Herman Cain

[JC5123]

Why is it that Ron Paul supporters think they are smarter than everyone else?

Same reason the Occupy Wall Street idiots think they are doing something productive. 

[tombogan03884]

The only thing Mauler got right is that Alwaki was a US citizen murdered by the Govt with out the trial guaranteed by the Constitution. Being an enemy combatant does not change that. Any one who bitches about their "gun rights" but is OK with this is either an idiot or a hypocrite.
Ron Paul didn't start a revolution, if he had he would have been elected back in 88.
All he has done is motivate some ignorant people who know they are being fed BS in college, but have not yet studied the real issues enough to have a clue.
He keeps getting reelected, BFD, so didn't Ted Kennedy. What has he accomplished ? Name one bill that he has gotten passed.
He is ineffectual and even his son thinks he's a flake.

[billt]

The fact Anwar Al-Awlaki was a citizen was more of a technicality, than it was of any consequence. His actions made him ripe for the picking, so to speak. If I did the same, I would expect the same, as would most Americans. I think even he did, which is why he tried to hide his whereabouts so carefully. Even he had enough sense to know being a United States citizen wouldn't shield him. There is a simple solution to all of this. If you want to be treated like an American citizen, then act like one, not it's enemy.

Stretching this into gun control doesn't make any sense. I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less. And rightfully so. If I want to retain my gun rights I must behave and observe the laws of the land. Once lost it is a time consuming and costly legal procedure to reinstate them. In this country if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you will lose your gun rights. If you do what Anwar Al-Awlaki did you will lose your life. He played the same exact game Bin Laden did. His outcome was the same as well. Both plotted, and succeeded in killing innocent Americans. The fact one happened to be a citizen had no bearing, nor should it have.

[mauler]

I think a couple of members of the forum could spend their time more wisely.  Rather than making thousands of trolling responses on this forum, performing a little independent study and research could lead them out of the darkness.  There is so much more to life than being a clueless keyboard warrior.

[billt]

I think a couple of members of the forum could spend their time more wisely. There is so much more to life than being a clueless keyboard warrior.

I'm assuming you are referring to yourself, seeing as 8 of your 10 total posts on this forum are within the confines of this thread.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

The fact Anwar Al-Awlaki was a citizen was more of a technicality, than it was of any consequence. His actions made him ripe for the picking, so to speak. If I did the same, I would expect the same, as would most Americans. I think even he did, which is why he tried to hide his whereabouts so carefully. Even he had enough sense to know being a United States citizen wouldn't shield him. There is a simple solution to all of this. If you want to be treated like an American citizen, then act like one, not it's enemy.

Stretching this into gun control doesn't make any sense. I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less. And rightfully so. If I want to retain my gun rights I must behave and observe the laws of the land. Once lost it is a time consuming and costly legal procedure to reinstate them. In this country if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you will lose your gun rights. If you do what Anwar Al-Awlaki did you will lose your life. He played the same exact game Bin Laden did. His outcome was the same as well. Both plotted, and succeeded in killing innocent Americans. The fact one happened to be a citizen had no bearing, nor should it have.

The fact that he was a citizen is all that matters, technicality or not.
You posted " I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less".
That is not true, you have to be convicted of a felony or spouse abuse. They may hold your arms until after the trial, but if found not guilty they must be returned.
This guy had no trial, just some Washington A holes decided , "F*ck his rights, lets blow him up ".
If it was done to some one you agreed with you would be screaming bloody murder.
The fact that he was a peckerhead does not mean it's OK to ignore his rights.

I think a couple of members of the forum could spend their time more wisely.  Rather than making thousands of trolling responses on this forum, performing a little independent study and research could lead them out of the darkness.  There is so much more to life than being a clueless keyboard warrior.

I've been doing independent study for 35 years. Get informed and you too can be opinionated.

I'm assuming you are referring to yourself, seeing as 8 of your 10 total posts on this forum are within the confines of this thread.

ROFL 

[Solus]

The fact Anwar Al-Awlaki was a citizen was more of a technicality, than it was of any consequence. His actions made him ripe for the picking, so to speak. If I did the same, I would expect the same, as would most Americans. I think even he did, which is why he tried to hide his whereabouts so carefully. Even he had enough sense to know being a United States citizen wouldn't shield him. There is a simple solution to all of this. If you want to be treated like an American citizen, then act like one, not it's enemy.

Stretching this into gun control doesn't make any sense. I can lose my gun rights as a Citizen by simply committing a felony, or less. And rightfully so. If I want to retain my gun rights I must behave and observe the laws of the land. Once lost it is a time consuming and costly legal procedure to reinstate them. In this country if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence you will lose your gun rights. If you do what Anwar Al-Awlaki did you will lose your life. He played the same exact game Bin Laden did. His outcome was the same as well. Both plotted, and succeeded in killing innocent Americans. The fact one happened to be a citizen had no bearing, nor should it have.

Bill, I don't think the question here is if he deserved to die or not.  The question is should the government be making that call based on no constitutional procedures or any type of review or set standards.  

They simply decided he needed to be Offed (and I agree he did) because of reasons of their own choosing.  I happen to agree with the reasons THIS time, but if they are allowed to pick the target based on their own secret reasons, I might not agree with the next few thousand they eliminate.  

I have come to the conclusion, after my years of observation, that the government cannot, at any level, be trusted with unchecked power and particularly this one, the abuse of which will ensure there are no whistle blowers around to testify against it.

I don't like the statement that  'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' because I like to believe there are those who are not corruptible, myself included, but anyone who wields that much power would have to have an incorruptible set of advisers to help keep them between the lines....and I have no hope that the any safeguards would prevent the abuse of this power.

It cannot be allowed.



  

[tombogan03884]

Let me put it another way.
If citizens don't have the right to kill these politicians that richly deserve it, where do they get the right to kill citizens .

[billt]

The fact that he was a citizen is all that matters, technicality or not.
If it was done to some one you agreed with you would be screaming bloody murder.

When you kill Americans all bets are off. Your "citizenship" isn't getting you anywhere, or getting you a trial instead of a missle up your a$$ in some far away land. If I "agreed" with what he did, I would deserve the same fate, because I would pose the same danger.

[Magoo541]

P.S.  Lyndon Johnson was in the House of Representatives, not that that is relevant.

There were a lot of Presidents that were Congressman but most held another position before running for POTUS.

Lyndon Johnson, you really want to compare RP to Johnson?  OK, be my guest.  Johnson started his political carreer in the House but he came out of Senate, where he was the majority leader, to run as VP, not President.  I don't mean to confuse anyone with facts...