Good. Because non was intended. I don't care what color, creed or race the POS is, if he makes war on my country, I detest him. And it makes my petty little mind feel better to call him names.collegeboy64:lol: Right on.
Ron Paul condemns Obama for killing Anwar al-Awlaki without a trial
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]Completely agree with collegeboy64 here.That's legally not how it works. That's what's a little unnerving about this. And there is a process where the government could have legally taken away his citizenship.Well, not all of them. But apparently this guy was. I personally would not grant him the status of citizen. While he may not have formally rejected his citizenship, he defacto gave it up by his actions.
KC_Hokie
Soooo, next time if we go through some paperwork to revoke citizenship, you're ok with bustin a cap in his ass? Cuz I'm ok with that. If a little paperwork makes you feel better about it, I don't mind.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]Completely agree with collegeboy64 here.That's legally not how it works. That's what's a little unnerving about this. And there is a process where the government could have legally taken away his citizenship. Obama isn't stupid - he was briefed by his top aides, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff. All options were weighed, and the best course of action was to take him out by airstrike. I disagree with Obama's ideology on most things, but on this, he was correct.Well, not all of them. But apparently this guy was. I personally would not grant him the status of citizen. While he may not have formally rejected his citizenship, he defacto gave it up by his actions.
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]there is that whole slippery slope argument, but i will just go with: we got nothing from his death, no intel, no justice, just spent munitions. and seeing as libertarians have already been flagged by this administration this also make me feel a little uneasy[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Yes, it's abrogating his rights to achieve an end deemed more valuable than his rights, his life, and the ideals that preserving both represent. It is also, in my view, necessary and correct.surrealnumber5
edit: and who's value system are we using to judge a citizans rights v. politicians reasoning. that is the begining of the whole slope argument but i still felt it needed to be stated.
To your edit... I think that in the modern history of governments overtly and covertly assasinating high value targets, no slope has emerged. Its a practice that always comes with high risks of collatoral damage, international incident, and blowback from the public. Look at Litvinenko... that wasn't much of a "win" for the Russians, nor was the use of Dioxins on Viktor Yuschenko. Even killing bin Laden has led to serious issues in the near term, and who knows about blowback. For a slippery slope to emerge, the world would have to change so radically that I don't think these issues of rights would be an issue anymore to begin with. for a slope to emerge there only needs to be a lax in the judgment of these orders. it is a strawman but is jim rodgers next? he gave up his citizenship and talks about the poor state of the economy and how bad of a job the government is doing, he too is undermining the message of our leaders. it takes more than one data point to make a slope but somehow i doubt the use of such force will get more strict. if nothing else those rallying against this act serve the role of keeping the government as hesitant as possible from abuse, as much as any group can with zero political power.The issue with a slippery slope, is that it has to be "slippery", and a "slope". My point is that these activities don't lend themselves to being an easy activity undertaken at will. The term slippery slope is meant to conjure the intended image of building momentum down a line of behaviour or reasoning. If there is significant resistence inherent in that process, it's not a slope, nor is it slippery. Remember, this is a man who was an active and avowed member, and recruiter for AQAP, living in Yemen with AQAP. If Jim Rodgers followed that model, rather than simply being vocal than in fact his renunciation of citizenship would make him an easier target with less issues presented taht Awlaki. He didn't though... it'd rare for anyone to take such a role, and it's exceptional for such an insular group to allow the rise of an individual like Awlaki.
This is a rare reaction to a very nearly singular case... that to me does not spell "slippery slope", because if another such datapoint emerges in the next 50 years I'll be shocked.
That's legally not how it works. That's what's a little unnerving about this. And there is a process where the government could have legally taken away his citizenship.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] Completely agree with collegeboy64 here.collegeboy64
Soooo, next time if we go through some paperwork to revoke citizenship, you're ok with bustin a cap in his ass? Cuz I'm ok with that. If a little paperwork makes you feel better about it, I don't mind.
The rules legally would have changed. No Constitutional issues would be in play.Ron Paul is the best candidate for president? :| :lol:In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best canidate for president, but he really is not appealing well to republicans. The typical republicans right now are having a party, considering they will clap to people dying without health care.
M4Ntan
[QUOTE="M4Ntan"]Ron Paul is the best candidate for president? :| :lol:I believe he is.In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best canidate for president, but he really is not appealing well to republicans. The typical republicans right now are having a party, considering they will clap to people dying without health care.
DroidPhysX
Soooo, next time if we go through some paperwork to revoke citizenship, you're ok with bustin a cap in his ass? Cuz I'm ok with that. If a little paperwork makes you feel better about it, I don't mind.collegeboy64:lol::lol: Collegeboy, you should totally put that in your sig.:lol:
[QUOTE="M4Ntan"]Ron Paul is the best candidate for president? :| :lol: Who is a better candidate in your opinion?In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best canidate for president, but he really is not appealing well to republicans. The typical republicans right now are having a party, considering they will clap to people dying without health care.
DroidPhysX
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]There is evidence he recruited people while in the U.S. but there isn't anything since leaving. That was in 2004 and 2005. Recruiting people for an anti-U.S. group while in the U.S. also doesn't mean a 'kill on sight' order. His contact with Hasan was 100% propganda driven. Hasan contacted him first because of his newletter and website.
There is no evidence that since leaving for the Arabian Peninsula he is anymore than a propagandist.
Ahhhh... so in other words you won't provide evidence to support your claims, and only the manner in which you characterize his behaviour is valid. I'm curious, given your certitude and unwavering nature, why are you bothering with commentary or discussion?The guy ran Al-Qaeda's English speaking websites and newsletter. That makes him a propagandist. There is zero evidence he was anything more. Everyone contacted him first through the website. Again, you're making a positive claim; burden of proof Hoike, evidence? Remember the Nigerian he is believed to have (directly) recruited during his recruitment efforts on behalf of Al Shabab? (aka , the underwear bomber) You seem more loud than informed Hokie, and more interested in repeating yourself than engaging in any meaningful way. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is believed to have been recruited and directed by al-Awlaki directly to Al Qaeda, for the purpose of being used as a suicide bomber. That his bombing failed was not for lack of trying... and that goes far beyond propoganda.That's legally not how it works. That's what's a little unnerving about this. And there is a process where the government could have legally taken away his citizenship.KC_Hokie
Soooo, next time if we go through some paperwork to revoke citizenship, you're ok with bustin a cap in his ass? Cuz I'm ok with that. If a little paperwork makes you feel better about it, I don't mind.
The rules legally would have changed. No Constitutional issues would be in play. Ahhhh... it's always good to be hung up on technicalities... it's so much easier than dealing with the heart of issues at hand. I take it also that based on your support for Ron Paul, that your points are not actually so much about this issue, as support of Ron Paul at any cost? This... is good information to have, and explains your rigidity in this matter.
for a slope to emerge there only needs to be a lax in the judgment of these orders. it is a strawman but is jim rodgers next? he gave up his citizenship and talks about the poor state of the economy and how bad of a job the government is doing, he too is undermining the message of our leaders. it takes more than one data point to make a slope but somehow i doubt the use of such force will get more strict. if nothing else those rallying against this act serve the role of keeping the government as hesitant as possible from abuse, as much as any group can with zero political power.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] To your edit... I think that in the modern history of governments overtly and covertly assasinating high value targets, no slope has emerged. Its a practice that always comes with high risks of collatoral damage, international incident, and blowback from the public. Look at Litvinenko... that wasn't much of a "win" for the Russians, nor was the use of Dioxins on Viktor Yuschenko. Even killing bin Laden has led to serious issues in the near term, and who knows about blowback. For a slippery slope to emerge, the world would have to change so radically that I don't think these issues of rights would be an issue anymore to begin with.Frame_Dragger
The issue with a slippery slope, is that it has to be "slippery", and a "slope". My point is that these activities don't lend themselves to being an easy activity undertaken at will. The term slippery slope is meant to conjure the intended image of building momentum down a line of behaviour or reasoning. If there is significant resistence inherent in that process, it's not a slope, nor is it slippery. Remember, this is a man who was an active and avowed member, and recruiter for AQAP, living in Yemen with AQAP. If Jim Rodgers followed that model, rather than simply being vocal than in fact his renunciation of citizenship would make him an easier target with less issues presented taht Awlaki. He didn't though... it'd rare for anyone to take such a role, and it's exceptional for such an insular group to allow the rise of an individual like Awlaki.
This is a rare reaction to a very nearly singular case... that to me does not spell "slippery slope", because if another such datapoint emerges in the next 50 years I'll be shocked.
just like beans i am not looking at the person killed i am looking at the act of assassinating citizens, if this is the one case in a generation great! but that has yet to be seen and promoting the action as a new standard is completely different from a case by case basis, and i frankly dont like that kind of power being held by politicians. i like the whole notion of being judged in a court for people of this land. i am not defending the man killed i am speaking against the right to kill without a trial for people of our state and yes it is a double standard i hold for people of this nation.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The guy ran Al-Qaeda's English speaking websites and newsletter. That makes him a propagandist. There is zero evidence he was anything more. Everyone contacted him first through the website. Again, you're making a positive claim; burden of proof Hoike, evidence? Remember the Nigerian he is believed to have (directly) recruited during his recruitment efforts on behalf of Al Shabab? (aka , the underwear bomber) You seem more loud than informed Hokie, and more interested in repeating yourself than engaging in any meaningful way. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is believed to have been recruited and directed by al-Awlaki directly to Al Qaeda, for the purpose of being used as a suicide bomber. That his bombing failed was not for lack of trying... and that goes far beyond propoganda. Recruiting involves: attracting, screening and then selecting qualified people. Do you really think Al-Awlaki had the luxury of doing all that with so few English speaking Al-Qaeda wannabies? It's like with the hate groups...they don't 'recruit'. They simply create propganda and attract screwed up people. In Al-Awlaki's case he was attract English speaking people worldwide.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Ahhhh... so in other words you won't provide evidence to support your claims, and only the manner in which you characterize his behaviour is valid. I'm curious, given your certitude and unwavering nature, why are you bothering with commentary or discussion?Frame_Dragger
All he did was attract people through propaganda. Specifically a website. Those people contacted him first. That made Al-Awlaki a propagandist by definition.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="M4Ntan"]Ron Paul is the best candidate for president? :| :lol: Who is a better candidate in your opinion?In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best canidate for president, but he really is not appealing well to republicans. The typical republicans right now are having a party, considering they will clap to people dying without health care.
Just-Breathe
I hope not Newt Gingrich, he has such low respect for women that he buys weddings rings in bulk.
Ron Paul is clearly an ideological extremist lunatic. I mean, who believes that the constitution applies to every citizen anymore? That's just extremism. Us hard-nosed realists understand that the real world is complex, and because it's complex it obviously follows logically that citizens should be arbitrarily denied constitutional rights. Being logically consistent is for extremists.Rhazakna
The constitution worked great for how many years again?
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]The rules legally would have changed. No Constitutional issues would be in play. Ahhhh... it's always good to be hung up on technicalities... it's so much easier than dealing with the heart of issues at hand. I take it also that based on your support for Ron Paul, that your points are not actually so much about this issue, as support of Ron Paul at any cost? This... is good information to have, and explains your rigidity in this matter.No. I believe in the Constitution like Ron Paul. I also realize an unnerving precedence was just set.Soooo, next time if we go through some paperwork to revoke citizenship, you're ok with bustin a cap in his ass? Cuz I'm ok with that. If a little paperwork makes you feel better about it, I don't mind.
Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="M4Ntan"]Ron Paul is the best candidate for president? :| :lol: Who is a better candidate in your opinion?In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best canidate for president, but he really is not appealing well to republicans. The typical republicans right now are having a party, considering they will clap to people dying without health care.
Just-Breathe
Pretty much all of them.
Ahhhh... it's always good to be hung up on technicalities... it's so much easier than dealing with the heart of issues at hand. I take it also that based on your support for Ron Paul, that your points are not actually so much about this issue, as support of Ron Paul at any cost? This... is good information to have, and explains your rigidity in this matter.No. I believe in the Constitution like Ron Paul. I also realize an unnerving precedence was just set. For the record... precedent. Precdence is a term referring to the order in which something occurs, and is different. No offense meant, just wanted to put that out there. Beyond that, your disturbance seems limited to a technicality which, being so easily met, doesn't imply much for an "unnerving" sense. It's not hard to imagine a world in which citizenship is revoked and KOS orders issued in the same blow, yet that doesn't offend your sensibilties, where this one extreme event does. As for belief in the constitution, it's not Santa Claus, we all believe in it. The issue is in how it is interpreted, something the founders realized thus necessitating the creation of the courts, up to the SCOTUS.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The rules legally would have changed. No Constitutional issues would be in play.KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Ron Paul is clearly an ideological extremist lunatic. I mean, who believes that the constitution applies to every citizen anymore? That's just extremism. Us hard-nosed realists understand that the real world is complex, and because it's complex it obviously follows logically that citizens should be arbitrarily denied constitutional rights. Being logically consistent is for extremists.DroidPhysXI know right? Stripping away federal guidelines for issues like Abortion and miranda rights and give it back to the states only strengthen individual liberty. It enhances citizens rights and doesn't empower state governments at all.
State's rights are horribly extremist, no matter the issue. Experimentation amongst diverse populations with different values is just horrific, and ideologically insane. Clearly a one-size-fits-all solution for three hundred million people is what us hard-nosed realists need to advocate. That's the non-extremist solution, which is obviously correct because it isn't extreme.
I know right? Stripping away federal guidelines for issues like Abortion and miranda rights and give it back to the states only strengthen individual liberty. It enhances citizens rights and doesn't empower state governments at all.[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Ron Paul is clearly an ideological extremist lunatic. I mean, who believes that the constitution applies to every citizen anymore? That's just extremism. Us hard-nosed realists understand that the real world is complex, and because it's complex it obviously follows logically that citizens should be arbitrarily denied constitutional rights. Being logically consistent is for extremists.Rhazakna
State's rights are horribly extremist, no matter the issue. Experimentation amongst diverse populations with different values is just horrific, and ideologically insane. Clearly a one-size-fits-all solution for three hundred million people is what us hard-nosed realists need to advocate. That's the non-extremist solution, which is obviously correct because it isn't extreme.
Spoken from a true deflector.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. I believe in the Constitution like Ron Paul. I also realize an unnerving precedence was just set. For the record... precedent. Precdence is a term referring to the order in which something occurs, and is different. No offense meant, just wanted to put that out there. Beyond that, your disturbance seems limited to a technicality which, being so easily met, doesn't imply much for an "unnerving" sense. It's not hard to imagine a world in which citizenship is revoked and KOS orders issued in the same blow, yet that doesn't offend your sensibilties, where this one extreme event does. As for belief in the constitution, it's not Santa Claus, we all believe in it. The issue is in how it is interpreted, something the founders realized thus necessitating the creation of the courts, up to the SCOTUS.Yes. An unnerving precedent was set. How hard would it have been to strip away his citizenship or start the process a year ago.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Ahhhh... it's always good to be hung up on technicalities... it's so much easier than dealing with the heart of issues at hand. I take it also that based on your support for Ron Paul, that your points are not actually so much about this issue, as support of Ron Paul at any cost? This... is good information to have, and explains your rigidity in this matter.Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The guy ran Al-Qaeda's English speaking websites and newsletter. That makes him a propagandist. There is zero evidence he was anything more. Everyone contacted him first through the website.
Again, you're making a positive claim; burden of proof Hoike, evidence? Remember the Nigerian he is believed to have (directly) recruited during his recruitment efforts on behalf of Al Shabab? (aka , the underwear bomber) You seem more loud than informed Hokie, and more interested in repeating yourself than engaging in any meaningful way. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is believed to have been recruited and directed by al-Awlaki directly to Al Qaeda, for the purpose of being used as a suicide bomber. That his bombing failed was not for lack of trying... and that goes far beyond propoganda. Recruiting involves: attracting, screening and then selecting qualified people. Do you really think Al-Awlaki had the luxury of doing all that with so few English speaking Al-Qaeda wannabies? It's like with the hate groups...they don't 'recruit'. They simply create propganda and attract screwed up people. In Al-Awlaki's case he was attract English speaking people worldwide.All he did was attract people through propaganda. Specifically a website. Those people contacted him first. That made Al-Awlaki a propagandist by definition.
No, recruiting is just that, screening and selectiion are a seperate process. He attracted this young Nigerian, and directed him to AQAB which isn't exactly in the phonebook. You could say that act would only have come after basic screening, or there would be no AQAB, just an infiltrated organization. You can argue this point until it's as twisted as Chunk's face, but it changes nothing. I'm always amazed when people take this approach, as if they're the first people on earth to have moved the goalposts. *sigh*[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. I believe in the Constitution like Ron Paul. I also realize an unnerving precedence was just set.For the record... precedent. Precdence is a term referring to the order in which something occurs, and is different. No offense meant, just wanted to put that out there. Beyond that, your disturbance seems limited to a technicality which, being so easily met, doesn't imply much for an "unnerving" sense. It's not hard to imagine a world in which citizenship is revoked and KOS orders issued in the same blow, yet that doesn't offend your sensibilties, where this one extreme event does. As for belief in the constitution, it's not Santa Claus, we all believe in it. The issue is in how it is interpreted, something the founders realized thus necessitating the creation of the courts, up to the SCOTUS.Yes. An unnerving precedent was set. How hard would it have been to strip away his citizenship or start the process a year ago.KC_Hokie
It unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Recruiting involves: attracting, screening and then selecting qualified people. Do you really think Al-Awlaki had the luxury of doing all that with so few English speaking Al-Qaeda wannabies? It's like with the hate groups...they don't 'recruit'. They simply create propganda and attract screwed up people. In Al-Awlaki's case he was attract English speaking people worldwide.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Again, you're making a positive claim; burden of proof Hoike, evidence? Remember the Nigerian he is believed to have (directly) recruited during his recruitment efforts on behalf of Al Shabab? (aka , the underwear bomber) You seem more loud than informed Hokie, and more interested in repeating yourself than engaging in any meaningful way. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is believed to have been recruited and directed by al-Awlaki directly to Al Qaeda, for the purpose of being used as a suicide bomber. That his bombing failed was not for lack of trying... and that goes far beyond propoganda. Frame_Dragger
All he did was attract people through propaganda. Specifically a website. Those people contacted him first. That made Al-Awlaki a propagandist by definition.
No, recruiting is just that, screening and selectiion are a seperate process. He attracted this young Nigerian, and directed him to AQAB which isn't exactly in the phonebook. You could say that act would only have come after basic screening, or there would be no AQAB, just an infiltrated organization. You can argue this point until it's as twisted as Chunk's face, but it changes nothing. I'm always amazed when people take this approach, as if they're the first people on earth to have moved the goalposts. *sigh*No. Recruitment is more than just starting a website and having people contact you. And it's not like it's that hard to find extremist websites. He merely attracted people via propganda. Not that complicated.And I would love for you to provide evidence he was anymore than a propagandist. You're the one claiming he was a lot more than that. Burden of proof is on you for those details.
Yes. An unnerving precedent was set. How hard would it have been to strip away his citizenship or start the process a year ago.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] For the record... precedent. Precdence is a term referring to the order in which something occurs, and is different. No offense meant, just wanted to put that out there. Beyond that, your disturbance seems limited to a technicality which, being so easily met, doesn't imply much for an "unnerving" sense. It's not hard to imagine a world in which citizenship is revoked and KOS orders issued in the same blow, yet that doesn't offend your sensibilties, where this one extreme event does. As for belief in the constitution, it's not Santa Claus, we all believe in it. The issue is in how it is interpreted, something the founders realized thus necessitating the creation of the courts, up to the SCOTUS.Frame_Dragger
It unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
Yes. Legal rights and protections are attached to citizenship. Those were all thrown out the window because the government didn't like this guy.Yes, that's a scary precedent. Never been done before to my knowledge.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Recruiting involves: attracting, screening and then selecting qualified people. Do you really think Al-Awlaki had the luxury of doing all that with so few English speaking Al-Qaeda wannabies? It's like with the hate groups...they don't 'recruit'. They simply create propganda and attract screwed up people. In Al-Awlaki's case he was attract English speaking people worldwide.
All he did was attract people through propaganda. Specifically a website. Those people contacted him first. That made Al-Awlaki a propagandist by definition.
No, recruiting is just that, screening and selectiion are a seperate process. He attracted this young Nigerian, and directed him to AQAB which isn't exactly in the phonebook. You could say that act would only have come after basic screening, or there would be no AQAB, just an infiltrated organization. You can argue this point until it's as twisted as Chunk's face, but it changes nothing. I'm always amazed when people take this approach, as if they're the first people on earth to have moved the goalposts. *sigh*No. Recruitment is more than just starting a website and having people contact you. And it's not like it's that hard to find extremist websites. He merely attracted people via propganda. Not that complicated.And I would love for you to provide evidence he was anymore than a propagandist. You're the one claiming he was a lot more than that. Burden of proof is on you for those details.
Yeah, it's sending people to a byzantine organizatio that is extremely paranoid about infiltration. You are staring evidence in the face, you just can't see it. Sort of an... evidence-agnosia. I'm done with this until/unless your aim seems to shift from your own propoganda to actual discussion. Auf Wiedersehen![QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. Recruitment is more than just starting a website and having people contact you. And it's not like it's that hard to find extremist websites. He merely attracted people via propganda. Not that complicated.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] No, recruiting is just that, screening and selectiion are a seperate process. He attracted this young Nigerian, and directed him to AQAB which isn't exactly in the phonebook. You could say that act would only have come after basic screening, or there would be no AQAB, just an infiltrated organization. You can argue this point until it's as twisted as Chunk's face, but it changes nothing. I'm always amazed when people take this approach, as if they're the first people on earth to have moved the goalposts. *sigh*Frame_Dragger
And I would love for you to provide evidence he was anymore than a propagandist. You're the one claiming he was a lot more than that. Burden of proof is on you for those details.
Yeah, it's sending people to a byzantine organizatio that is extremely paranoid about infiltration. You are staring evidence in the face, you just can't see it. Sort of an... evidence-agnosia. I'm done with this until/unless your aim seems to shift from your own propoganda to actual discussion. Auf Wiedersehen!Do you have any evidence this guy was anymore than a propagandist?[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] I know right? Stripping away federal guidelines for issues like Abortion and miranda rights and give it back to the states only strengthen individual liberty. It enhances citizens rights and doesn't empower state governments at all.DroidPhysX
State's rights are horribly extremist, no matter the issue. Experimentation amongst diverse populations with different values is just horrific, and ideologically insane. Clearly a one-size-fits-all solution for three hundred million people is what us hard-nosed realists need to advocate. That's the non-extremist solution, which is obviously correct because it isn't extreme.
Spoken from a true deflector.I'm just amusing myself in this thread, which I thought would be obvious. Then again, I probably should've known better.
I am not a constitutionalist, nor do I hold that document in particularly high regard. As such I do not defend state's rights in principle, and I will not argue for something I don't believe in.
Good lord, I leave this thread for but a few hours, and all my work has been undone.
Hokie, why have you done this?
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Ron Paul is clearly an ideological extremist lunatic. I mean, who believes that the constitution applies to every citizen anymore? That's just extremism. Us hard-nosed realists understand that the real world is complex, and because it's complex it obviously follows logically that citizens should be arbitrarily denied constitutional rights. Being logically consistent is for extremists.M4Ntan
The constitution worked great for how many years again?
The constitution has never worked.
Yes. An unnerving precedent was set. How hard would it have been to strip away his citizenship or start the process a year ago.[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] For the record... precedent. Precdence is a term referring to the order in which something occurs, and is different. No offense meant, just wanted to put that out there. Beyond that, your disturbance seems limited to a technicality which, being so easily met, doesn't imply much for an "unnerving" sense. It's not hard to imagine a world in which citizenship is revoked and KOS orders issued in the same blow, yet that doesn't offend your sensibilties, where this one extreme event does. As for belief in the constitution, it's not Santa Claus, we all believe in it. The issue is in how it is interpreted, something the founders realized thus necessitating the creation of the courts, up to the SCOTUS.Frame_Dragger
It unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
yea i differ with hokie on that note, to take away his citizenship an hour before death by executive order changes nothing, it just adds one more clerical step and that does not seem like a deterrent. the whole unilateral thing is what i object to, even if i cant say this was a good or bad thing, because i dont know what the man has done other than run a web site and with him dead it is now a one sided story so anything else out there is to be taken as a grain of salt.Spoken from a true deflector.[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]
State's rights are horribly extremist, no matter the issue. Experimentation amongst diverse populations with different values is just horrific, and ideologically insane. Clearly a one-size-fits-all solution for three hundred million people is what us hard-nosed realists need to advocate. That's the non-extremist solution, which is obviously correct because it isn't extreme.
Rhazakna
I'm just amusing myself in this thread, which I thought would be obvious. Then again, I probably should've known better.
I am not a constitutionalist, nor do I hold that document in particularly high regard. As such I do not defend state's rights in principle, and I will not argue for something I don't believe in.
Ah, the joking excuse.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yes. An unnerving precedent was set. How hard would it have been to strip away his citizenship or start the process a year ago.surrealnumber5
It unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
yea i differ with hokie on that note, to take away his citizenship an hour before death by executive order changes nothing, it just adds one more clerical step and that does not seem like a deterrent. the whole unilateral thing is what i object to, even if i cant say this was a good or bad thing, because i dont know what the man has done other than run a web site and with him dead it is now a one sided story so anything else out there is to be taken as a grain of salt.The legal process takes several months maybe a year. I didn't mean take it away a few hours or whatever before.Good lord, I leave this thread for but a few hours, and all my work has been undone.
Hokie, why have you done this?
Because ideologues are what they are, and flexibility of action or thought is genuinely anathema. @Rhazakna: It has neither entirely worked, nor entirely failed.[QUOTE="M4Ntan"]
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Ron Paul is clearly an ideological extremist lunatic. I mean, who believes that the constitution applies to every citizen anymore? That's just extremism. Us hard-nosed realists understand that the real world is complex, and because it's complex it obviously follows logically that citizens should be arbitrarily denied constitutional rights. Being logically consistent is for extremists.Rhazakna
The constitution worked great for how many years again?
The constitution has never worked.
Yes it has - it is the lifeblood of the U.S. military - we take that document extremely seriously - ask any veteran.Yes. An unnerving precedent was set. How hard would it have been to strip away his citizenship or start the process a year ago.KC_Hokie
It unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
yea i differ with hokie on that note, to take away his citizenship an hour before death by executive order changes nothing, it just adds one more clerical step and that does not seem like a deterrent. the whole unilateral thing is what i object to, even if i cant say this was a good or bad thing, because i dont know what the man has done other than run a web site and with him dead it is now a one sided story so anything else out there is to be taken as a grain of salt. If anything, that act of "revoke... Kill On Sight" is a REAL slippery slope that a truly authoritarian government would take. In essence, it would just be another precedent set, rather than holding this out as a singular event necessitated by extraordinary circumstances. As for what he's done, or not done... we can only ever really depend on the lens of history for anything approaching true confidence in such things. As it stands however, not only the USA, but regional partners showed uncommon willingness to track this individual down, which would seem at least to indicate that he was more than a REALLY pissy webmaster.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]yea i differ with hokie on that note, to take away his citizenship an hour before death by executive order changes nothing, it just adds one more clerical step and that does not seem like a deterrent. the whole unilateral thing is what i object to, even if i cant say this was a good or bad thing, because i dont know what the man has done other than run a web site and with him dead it is now a one sided story so anything else out there is to be taken as a grain of salt.The legal process takes several months maybe a year. I didn't mean take it away a few hours or whatever before.unilaterally, as in one party deems his rights void without question, that was part of Mr daggers propositionIt unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="M4Ntan"]
The constitution worked great for how many years again?
topsemag55
The constitution has never worked.
Yes it has - it is the lifeblood of the U.S. military - we take that document extremely seriously - ask any veteran. It's the longest surviving constitution. If it never worked, it wouldnt have survived.As it stands however, not only the USA, but regional partners showed uncommon willingness to track this individual down, which would seem at least to indicate that he was more than a REALLY pissy webmaster. Frame_DraggerHis Saudi friend were hiding him. Not a place we were looking nor get much help from the population. You don't have to be James Bond as a Muslim extremist to hide in a country like Saudi Arabia or Yemen.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Spoken from a true deflector. DroidPhysX
I'm just amusing myself in this thread, which I thought would be obvious. Then again, I probably should've known better.
I am not a constitutionalist, nor do I hold that document in particularly high regard. As such I do not defend state's rights in principle, and I will not argue for something I don't believe in.
Ah, the joking excuse.Excuse? My first two posts were mired in sarcasm, which I believe was obvious. I wasn't deflecting, I was continuing the sarcastic tone from the previous post. I'm not even that big a fan of Ron Paul.
Also, you were talking about state's rights as they relate to abortion. I went on to say that I am not a constitutionalist, nor do I support state's rights as such. Why would I defend a position I don't hold?
Ah, the joking excuse.[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]
I'm just amusing myself in this thread, which I thought would be obvious. Then again, I probably should've known better.
I am not a constitutionalist, nor do I hold that document in particularly high regard. As such I do not defend state's rights in principle, and I will not argue for something I don't believe in.
Rhazakna
Excuse? My first two posts were mired in sarcasm, which I believe was obvious. I wasn't deflecting, I was continuing the sarcastic tone from the previous post. I'm not even that big a fan of Ron Paul.
Also, you were talking about state's rights as they relate to abortion. I went on to say that I am not a constitutionalist, nor do I support state's rights as such. Why would I defend a position I don't hold?
My point wasn't about states rights, it was the absurd notion that Ron Paul values constitutional rights and citizens liberty.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]yea i differ with hokie on that note, to take away his citizenship an hour before death by executive order changes nothing, it just adds one more clerical step and that does not seem like a deterrent. the whole unilateral thing is what i object to, even if i cant say this was a good or bad thing, because i dont know what the man has done other than run a web site and with him dead it is now a one sided story so anything else out there is to be taken as a grain of salt. If anything, that act of "revoke... Kill On Sight" is a REAL slippery slope that a truly authoritarian government would take. In essence, it would just be another precedent set, rather than holding this out as a singular event necessitated by extraordinary circumstances. As for what he's done, or not done... we can only ever really depend on the lens of history for anything approaching true confidence in such things. As it stands however, not only the USA, but regional partners showed uncommon willingness to track this individual down, which would seem at least to indicate that he was more than a REALLY pissy webmaster. if only i had finished that plausibility calculator then i could know for sure if the man deserved to die vie my own judgment :PIt unnerves you to kill him while he's a citizen, but not to strip him unilaterally of that citizenship then kill him. Oooook... I didn't see myself saying this, but I guess collegeboy was right.
Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Yes it has - it is the lifeblood of the U.S. military - we take that document extremely seriously - ask any veteran. It's the longest surviving constitution. If it never worked, it wouldnt have survived. It sets forth the three branches of the federal government, and civilian control of the military - the United States is one of the few (if not the only) nations that would never suffer a military coup.The constitution has never worked.
DroidPhysX
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] As it stands however, not only the USA, but regional partners showed uncommon willingness to track this individual down, which would seem at least to indicate that he was more than a REALLY pissy webmaster. KC_HokieHis Saudi friend were hiding him. Not a place we were looking nor get much help from the population. You don't have to be James Bond as a Muslim extremist to hide in a country like Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Ahhhh... I didn't realize you were also an expert in clandestine operations and safe housing in the middle east! When do you find the time to post here man? Seriously, I'll buy the notion that hiding in Yemen is easy when we stop killing these people on a regular basis when they try to hide. @surrealnumber5: One, thanks for giving me a second chance... two... it's DRagger... not dagger. =P As in, the Lense-Thirring Effect.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment