El Karacho1647545492 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Yes, and I like steak dinners, and girl on girl porn. Or dude on girl. High-fiving bros on girl(s). Though no furries, no homo(high fives don't count), no bronies. On topic I must admit I'm not sure exactly how one interprets military action in regards to the 5th, doubly off of US soil. its only gay if the balls touch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyFKINPowerz Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I say if you become a terrorist who is against the US, then the US constitutional rights do not apply to you regardless of your citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 He was a F-ING US citizen. This is the death blow to the Constitution. If our government can order anyone of us dead without due process the whole thing is worthless. The fact that an African American President, the first, would be the first president to assassinate a US citizen w/o any charges being brought or any due process what so ever is saddening at best. WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (2001)— President Bush declared at the Pentagon this morning that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in last week's terrorist strikes, brought to justice, and he pointedly recalled the frontier posters urging the capture of criminals ''dead or alive.'' This is not the first time, at all, that our government has sanctioned that a criminal be brought to justice 'dead or alive'. Edit: Had to address the following: I say if you become a terrorist who is against the US, then the US constitutional rights do not apply to you regardless of your citizenship. The constitution does not provide your rights. The rights the constitution spells out are given at birth, and the constitution recognizes this. The Bill of Rights is there to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Killing terrorists is ok with me. Sometimes, it's just as simple as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 its only gay if the balls touch? Mostly correct. Shafts too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Mostly correct. Shafts too. No sword fights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 No sword fights? Well when you put it like that ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 this is marginally relevant to this thread http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn69/caxide/ifuckedyourmother.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 The US Military has shown the ability to capture certain people alive. Given the structure of Al-Qaeda and the locations, there is no reason to risk American lives to give these cocksuckers a "fair trial" and due process. Putting US boots on the ground in a sovereign country takes a lot of risk and danger. Has the US done it? Fuck yeah, and has been doing it for decades (circa Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, even had some of our folks play peek-a-boo with the ol' Soviet Union.) There is no remorse in killing these cocksuckers, plain and simple. We see you, you die courtesy of fast moving ordnance. But, to carry out these strikes (example Somalia and the AC-130 strike) we still have folks on the ground carrying these missions out. Back on point, these fuckers killed Americans in mass quantity on top of joining and leading a world terrorist organization. Their Rights have been gone the minute they stepped off US soil and joined these fuck sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of our free State. We have a standing professional army. Therefore, your right to bear arms, by the letter of the Constitution, is no longer necessary. so lets get rid of free speech too I still think a well regulated militia (as prescribed in the bill of rights) is necessary so I do hope you're trolling when posting this about the 2nd amendment.........By the way, gun control falls squarely under the wording of the 2nd ammendment when it says a WELL REGULATED militia and not just a militia run amok without control...I find it rather disturbing that liberals don't see this and this just gives conservatives a reason to fight for our rights harder against them not accepting this provision...but I digress on this matter also, I'm perfectly fine with this breach of the 5th ammendment...especially when this particular case can be classed as treason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 its only gay if the balls touch? the convention is clear cut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 so lets get rid of free speech too I still think a well regulated militia (as prescribed in the bill of rights) is necessary so I do hope you're trolling when posting this about the 2nd amendment.........By the way, gun control falls squarely under the wording of the 2nd ammendment when it says a WELL REGULATED militia and not just a militia run amok without control...I find it rather disturbing that liberals don't see this and this just gives conservatives a reason to fight for our rights harder against them not accepting this provision...but I digress on this matter also, I'm perfectly fine with this breach of the 5th ammendment...especially when this particular case can be classed as treason :gabe: see my thread in The Back Counter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrodh Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Cliff notes from this thread and incident. -An american isn't named alwaki or samir. Those names are reserved for terrorists. - Terrorist deserve to die - The media is stupid - The President hasn't killed anyone - No breach in constitution has been made because the guy was an international terrorist, not some guy that robbed a bank and flew over seas. For all you thinking this event is the end of all days. Don't worry when you beat your wife to death you can still hop the border to Mexico and be fine. We don't care that much to drop a predetor missile down on you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of our free State. We have a standing professional army. Therefore, your right to bear arms, by the letter of the Constitution, is no longer necessary. This statement isn't 100% correct. Thanks to Posse Commitatus, the Federal branches of the Military cannot be utilized on US soil. If you want to boil it down, the National Guard is considered the "militia" due to it being a State agency. It cam be federalized, but the National Guard's primary mission is state side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Hes a Fucking Torrorist of a US Citizen...and a Dead one now. Hes in a better place....Hope he got his virgins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturg1647545502 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 domestic and international...terrorism. >fox news emblem burnt into screen >get on CR and continue mindless rant. >Loves terrorists. >Everything is a major blow to the constitution.:dumb: Having a little bit of (spoon-fed) information and a strong opinion makes you and idiot with a strong opinion Inquisitive minds scout out credible resources before continuing the opinion of a single news channel. furthermore "the suspicion arises that the decisive value of an action lies precisely in that which is not intentional, and that all its intentionalness, all that is seen, sensible, or "sensed" in it, belongs to its surface or skin.. which, like every skin, betrays something, but CONCEALS still more" You're following the puppet while everyone else is watching the magician finger bang your moms asshole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Very true I agree with you. Threats like that end in a court case and charges being filed. Remember when Saddam Hussein was on trial? :gabe: No need for a trial and court case when it comes to fuck sticks that are considered "radical clerics", name Anwar al-Awlaki, and who are perhaps technically American citizens now living in Yemen. Just kill them and be done with it. The problem is we ask too many fucking questions about people like this who are best off eliminated and not thought of again. The world doesn't need any drama related to them. There are far better people to worry about protecting. Move on. http://news.yahoo.com/cia-drone-kills-u-born-al-qaeda-cleric-002023105.html The US Military has shown the ability to capture certain people alive. Given the structure of Al-Qaeda and the locations, there is no reason to risk American lives to give these cocksuckers a "fair trial" and due process. Putting US boots on the ground in a sovereign country takes a lot of risk and danger. Has the US done it? Fuck yeah, and has been doing it for decades (circa Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, even had some of our folks play peek-a-boo with the ol' Soviet Union.) There is no remorse in killing these cocksuckers, plain and simple. We see you, you die courtesy of fast moving ordnance. But, to carry out these strikes (example Somalia and the AC-130 strike) we still have folks on the ground carrying these missions out. Back on point, these fuckers killed Americans in mass quantity on top of joining and leading a world terrorist organization. Their Rights have been gone the minute they stepped off US soil and joined these fuck sticks. ^^ can not be said any better. Sometimes, it's just as simple as this. Agree. If anyone here really gives a shit and feels this guy needs support then they should be permabanned. In the end, we're not winning a "war on terror," we're surrendering the Constitution and sacrificing the principles that made this country great in the name of "national security." Anyone who now feels safer after knowing Due Process can be tossed aside so quickly by so many who are sworn to uphold it, needs to have their head examined.I disagree. We are winning the war on terror by finally not fucking around with principles and constitutional rights on people that don't deserve the protection and respect from TRUE Americans. Yes, I do feel safer and proud that our Gov't finally pulled their pussy gloves off and decided to nip this shit in the bud by taking them out without haste. Anyone who believes we should continue to embrace political bullshit, court cases and drag these things out for decades needs to get their head examined. Kuddos for making shit happen and extinguishing the life out someone clearly not contributing to the greater good of our great country and the people who live here. I wonder how this guy feels about the whole thing: http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96672 Edited October 1, 2011 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong but if a person is outside the US, the constitution doesn't protect them Also, had the SEALS not been on a super stealth helicopter, Pakistan probably would have tossed some missiles their way. That was kind of an assault on their country, and would have been justified in saying they were under attack and declaring war against us for having done so. They just don't because we are the big scary united states Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 This statement isn't 100% correct. Thanks to Posse Commitatus, the Federal branches of the Military cannot be utilized on US soil. If you want to boil it down, the National Guard is considered the "militia" due to it being a State agency. It cam be federalized, but the National Guard's primary mission is state side. You ARE 100% correct, I was just trollin. Still, the National Guard is not the true definition of a militia in that it is not the duty of all able-bodied citizens to participate. I kinda wish we would go back to the conscription draft; for better or worse, it'd force policymakers to consider the will of the people and it'd force the people to participate more actively in democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPFSTheFett Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 I think we are certainly better off that this guy was killed. The problem is that the policy walks a very fine line of constitutional rights. Was this guy a terrorist? Probably, he certainly talked the talk and helped with violent acts againtst the United States (Ft. Hood). The issue here is where is the line drawn? Are we only going to assassinate people that we 100% know helped in an attack against the United States? Or is it enough that someone speaks bad about the country and calls for an uprising? What if we think someone is supporting a terrorist organization? Where is the line? We also know that Obama's policy is not to capture terrorists, it's to simply kill them. I'm fine with this. Do I think it could potentially hurt long term intelligence? Yes, but it's a position and that's fine. So I guess the next time we think someone is a terrorist and we don't have enough information or think our case may not be strong enough to convict, we can simply wait for them to leave the country and take them out. Like the justice system or hate it. Look at Casey Anthony. A large majority of americans feel she killed her kid. Lets change the scenerio to a terrorist act. She could have been assissinated when a court couldn't even find her guilty. At the end of the day, the guy was an american citizen. If we have video evidence that he renounced his citizenship, then he's fair game(and I can probably assume he did do this). Either way it's a fine line, and where does it stop? Democrats continually call Republicans bad names, one even went as far as to call one a Terrorist. With no checks and balances, what's to honestly stop a president from taking that next step? I know it's stretching, but is it really that far fetched? History does have a habbit of repeating itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 I think we are certainly better off that this guy was killed. The problem is that the policy walks a very fine line of constitutional rights. Was this guy a terrorist? Probably, he certainly talked the talk and helped with violent acts againtst the United States (Ft. Hood). The issue here is where is the line drawn? Are we only going to assassinate people that we 100% know helped in an attack against the United States? Or is it enough that someone speaks bad about the country and calls for an uprising? What if we think someone is supporting a terrorist organization? Where is the line? We also know that Obama's policy is not to capture terrorists, it's to simply kill them. I'm fine with this. Do I think it could potentially hurt long term intelligence? Yes, but it's a position and that's fine. So I guess the next time we think someone is a terrorist and we don't have enough information or think our case may not be strong enough to convict, we can simply wait for them to leave the country and take them out. Like the justice system or hate it. Look at Casey Anthony. A large majority of americans feel she killed her kid. Lets change the scenerio to a terrorist act. She could have been assissinated when a court couldn't even find her guilty. At the end of the day, the guy was an american citizen. If we have video evidence that he renounced his citizenship, then he's fair game(and I can probably assume he did do this). Either way it's a fine line, and where does it stop? Democrats continually call Republicans bad names, one even went as far as to call one a Terrorist. With no checks and balances, what's to honestly stop a president from taking that next step? I know it's stretching, but is it really that far fetched? History does have a habbit of repeating itself. I agree with much of what you wrote, but I think the Casey Anthony thing is a bad comparison. If she was a terrorist, but lived in the U.S. and went quietly when authorities came to arrest her, then she should be afforded Constitutional rights. In the case of bin Laden or al-Awlaki, neither was n the U.S. or willing to accept their right to a trial as an accused terrorist. Both fled the U.S. and in an attempt to capture them, I have no doubt that more American lives were at risk. I think a closer comparison could be made with the Branch Davidians and the siege in Waco, TX. It was another instance where arguably excessive force was used and many likely innocent people were killed. Those people were not afforded the right to a trial due to a number of circumstances, stemming from the death of several federal agents attempting to serve a warrant to initiate due process. IMO its a tough decision, but people who have shown themselves to be unwilling to cooperate with the due process until the point at which they've been captured do not deserve due process. Throwing in the mix innocent people makes it very very difficult to maintain this opinion, but I'm speaking in isolated terms such as al-Alwaki and his companion Samir Khar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted October 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Ron Paul 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Ron Paul 2012 Vladimir Putin 2012-forever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 I dont think I have seen Obama shoot a gun yet. :gabe: most, if not all, would consider it accessory to murder even if you don't pull the trigger but sti;ll commission a kill......if, of course, it s a murder situation:gabe: Vladimir Putin 2012-forever this is the kind of leader I want http://www.brobible.com/files/images/buzz/putinbadass.jpg http://captionsearch.com/pix/zqk6ktki.jpg http://files.brobible.com/archive/Buzz/VladPutin/putinf1.jpg http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMmlq5z2oybqiyZAdUmRc9DpoV_HyQOIFCOgpABqLDXDgtSDVraxF0pq-4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Putin is a man's man, but he's also trying to become a dictator. His puppet tried cutting the strings, and that hasn't gone over so well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.