I'd say you can try to invoke the constitution all you want on the matter of Obama and not get anywhere with me because for the most part I am not concerned about the constitution as much as one simple question. That question is, is this country in a better position then it was 4 years ago? And I think without a doubt that the answer to that question is yes.

Right now I wish they would sweep you up and indefinitely detain you from posting in this thread

Gerald Ford? He's not perfect but relatively speaking he's pretty decent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&t=4m24s

Man if that's the video Kokesh decided to PUT UP, like he thought it made him look good, how embarrassed did he get in the rest of his conversations?

Well that didn't last long.

LirvA, there's a reason almost no one takes you seriously. You do exactly what a lot of lying politicians do. You hype up a half truth and express it in a way that implies something that's clearly wrong while the truth is much more muddled. That aside, while the NDAA is something I think everyone here disagrees with, I still think it's worth clearing up the confusion on it as the implication is a bit off.

It allows for the armed forces to detain, “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” US citizens who meet that criteria are exempted from the scope of the NDAA, except when abroad.

I am strongly against the NDAA, however, what you and everyone else say about it is, while true, a misconstruction that implies something horrendous and in reality is a much smaller issue than the implication. While obviously still being a big issue, if it just straight up allowed for the indefinite detention of American citizens as everyone says, that would be incredibly, ridiculously terrible and a much bigger issue than allowing for the indefinite detention of American citizens who substantially support the taliban, or associated forces who are engaged in hostilities against the US or its allies, while abroad.

The killing of American citizens claim is pretty similar. It implies something terrible, and while being wrong, the situations were not so clear cut, nor did they happen in America, yadda blah. There's 3 deaths that I can find fitting your claim, Al Awlaki, his son, and some random who died in the strike on Awlaki. Awlaki was on the most wanted list, helped the fort hood massacre happen, approved and supported the killing of Americans, and sent death threats to Americans. If you're hanging out with him, and some other assorted terrorists, you're probably not in the safest of spots. Especially if you're an editor for Al Qaedas magazine, Inspire (as the random, Samir Khan, was).

His son was also killed as collateral damage, hanging out with 8 Al Qaeda terrorists, and thus far the military claim he wasn't the target but, Ibrahim al-Banna, was, being a senior operative in an Al Qaeda affiliate. If hanging out with an American could guarantee your safety for terrorists, that'd make the military's job much, much harder.

So once again, not clear cut, a lot of Americans approve of the strikes as intended (including the Republican Nominees, excluding Ron Paul) or at least don't think of it as a big issue as it's a murky situation, and the intent is very murky. I don't like drone strikes, however, I'm at worst indifferent about these strikes individually. Though I am against moving the ball any closer legally on any of these issues by setting precident.

But "it's murky" makes such a crappy soundbite and doesn't make me feel inspired. Ron Paul never says it's murky. He has one-line answers for everything.

You lost me before this but the quote that I find hilarious had something to do with opposing force against another human being ever. You should never use force against another human being even if they are trying to kill you. You could see why this kind of thinking is just crazy talk.

He means force against someone that hasn't initiated it against you.

This is verbatim what he said:

"I believe force against another human being is always morally wrong, no matter what the excuse or any individual's judgment of what is good for the rest of society, and any initiation of force is inevitably detrimental to human happiness."

lol lirva

Lirva has it 99.9% right, and it's the guys painting stuff like the War on Terror as "murky" who are the ones apologizing for the continued escalation of everything that is wrong with America.

Respond with something that makes sense instead of some half knee jerk lack of an explanation, and I'll thoroughly debunk it. You don't know what you're talking about and won't debate it because you know it won't stand up on its own, instead, you took the same path as LirvA (though admittedly his is better, because he will explain and discuss it with you at times), speaking solely in soundbites.

Lol at you getting self righteous about not even having to take a position. All you guys have are petty quibbles and gotchas, and zero principles. Stndrd

And all you guys have are easy sound-bite answers to complicated problems, many of which have already been tried in the real world and rejected. Standard.

Which things have been tried in the real world and rejected?

What do you mean, "you people"?

oh the ironing

Gold standard, leaving civil rights up to the states, letting corporations police themselves on the environment, un-insured individual bank accounts, no worker safety laws, no child labor laws, no Medicare, no meat/food inspections, smoking everywhere, no mandatory seatbelts in cars, etc.

That's just off the top of my head. Some things have even been tried, rejected, then re-instated and caused problems again - like Glass-Steagall.

I've stated my position, those were my first and second posts in politics, and you still haven't said anything that can be debated; you just chastised me for giving a well thought out response instead of throwing mud and acting like a petulant child as is the standard of discourse in this forum.

If you can't articulate the reason why you believe or say something, you probably shouldn't say it as you're just harming everyone with your ignorance.

I agree having worker safety laws, child labor laws, food inspections, smoking laws, and environmental protection laws. No one should be allowed to hurt others against their will.

I just don't think the punishments are appropriate. People make more money by breaking the laws, but then they are just fined money for doing it. This becomes circular, and more strict criminal punishment is necessary.

itt libertarians argue for stiff criminal penalties for breaking worker safety and environmental laws.

No one is making more money by violating child labor laws in the US. I agree environmental laws need to be more stringent.

Yeah, I agree that child labor laws have probably expunged most of that in our country which is good.

I could not get passed the initial open ended gotcha would you impeach obama for whatever question.

fixed your selective vision