A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership

Rickh · 03-12-2013, 09:07 AM

You assume that if the govt. says somebody is a terrorist, we should take them at their word. If they have proof of wrong doing, criminal or terrorist, whatever they should present this evidence. i.e. "show the body"

The issue is that before we do away with "ordinary rights" should the govt. be able to just say declare this on someone with absolutely no checks.

You know, that whole "constitution" thing?

"When did a Republican do it"?

The drone program existed under Bush as well. It isn't new, only the right wing outrage over its use is.

Mardigras9 · 03-12-2013, 09:11 AM

[QUOTE=Rickh;485131]You assume that if the govt. says ANYTHING, we should take them at their word. QUOTE]

.........and the answer to that is...........NO thank you.

Rickh · 03-12-2013, 09:22 AM

[quote=Mardigras9;485132]

Originally Posted by Rickh

You assume that if the govt. says ANYTHING, we should take them at their word. QUOTE]

.........and the answer to that is...........NO thank you.

Then we agree?

TheOak · 03-12-2013, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Rickh

You assume that if the govt. says somebody is a terrorist, we should take them at their word. If they have proof of wrong doing, criminal or terrorist, whatever they should present this evidence. i.e. "show the body"

The issue is that before we do away with "ordinary rights" should the govt. be able to just say declare this on someone with absolutely no checks.

You know, that whole "constitution" thing?

"When did a Republican do it"?

The drone program existed under Bush as well. It isn't new, only the right wing outrage over its use is.

FYI Drones were flown in Desert Storm, although the public didn't know about it, nothing new. Except that they were flown in Iraq and not over Houston.

In regards to the first part.. i think 98% of the threads on this board are because conservatives DO NOT take the Governments word for anything, and 98% of the rebuttal is because liberals do.

Rickh · 03-12-2013, 01:19 PM

Armed drones is the difference.

Who accepts what the govt. says has a lot to do with who is in at the time. This leads to heights of hypocrisy. I remember a lot on the right believing every darned thing that was fed to them.

I'll remind you of this thread when a Republican president is in office and they're feeding us a line of excrement and telling us it's peanut butter.

TheOak · 03-12-2013, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rickh

Armed drones is the difference.

Who accepts what the govt. says has a lot to do with who is in at the time. This leads to heights of hypocrisy. I remember a lot on the right believing every darned thing that was fed to them.

I'll remind you of this thread when a Republican president is in office and they're feeding us a line of excrement and telling us it's peanut butter.

Drones were armed for DS.

It has nothing to do with who is in office.

Career Politician = Appeasement.... It's called job security.

Rickh · 03-12-2013, 03:24 PM

I'm glad to hear you say, that it has nothing to do with who is in office. I will look forward to you blasting Republican politicians when needed.

I'm not saying you don't do this, I have yet to witness it.

03-12-2013, 09:07 AM	#11
Rickh Not here 2agree Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Katy, TX Posts: 567	Re: A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership You assume that if the govt. says somebody is a terrorist, we should take them at their word. If they have proof of wrong doing, criminal or terrorist, whatever they should present this evidence. i.e. "show the body" The issue is that before we do away with "ordinary rights" should the govt. be able to just say declare this on someone with absolutely no checks. You know, that whole "constitution" thing? "When did a Republican do it"? The drone program existed under Bush as well. It isn't new, only the right wing outrage over its use is. Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

03-12-2013, 09:11 AM	#12
Mardigras9 Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Land Mass between LA and AL Posts: 2,426	Re: A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership [QUOTE=Rickh;485131]You assume that if the govt. says ANYTHING, we should take them at their word. QUOTE] .........and the answer to that is...........NO thank you. Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

03-12-2013, 09:22 AM	#13
Rickh Not here 2agree Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Katy, TX Posts: 567	Re: A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership [quote=Mardigras9;485132] Originally Posted by Rickh You assume that if the govt. says ANYTHING, we should take them at their word. QUOTE] .........and the answer to that is...........NO thank you. Then we agree? Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

03-12-2013, 12:41 PM	#14
TheOak Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 7,634	Re: A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership Originally Posted by Rickh You assume that if the govt. says somebody is a terrorist, we should take them at their word. If they have proof of wrong doing, criminal or terrorist, whatever they should present this evidence. i.e. "show the body" The issue is that before we do away with "ordinary rights" should the govt. be able to just say declare this on someone with absolutely no checks. You know, that whole "constitution" thing? "When did a Republican do it"? The drone program existed under Bush as well. It isn't new, only the right wing outrage over its use is. FYI Drones were flown in Desert Storm, although the public didn't know about it, nothing new. Except that they were flown in Iraq and not over Houston. In regards to the first part.. i think 98% of the threads on this board are because conservatives DO NOT take the Governments word for anything, and 98% of the rebuttal is because liberals do. Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

03-12-2013, 01:19 PM	#15
Rickh Not here 2agree Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Katy, TX Posts: 567	Re: A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership Armed drones is the difference. Who accepts what the govt. says has a lot to do with who is in at the time. This leads to heights of hypocrisy. I remember a lot on the right believing every darned thing that was fed to them. I'll remind you of this thread when a Republican president is in office and they're feeding us a line of excrement and telling us it's peanut butter. Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

Latest Blogs
Hipocrisy in the mainstream media Last Blog: 05-11-2013 By: SmashMouth Rookie free agent Class 2013 Last Blog: 05-08-2013 By: crawgator Upon further review: OLB Eric Martin, Nebraska Last Blog: 04-29-2013 By: hagan714

03-12-2013, 02:42 PM	#16
TheOak Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 7,634	Originally Posted by Rickh Armed drones is the difference. Who accepts what the govt. says has a lot to do with who is in at the time. This leads to heights of hypocrisy. I remember a lot on the right believing every darned thing that was fed to them. I'll remind you of this thread when a Republican president is in office and they're feeding us a line of excrement and telling us it's peanut butter. Drones were armed for DS. It has nothing to do with who is in office. Career Politician = Appeasement.... It's called job security. Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

03-12-2013, 03:24 PM	#17
Rickh Not here 2agree Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Katy, TX Posts: 567	Re: A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership I'm glad to hear you say, that it has nothing to do with who is in office. I will look forward to you blasting Republican politicians when needed. I'm not saying you don't do this, I have yet to witness it. Share Share this post on Digg Reddit! Twitter! Facebook!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode