How has Obama not been indicted or impeached by now?

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

I would be upset to as a Right winger.

Much older yet still looks younger than Palin.

King-Kai

She looks roughly the same age as Pailin. However, that arm that f*kin' hand.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

She looks roughly the same age as Pailin. However, that arm...my God, that f*kin' hand.

Banjo_Kongfooie

Shut up I liked that eyes in her picture there are more photos if the arm bothers you... Do you know how old Madonna is, she looks like she is 30.

Liberal women look better usually that is a fact. Hollywood women are mostly liberal and they are gorgeous. We get to pick from buffet and you get women that act manly and are boring (Palin).

I'm not a Republican/ Conservative. In fact, according to a test I took online, I'm a Cosmopolitan Social Democrat.

I don't care too much for him honestly, his economic policies are exactly the same as George Bush's and he has absolutely no idea how to get the economy on track it seems.

His idea so far has been to just have the Federal Reserve print more money (which leads to inflation) and to just borrow it from other countries (which increases our debt).

However I do find him to be better than any of the Republicans running right now, and I definately like him more than that snake Romney. One thing I have been wondering is why Obama is trying to cater to the Jewish population? Obama is the most pro Jewish president in history, I wonder why?

But he is a strong supporter of Israel and Obama Care wasn't the complete disaster people siad it was going to be, so he has my vote, but I'm not happy about doing it.

I don't care too much for him honestly, his economic policies are exactly the same as George Bush's and he has absolutely no idea how to get the economy on track it seems.

His idea so far has been to just have the Federal Reserve print more money (which leads to inflation) and to just borrow it from other countries (which increases our debt).

However I do find him to be better than any of the Republicans running right now, and I definately like him more than that snake Romney. One thing I have been wondering is why Obama is trying to cater to the Jewish population? Obama is the most pro Jewish president in history, I wonder why?

But he is a strong supporter of Israel and Obama Care wasn't the complete disaster people siad it was going to be, so he has my vote, but I'm not happy about doing it.

ShadowMoses900

When does Obama Care come into affect?

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

She looks roughly the same age as Pailin. However, that arm...my God, that f*kin' hand.

King-Kai

Shut up I liked that eyes in her picture there are more photos if the arm bothers you... Do you know how old Madonna is, she looks like she is 30.

Liberal women look better usually that is a fact. Hollywood women are mostly liberal and they are gorgeous. We get to pick from buffet and you get women that act manly and are boring (Palin).

I'm not a Republican/ Conservative. In fact, according to a test I took online, I'm a Cosmopolitan Social Democrat.

Those tests are never accurate, people are alot more complex than that. The best they can do is provide general leanings.

I recommend Political Compass, it takes a few other elements into account and it doesn't have a bias, also you can just take a quick one online as well between liberal and conservatives. But don't take them as the end all be all.

The important thing to realise is that neither liberals nor conservatives are evil or bad, you don't have to agree with them but people have different values and come from different backgrounds and it's best to understand it. Only the extreamists are the bad guys IMO.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

She looks roughly the same age as Pailin. However, that arm...my God, that f*kin' hand.

Banjo_Kongfooie

Shut up I liked that eyes in her picture there are more photos if the arm bothers you... Do you know how old Madonna is, she looks like she is 30.

Liberal women look better usually that is a fact. Hollywood women are mostly liberal and they are gorgeous. We get to pick from buffet and you get women that act manly and are boring (Palin).

Rosa DeLauro

Nancy "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it"Pelosi

Elena whereda-foodat Kagan

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] They are not covered by this mandate, which applies only to "preventive health care" for women, not for men. And no I haven't.

whipassmt

Unwanted pregnancies early in life lower the quality of life for the ramainder of ones life, and raise crime rates and abortion rates.

and I found a couple reports on a few studies that say the jury is still out on whehter the piil causes breast cancer or not, but they do say that they reduce other forms of cancer and that women that use them live longer.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/09/the_pillbreast_cancer_connection.html

Maybe they should put their religious nuttery on the side and just do what's best for people.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't care too much for him honestly, his economic policies are exactly the same as George Bush's and he has absolutely no idea how to get the economy on track it seems.

His idea so far has been to just have the Federal Reserve print more money (which leads to inflation) and to just borrow it from other countries (which increases our debt).

However I do find him to be better than any of the Republicans running right now, and I definately like him more than that snake Romney. One thing I have been wondering is why Obama is trying to cater to the Jewish population? Obama is the most pro Jewish president in history, I wonder why?

But he is a strong supporter of Israel and Obama Care wasn't the complete disaster people siad it was going to be, so he has my vote, but I'm not happy about doing it.

King-Kai

When does Obama Care come into affect?

It's alrady in affect in my state of Oregon.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

Shut up I liked that eyes in her picture there are more photos if the arm bothers you... Do you know how old Madonna is, she looks like she is 30.

Liberal women look better usually that is a fact. Hollywood women are mostly liberal and they are gorgeous. We get to pick from buffet and you get women that act manly and are boring (Palin).

ShadowMoses900

I'm not a Republican/ Conservative. In fact, according to a test I took online, I'm a Cosmopolitan Social Democrat.

Those tests are never accurate, people are alot more complex than that. The best they can do is provide general leanings.

I recommend Political Compass, it takes a few other elements into account and it doesn't have a bias, also you can just take a quick one online as well between liberal and conservatives. But don't take them as the end all be all.

The important thing to realise is that neither liberals nor conservatives are evil or bad, you don't have to agree with them but people have different values and come from different backgrounds and it's best to understand it. Only the extreamists are the bad guys IMO.

I just wanted to emphasize the fact that I'm not a Conservative (I know that for sure). Aside from abortion, I don't agree with Conservatives.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]They are going to lower rates of cancer and unwanted pregnancies, that by itself justifies use. Like I said earlier, it is the job of the government to try and improve citizens lives, and this policy clearly would.

Unwanted pregnancies early in life lower the quality of life for the ramainder of ones life, and raise crime rates and abortion rates.

TopTierHustler

and I found a couple reports on a few studies that say the jury is still out on whehter the piil causes breast cancer or not, but they do say that they reduce other forms of cancer and that women that use them live longer.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/09/the_pillbreast_cancer_connection.html

Maybe they should put their religious nuttery on the side and just do what's best for people.

I don't know, I don't think they cause cancer but any kind of artificial hormone doesn't really benefit you. There are other options for Birth control than the pill, but most religoius people arn't against the use of contraceptions. Only the more stricter ones are like Catholics ect...

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]They are going to lower rates of cancer and unwanted pregnancies, that by itself justifies use. Like I said earlier, it is the job of the government to try and improve citizens lives, and this policy clearly would.

Unwanted pregnancies early in life lower the quality of life for the ramainder of ones life, and raise crime rates and abortion rates.

TopTierHustler

and I found a couple reports on a few studies that say the jury is still out on whehter the piil causes breast cancer or not, but they do say that they reduce other forms of cancer and that women that use them live longer.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/09/the_pillbreast_cancer_connection.html

Maybe they should put their religious nuttery on the side and just do what's best for people.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/secret-memo-reveals-legal-justification-for-killing-al-awlaki/

Finally, as for the Bill of Rights guarantee of due process of law and protection from unreasonable seizure, the memo concluded that al-Awlaki was different from a regular criminal, and cited court cases allowing American citizens who joined up with enemy forces to be detained or tried in military court just like noncitizen enemies.

Similarly, a federal statute prohibiting Americans from killing other Americans abroad did not apply because it is not "murder" to kill a wartime enemy during the course of war.

An executive order that bans assassinations, the lawyers found, bars only the killing of political leaders outside of war, not an armed target during a wartime conflict.

I don't know, I don't think they cause cancer but any kind of artificial hormone doesn't really benefit you.

ShadowMoses900

If you compare guys from the 40s in the media to guys in the media now, they're clearly more feminine. Even in catalogs for example you can see that guys all shave their bodies now when that didn't used to be the norm.

All of that is because of the pill.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't know, I don't think they cause cancer but any kind of artificial hormone doesn't really benefit you.

TopTierHustler

If you compare guys from the 40s in the media to guys in the media now, they're clearly more feminine. Even in catalogs for example you can see that guys all shave their bodies now when that didn't used to be the norm.

All of that is because of the pill.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't know, I don't think they cause cancer but any kind of artificial hormone doesn't really benefit you.

TopTierHustler

If you compare guys from the 40s in the media to guys in the media now, they're clearly more feminine. Even in catalogs for example you can see that guys all shave their bodies now when that didn't used to be the norm.

All of that is because of the pill.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

Well, he is...as much as he is a Black man.

King-Kai

I guarentee you that if you saw a photograph of him while knowing nothing of his background you'd think "black man".

Not me. As a Black person, my perception of who's Black differs from most people.

Uh-huh. So tell me.....is this a white man or a black man?

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I guarentee you that if you saw a photograph of him while knowing nothing of his background you'd think "black man".

worlock77

Not me. As a Black person, my perception of who's Black differs from most people.

Uh-huh. So tell me.....is this a white man or a black man?

Mullatto. Pure Blacks do not look like him.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

Not me. As a Black person, my perception of who's Black differs from most people.

King-Kai

Uh-huh. So tell me.....is this a white man or a black man?

Mullatto. Pure Blacks do not look like him.

So what do "pure" blacks look like?

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Uh-huh. So tell me.....is this a white man or a black man?

worlock77

Mullatto. Pure Blacks do not look like him.

So what do "pure" blacks look like?

Look, don't be ridiculous. I can't stand double standards when it comes to who's Black and who's not. If we had a discussion about who's White, or Who's Asian, or Who's Indian, etc, no-one in their right mind would deem people who are a mixture of one of the afforementioned races and another to be purely one of them. Likewise, this guy who is obviously half White should not be called Black. He doesn't look Black; he doesn't have brown skin or purely Black facial features. You want to see Black people? Here you go.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] say what about birth-control preventing cancer?Also the overall effect of Obama's mandate would be to harm American's health-care as many religious institutions have said they will not comply and thus fining religious hospitals into bankruptcy would greatly harm access to health-care.

whipassmt

and I found a couple reports on a few studies that say the jury is still out on whehter the piil causes breast cancer or not, but they do say that they reduce other forms of cancer and that women that use them live longer.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/guide/pill-breast-cancer-risk http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/09/the_pillbreast_cancer_connection.html

Maybe they should put their religious nuttery on the side and just do what's best for people.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"] As I already pointed out...No, it's not.spazzx625

He ordered the assasination of a U.S. Citizen who was never proven to be an actual member of the faction the U.S. is currently at war with. His adminitration claims to have secret evidence which justifies the assasiantion, but have not revealed it. We're supposed to just believe them? That's absurd; they could be lying.

Really you guys are brainwashed to a point of no return. How can one condone when the President orders someone to be assassinated? No trial, no defence, nothing.

Look, don't be ridiculous. I can't stand double standards when it comes to who's Black and who's not. If we had a discussion about who's White, or Who's Asian, or Who's Indian, etc, no-one in their right mind would deem people who are a mixture of one of the afforementioned races and another to be purely one of them. Likewise, this guy who is obviously half White should not be called Black. He doesn't look Black; he doesn't have brown skin or purely Black facial features. You want to see Black people? Here you go.King-Kai

And you're certain that none of those people have a whitey in the woodpile? You've done thorough genetic testing on them all right?

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]Look, don't be ridiculous. I can't stand double standards when it comes to who's Black and who's not. If we had a discussion about who's White, or Who's Asian, or Who's Indian, etc, no-one in their right mind would deem people who are a mixture of one of the afforementioned races and another to be purely one of them. Likewise, this guy who is obviously half White should not be called Black. He doesn't look Black; he doesn't have brown skin or purely Black facial features. You want to see Black people? Here you go.worlock77

And you're certain that none of those people have a whitey in the woodpile? You've done thorough genetic testing on them all right?

Most people aren't PURE PURE, so that argument holds no weight. I'd say that someone is effectively purely of one race if they're at least ~80%/ looks as if they are. However, if the person obviously has a significant amount of admixture from a race other the one he/ she is said to be, then they should be considered mixed. Essentially, I go by what genes are expressed, not by what genes are not expressed. Also, some genes do not get passed on; some genes can be bred out. So, even if someone has an ancestor of another race, none of that ancestor's DNA may be present in theirs.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]Look, don't be ridiculous. I can't stand double standards when it comes to who's Black and who's not. If we had a discussion about who's White, or Who's Asian, or Who's Indian, etc, no-one in their right mind would deem people who are a mixture of one of the afforementioned races and another to be purely one of them. Likewise, this guy who is obviously half White should not be called Black. He doesn't look Black; he doesn't have brown skin or purely Black facial features. You want to see Black people? Here you go.King-Kai

And you're certain that none of those people have a whitey in the woodpile? You've done thorough genetic testing on them all right?

Most people aren't PURE PURE, so that argument holds no weight. I'd say that someone is effectively purely of one race if they're at least ~80%/ looks as if they are. However, if the person obviously has a significant amount of admixture from a race other the one he/ she is said to be, then they should be considered mixed. Essentially, I go by what genes are expressed, not by what genes are not expressed. Also, some genes do not get passed on; some genes can be bred out. So, even if someone has an ancestor of another race, none of that ancestor's DNA may be present in theirs.

You got it wrong dude. It's the One-Drop Rule that applies, nothing else.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

And you're certain that none of those people have a whitey in the woodpile? You've done thorough genetic testing on them all right?

worlock77

Most people aren't PURE PURE, so that argument holds no weight. I'd say that someone is effectively purely of one race if they're at least ~80%/ looks as if they are. However, if the person obviously has a significant amount of admixture from a race other the one he/ she is said to be, then they should be considered mixed. Essentially, I go by what genes are expressed, not by what genes are not expressed. Also, some genes do not get passed on; some genes can be bred out. So, even if someone has an ancestor of another race, none of that ancestor's DNA may be present in theirs.

You got it wrong dude. It's the One-Drop Rule that applies, nothing else.

The One-Drop rule is illogical/ stupid. Considering the fact that it was created solely for the purpose of "protecting" the White race from contamination by Blacks (i.e. the fact that it was created out of racism), it holds no weight. It's not based on science or common sense. It's based on a fear of race mixing. Hence, it's a load of bollocks, and anyone who believes in it is a fool. This discussion is over. You're not Black anyway, so your opinion on who's Black and who's not is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

Most people aren't PURE PURE, so that argument holds no weight. I'd say that someone is effectively purely of one race if they're at least ~80%/ looks as if they are. However, if the person obviously has a significant amount of admixture from a race other the one he/ she is said to be, then they should be considered mixed. Essentially, I go by what genes are expressed, not by what genes are not expressed. Also, some genes do not get passed on; some genes can be bred out. So, even if someone has an ancestor of another race, none of that ancestor's DNA may be present in theirs.

King-Kai

You got it wrong dude. It's the One-Drop Rule that applies, nothing else.

The One-Drop rule is illogical/ stupid. Considering the fact that it was created solely for the purpose of "protecting" the White race from contamination by Blacks (i.e. the fact that it was created out of racism), it holds no weight. It's not based on science or common sense. It's based on a fear of race mixing. Hence, it's a load of bollocks, and anyone who believes in it is a fool. This discussion is over. You're not Black anyway, so your opinion on who's Black and who's not is irrelevant.

What if I'm married to a black woman?

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You got it wrong dude. It's the One-Drop Rule that applies, nothing else.

worlock77

The One-Drop rule is illogical/ stupid. Considering the fact that it was created solely for the purpose of "protecting" the White race from contamination by Blacks (i.e. the fact that it was created out of racism), it holds no weight. It's not based on science or common sense. It's based on a fear of race mixing. Hence, it's a load of bollocks, and anyone who believes in it is a fool. This discussion is over. You're not Black anyway, so your opinion on who's Black and who's not is irrelevant.

What if I'm married to a black woman?

Your opinion still wouldn't matter. Also, considering your erroneous idea of who's Black, you're hypothetical wife probably isn't actually Black.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

The One-Drop rule is illogical/ stupid. Considering the fact that it was created solely for the purpose of "protecting" the White race from contamination by Blacks (i.e. the fact that it was created out of racism), it holds no weight. It's not based on science or common sense. It's based on a fear of race mixing. Hence, it's a load of bollocks, and anyone who believes in it is a fool. This discussion is over. You're not Black anyway, so your opinion on who's Black and who's not is irrelevant.

King-Kai

What if I'm married to a black woman?

Your opinion still wouldn't matter. Also, considering your erroneous idea of who's Black, you're hypothetical wife probably isn't actually Black.

How do we know that you're black? I mean anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.

*BTW: "you're" is a contraction of "you are". The word you were looking for is "your". As smart as you claim to be you should realize this.

What do you think happens after a president is impeached? I would love to know. monkeytoes61

Nothing happens after a president is impeached.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

What if I'm married to a black woman?

worlock77

Your opinion still wouldn't matter. Also, considering your erroneous idea of who's Black, you're hypothetical wife probably isn't actually Black.

How do we know that you're black? I mean anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.

*BTW: "you're" is a contraction of "you are". The word you were looking for is "your". As smart as you claim to be you should realize this.

1. I never said I was smart (nor did I say I was stupid).
2. It was a simple typographical error which a lot of people make. To pick at someone's grammar over the internet is absurd. I admit that I normally read my posts over to make sure that I don't have any, but sometimes I do miss things (I'm only Human).
3. Whether you believe that I'm Black or not is of no consequence. I AM Black.

[QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]What do you think happens after a president is impeached? I would love to know. worlock77

Nothing happens after a president is impeached.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

Your opinion still wouldn't matter. Also, considering your erroneous idea of who's Black, you're hypothetical wife probably isn't actually Black.

King-Kai

How do we know that you're black? I mean anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.

*BTW: "you're" is a contraction of "you are". The word you were looking for is "your". As smart as you claim to be you should realize this.

1. I never said I was smart (nor did I say I was stupid).
2. It was a simple typographical error which a lot of people make. To pick at someone's grammar over the internet is absurd. I admit that I normally read my posts over to make sure that I don't have any, but sometimes I do miss things (I'm only Human).
3. Whether you believe that I'm Black or not is of no consequence. I AM Black.

1. On the contrary you've bragged about this incredible university you go to.

2. Typos are one thing, but that's some elementary school sh*t right there.

3. I don't give a sh*t if you're black or not, save for you deciding that you're the arbitrator of blackness.

[QUOTE="King-Kai"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

How do we know that you're black? I mean anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.

*BTW: "you're" is a contraction of "you are". The word you were looking for is "your". As smart as you claim to be you should realize this.

worlock77

1. I never said I was smart (nor did I say I was stupid).
2. It was a simple typographical error which a lot of people make. To pick at someone's grammar over the internet is absurd. I admit that I normally read my posts over to make sure that I don't have any, but sometimes I do miss things (I'm only Human).
3. Whether you believe that I'm Black or not is of no consequence. I AM Black.

1. On the contrary you've bragged about this incredible university you go to.

2. Typos are one thing, but that's some elementary school sh*t right there.

3. I don't give a sh*t if you're black or not, save for you deciding that you're the arbitrator of blackness.

You're obviously taking this argument personally because now you're bringing up things that are utterly irrelevant to the argument we're having. For the record, I never bragged about the university I go to solely to seem smart; I did it to combat the arguments of users who keep saying that I'm stupid. Arguing that you're not stupid does not imply that you think you're a genius, just that you think you're at least of average intelligence. As for the typographical error, it's not an error that I miss often; I'm actually quite aware of it and correct it if I notice it. If you examine most of my posts, you'll see that I use "your" and "You're" correctly. This is getting tiresome. Our argument is over. You've lost. Your opinion on who's Black is fallacious because it doesn't rely on science or common sense. To argue that someone who is obviously and known to be half Black and half White is fully Black is f*king stupid. That's that.

I can't believe that you're childish enough to resort to ad-hominems. GTFO.

I'm not taking the argument personally at all, I'm picking at a user who more often than not comes across as full of himself and full of sh*t. There's a difference.

Ron Paul 2012. Another 4 years of Obama or someone like Romney is truly frightening. Every American should want their liberties restored.

I'm going to be honest and say that I have a positive bias toward Obama since he's a Democrat and not a crazed Republican. However, after considering a few actions which his administration has taken, I've come to wonder why he hasn't been indicted or impeached by now. His administration has violated the Constitution numerous times, in the most heinous manner on each occasion. For example, the Fifth Amendment states the following:

Fifth Amendment: [quote="United States Constitution"]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.King-Kai

Take specific note of the portion that is in bold font (i.e. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). When President Obama's administration sanctioned theassassinationof Anwar Al-Awlaki, it violated this Constitutional clause. Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, was assinated without due process; he was never indicted or tried for any of the supposed crimes he was assinated for. Hence, he was deprived of life without due process of law, which is an egregious violation of the Constitution. How has the Obama Administration been allowed to do this? Can't the Supreme Court step in? How about the Attorney General? Oh, wait, he was nominated by the President himself. Talk about conflict of interest. :roll:

Cenk Uygur talks about the assasination here.

Another example of Obama's violation of the Constitution was his sanctioning of U.S. Military involvement in Libya. He never got Congressional approval.

So, considering these examples, how has he not been indicted? WTF is happening to the U.S.? Doesn't anyone have any respect for the Constitution?

Thinking the Constitution gives us freedom....lmfao. But seriously the al quada douchebag deserved to die, period. If he wants to side with the enemy, let him die like the enemy. That's what I feel at least.

Ron Paul 2012. Another 4 years of Obama or someone like Romney is truly frightening. Every American should want their liberties restored.

KamuiFei

Do you really expect Paul would accomplish much when he would have to fight Congress every step of the way?

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I don't know, I don't think they cause cancer but any kind of artificial hormone doesn't really benefit you.

Lockedge

If you compare guys from the 40s in the media to guys in the media now, they're clearly more feminine. Even in catalogs for example you can see that guys all shave their bodies now when that didn't used to be the norm.

All of that is because of the pill.

Like whis said, that can be a problem down the road if for example the couple were married then the woman went off the pill and decided se wasn't attracted to the man anymore.

http://www.livescience.com/2781-pill-women-pick-bad-mates.html

Ron Paul 2012. Another 4 years of Obama or someone like Romney is truly frightening. Every American should want their liberties restored.

KamuiFei

I like the guy but I know what you mean. I'd defend him and say that that was in the bill congress threw at him and it really is their fault, or I'd say Bush did it illegally as well during his administration, but I'd be wasting my time. That kind of stuff infuriates me, but I choose to hate the congress over the President for giving him a "must pass" bill with such a stupid clause. Can we please get a better congress?

I like the guy but I know what you mean. I'd defend him and say that that was in the bill congress threw at him and it really is their fault, or I'd say Bush did it illegally as well during his administration, but I'd be wasting my time. That kind of stuff infuriates me, but I choose to hate the congress over the President for giving him a "must pass" bill with such a stupid clause. Can we please get a better congress?

RandomWinner

Oh look, someone complaining about US assassinating people.

Adorable, because I guess all those other assassinations every country ever has sanctioned since the beginning of time should go unnoticed.

Oh look, someone complaining about US assassinating people.

Adorable, because I guess all those other assassinations every country ever has sanctioned since the beginning of time should go unnoticed.

SPYDER0416

Mentioning one assassination does not imply a lack of regard for others, especially considering the fact that it's not the assassination itself that is the central focus, but its context (i.e. the disregard of law) that is. Your logic (or lack thereof) is ridiculous. GTFO and never come back. You're done.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Oh look, someone complaining about US assassinating people.

Adorable, because I guess all those other assassinations every country ever has sanctioned since the beginning of time should go unnoticed.

King-Kai

Mentioning one assassination does not imply a lack of regard for others, especially considering the fact that it's not the assassination itself that is the central focus, but its context (i.e. the disregard of law) that is. Your logic (or lack thereof) is ridiculous. GTFO and never come back. You're done.

Cool story bro, but if you're wondering why Obama hasn't been impeached you should wonder why every other president has been impeached. But you aren't, which sems kind of illogical amirite?

But hey if you want to argue your point and ignore the facts that is cool too.