for any reason they might think is a good one.
You left out one of my favorites...dog bite.
Quote from: RC on March 18, 2013, 12:48:57 PM
If you want to start a thread about out of control police good. I agree, the will, spray, taze, or shoot anyone for any reason they might think is a good one.
Just like any weak minded socialist, one disagrees with you , scream racism and repeat as necessary. You forgot to say I live in trailer and get SSI. I bet that was your next post. I remember you to, took the first semester of philosophy and now you fancy yourself as a philosopher.
1. I didn't need to start that sort of thread in order to point out the ridiculousness of the position you regurgitated, the position you were spoon fed by the RW noize machine.
2. You'd better watch your name calling since, if you remember, you're sensitive to it and whine about it being done to you. ; )
The entire point of your RW agenda is a racist one. You're simply trying to use invented political cover to trash the 'black' man in your 'White' House. There are plenty of reasons to legitimately criticize Obama, but when you RW idjits continue to use ridiculous and invented hyperbole you lay your racist agenda wide open and thusly get your face wiped in it. If y'all don't like, simply stop doing it. Educate yourselves and find those legitimate reasons to criticize him.
LOL! You're just crying about philosophy because I pointed out the ridiculousness of your x-tian doctrine of 'free will'. Sorry the truth chaps your meat curtains so. ; )
Now on to my lil' rant about you RW Idjits and Socialism...
<rant>
Of course I support socialism because we are social beings and live in a society which requires we practice socialism if not outright communism. It's you RW Idjits who worship a warped Darwinism and "...nature red in tooth and claw..." and 'rugged individualism' that exhibit such outrageous anti-social attitudes and actions. For all your overblown faux patriotic 'Americanism', y'all obviously hate most segments of our society and don't want a society that works for the benefit of everyone. There's something definitely wrong with you, and we'll be better off without you if you can't get rid of your anti-social hatred and get with the program.
</rant>
Let me ask this question. Would the Republican Party be anything at all if they didn't lie about everything? The truth is not in them. :rant:
I think I'm going to buy one of these and fly it around ol' diarrhea's place. :icon_twisted:
http://www.wthr.com/story/22169952/backyard-drones-raise-privacy-questions (http://www.wthr.com/story/22169952/backyard-drones-raise-privacy-questions)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/22169952_BG1_zps3241e1d1.jpg) (http://s475.photobucket.com/user/hlovett_2008/media/22169952_BG1_zps3241e1d1.jpg.html)
Quote from: The Troll on March 20, 2013, 06:37:13 PM
Let me ask this question. Would the Republican Party be anything at all if they didn't lie about everything? The truth is not in them. :rant:
Ask the White House about Benghazi and see how much truth comes out of them.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 07, 2013, 12:51:41 PM
Ask the White House about Benghazi and see how much truth comes out of them.....
You got Hillary. What more do you want? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 07, 2013, 01:00:52 PM
You got Hillary. What more do you want? :rolleyes:
Just the truth....the more I hear about it, the more it smells.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 07, 2013, 01:00:52 PM
You got Hillary. What more do you want? :rolleyes:
Eye witness testimonies....people that were there and know what really happened. Not old "what does it matter" Hillary's say so for it.
[font=]Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is now openly talking about impeachment, saying he does not believe Barack Obama will survive the remaining 3½ years of his presidency.
"When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern," Huckabee said on his radio show Monday.
"As the facts come out, I think we're going to see something startling. And before it's over, I don't think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3½ years."[/font]
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 07, 2013, 04:16:15 PM
[font=]Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is now openly talking about impeachment, saying he does not believe Barack Obama will survive the remaining 3½ years of his presidency.
"When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern," Huckabee said on his radio show Monday.
"As the facts come out, I think we're going to see something startling. And before it's over, I don't think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next 3½ years."[/font]
In case you haven't checked lately, Mike Huckabee is, and always has been, an idiot.
Quote from: Locutus on May 07, 2013, 06:54:43 PM
In case you haven't checked lately, Mike Huckabee is, and always has been, an idiot.
Why? Because he's a conservative and a christian?
Quote from: me on May 07, 2013, 09:14:50 PM
Why? Because he's a conservative and a christian?
You're really going to make me do this?
Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Hzc4BuD-ATE
Quote from: Locutus on May 07, 2013, 09:29:07 PM
You're really going to make me do this?
Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Hzc4BuD-ATE
And you have a problem with his answer because? He is saying they should be taught equally because there is more than one idea and the student did not say he was against what was being taught he was against the way it was being taught so teaching both equally would help solve the problem and give both views.
Quote from: me on May 07, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
And you have a problem with his answer because? He is saying they should be taught equally because there is more than one idea and the student did not say he was against what was being taught he was against the way it was being taught so teaching both equally would help solve the problem and give both views.
:groan: :dig: