Barack Obama v. Mitt Romney

[Drone 10]

I've been at peace since I hit the button.

Well since I see your post would suggest your lying

[buck 11]

See what I mean Harley, contentment at last.:hihi:in less than 5 minutes

[buck 11]

See what I mean Harley, contentment at last.:hihi: in less than five minutes

[Drone 10]

See what I mean Harley, contentment at last.:hihi: in less than five minutes

He's not here, he's down the gym

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Perhaps that used to be the case ... but since he passed the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order (Executive Order 13603) if the Senate doesn't do what he tells it to do, he can always just starve them into submission.

 

But the constitution is set in stone isn't it?

That's what sets America apart from other nations..

 

Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

The constitution itself may be inflexible (though it is subject to amendment) but the mere fact that a law (or rule as laid down by the constitution) exists, does not stop somebody - me, or you, or the President of the United States - from breaking or ignoring it.

 

Let me give you one specific example.

 

Before I do that, let me tell you where I stand. I'm retired (British) military. I'm also a retired lawyer. I'm probably only just little bit to the left of Attila the Hun (certainly in military matters.)

 

The US Constitution (and particularly those amendments which compreise the 'Bill of Rights' apply only to US citizens. (I'm sure you knew and appreciated that )

 

The Bill of Rights says - inter alia - that the US government can't just go around killing Americans. - You need 'due process' (an accusation, a trial, a conviction etc.)

 

(I'm not an American citizen - I am entitled to no protection whatsoever under the bill of rights and the US government could simply pick me up off the street, or arrest me at 4am in my house and I would have no recourse whatsoever. I'm also not bothered. / In general, the US government aren't that bad and I'm 'insignificant fry' - which is way smaller than small fry.

 

Or so I thought.

 

I'm military (read the bit above about Attila.)

 

I'm also a lawyer and although I don't practice[i'm retired] in the US, old habits die hard.

 

"On September 30th 2011in a Northern province of Yemen, Anwar Al Awlaki, an American Citizen and a senior figure in Al'Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, finished his breakfast and walked with several companions to vehicles parked nearby. Before he could drive away, a missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency struck the group and killed Awlaki, as well as a second American citizen,"

 

With my (one-time) military hat on, I would've said "Nice one!"

 

With a wig on, I would have to ask: "Given that you've killed two American citizens, how did you conduct thew 'due process' required under the terms of the Constitution?"

 

That question has been asked by others - but there was no reply.

 

Al Awlaki was almost certainly a Richard - but he was an American and under US Law, he was entitled to a trial.

 

If you (Obama) can do that to one American, what's to prevent him from doing it to another?

 

The law is there to protect people. If one guilty man gets away, but if the law protects thousands - if not millions - of others, who is the winner and who is the loser?

 

POTUS is the most powerful man on earth. To whom is he accountable?

 

It appears he can go around killing Americans and is not accountable for that.

 

'Executive Orders' were designed to allow the President - the head of the administration - to control those who administer (not those who govern!) on his behalf.

 

The new executive order (“National Defense Resources Preparedness.”) gives the president and his executive branch agency heads far more power than was contemplated by Congress in the Defense Production Act

The Act authorizes the president to prioritize contract performance and to “allocate materials, services, and facilities in such manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.” The executive order follows this statutory grant as far as it goes, but then goes much further, particularly with respect to the energy industry.

Part II of Obama’s executive order (“Priorities and Allocations”) delegates to a broad array of executive agency heads the president’s authority over contract prioritization and allocation of materials, services and facilities across all major segments of the private sector economy, including agriculture, “all forms of energy,” “health resources,” “all forms of civil transportation,” “water resources,” and a catch-all for “all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.”

 

WHy did he feel that he needed those powers? Does he think that the Congress of the United States is incompetent?

 

Does he think he could do a better job 'all on his own' (without interference from congress?)

 

If he isn't elected, will he declare himself as the new American Dictator?

[bazrippa 10]

I was actually being sarcastic in my post but yes what you say is true.

But taking into account that the US constitution and bill of rights along with the congressional structure were written to protect citizens from that exact thing.

Obama really has paved the way if not for him to be dictatorial, then the next president could be..

You have to ask the question why they would want or need powers like these and more importantly why are they seldom talked about in the media, while the alternate media are spelling out the crucial dangers?

[buck 11]

Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

The constitution itself may be inflexible (though it is subject to amendment) but the mere fact that a law (or rule as laid down by the constitution) exists, does not stop somebody - me, or you, or the President of the United States - from breaking or ignoring it.

 

Let me give you one specific example.

 

Before I do that, let me tell you where I stand. I'm retired (British) military. I'm also a retired lawyer. I'm probably only just little bit to the left of Attila the Hun (certainly in military matters.)

 

The US Constitution (and particularly those amendments which compreise the 'Bill of Rights' apply only to US citizens. (I'm sure you knew and appreciated that )

 

The Bill of Rights says - inter alia - that the US government can't just go around killing Americans. - You need 'due process' (an accusation, a trial, a conviction etc.)

 

(I'm not an American citizen - I am entitled to no protection whatsoever under the bill of rights and the US government could simply pick me up off the street, or arrest me at 4am in my house and I would have no recourse whatsoever. I'm also not bothered. / In general, the US government aren't that bad and I'm 'insignificant fry' - which is way smaller than small fry.

 

Or so I thought.

 

I'm military (read the bit above about Attila.)

 

I'm also a lawyer and although I don't practice[i'm retired] in the US, old habits die hard.

 

"On September 30th 2011in a Northern province of Yemen, Anwar Al Awlaki, an American Citizen and a senior figure in Al'Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, finished his breakfast and walked with several companions to vehicles parked nearby. Before he could drive away, a missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency struck the group and killed Awlaki, as well as a second American citizen,"

 

With my (one-time) military hat on, I would've said "Nice one!"

 

With a wig on, I would have to ask: "Given that you've killed two American citizens, how did you conduct thew 'due process' required under the terms of the Constitution?"

 

That question has been asked by others - but there was no reply.

 

Al Awlaki was almost certainly a Richard - but he was an American and under US Law, he was entitled to a trial.

 

If you (Obama) can do that to one American, what's to prevent him from doing it to another?

 

The law is there to protect people. If one guilty man gets away, but if the law protects thousands - if not millions - of others, who is the winner and who is the loser?

 

POTUS is the most powerful man on earth. To whom is he accountable?

 

It appears he can go around killing Americans and is not accountable for that.

 

'Executive Orders' were designed to allow the President - the head of the administration - to control those who administer (not those who govern!) on his behalf.

 

The new executive order (“National Defense Resources Preparedness.”) gives the president and his executive branch agency heads far more power than was contemplated by Congress in the Defense Production Act

The Act authorizes the president to prioritize contract performance and to “allocate materials, services, and facilities in such manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.” The executive order follows this statutory grant as far as it goes, but then goes much further, particularly with respect to the energy industry.

Part II of Obama’s executive order (“Priorities and Allocations”) delegates to a broad array of executive agency heads the president’s authority over contract prioritization and allocation of materials, services and facilities across all major segments of the private sector economy, including agriculture, “all forms of energy,” “health resources,” “all forms of civil transportation,” “water resources,” and a catch-all for “all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.”

 

WHy did he feel that he needed those powers? Does he think that the Congress of the United States is incompetent?

 

Does he think he could do a better job 'all on his own' (without interference from congress?)

 

If he isn't elected, will he declare himself as the new American Dictator?

I would seek to ask, since UK has no written constitution, if it would be quite legal for the SAS to kill British suspects for terrorist activities, as they did in Gibraltar? Perhaps we should have taken this traitor's citizenship away, but the CIA perhaps didn't have another chance to get him. Maybe he left this earth for the greater good of all. Edited October 9, 2012 by buck

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

I would seek to ask, since UK has no written constitution, if it would be quite legal for the SAS to kill British suspects for terrorist activities, as they did in Gibraltar? Perhaps we should have taken this traitor's citizenship away, but the CIA perhaps didn't have another chance to get him. Maybe he left this earth for the greater good of all.

 

Quite legal. The people killed by the SAS were killed in accordance with 'The Rules and Articles of War'.

 

Had the US Forces been required to justify their actions, then they, no doubt, would have used (quite properly, IMO) the same argument.

 

Obama is a lawyer, isn't he? What did he have to say about it? - Why didn't he say: 'I'm the Commander in Chief. I accept full responsibility. The attack was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Articles of War."

 

(Genuine question. I'm a peon, he's the prezz. )

 

Can I have $3000 for providing a simple answer to a question he couldn't be arsed to answer/didn't know the answer to?) (It took me all of 3 minutes to think up the answer and to type it - my 'speech to text' program isn't working. I would've only asked for $2500 had the dragon been awake )

 

$1000 a minute seems like a reasonable rate.

[Obelix 11]

I would seek to ask, since UK has no written constitution, if it would be quite legal for the SAS to kill British suspects for terrorist activities, as they did in Gibraltar? Perhaps we should have taken this traitor's citizenship away, but the CIA perhaps didn't have another chance to get him. Maybe he left this earth for the greater good of all.

 

I'd just point out that the UK does have a written constitution, just not in one place, and at times it doesnt look very much like it.

 

In answer to the above, perhaps not. The oldest extant laws in the UK today are from 1297 (Magna Carta), and clause 29 would fit..

 

"29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."

 

The law relating to self defence would allow them to be shot pre emptively, or indeed for them to be shot to stop them detonating a bomb, which is the reason given for the SAS opening fire on them.

 

As an aside against the US cosntitution, it was my understanding that it applied to all those including citizens and those whom the US had agreed to admit under a visa or similar, ie guests in the country. Is that not the case?

[Harleyman 12]

Unfortunately, it isn't.

 

The constitution itself may be inflexible (though it is subject to amendment) but the mere fact that a law (or rule as laid down by the constitution) exists, does not stop somebody - me, or you, or the President of the United States - from breaking or ignoring it.

 

Let me give you one specific example.

 

Before I do that, let me tell you where I stand. I'm retired (British) military. I'm also a retired lawyer. I'm probably only just little bit to the left of Attila the Hun (certainly in military matters.)

 

The US Constitution (and particularly those amendments which compreise the 'Bill of Rights' apply only to US citizens. (I'm sure you knew and appreciated that )

 

The Bill of Rights says - inter alia - that the US government can't just go around killing Americans. - You need 'due process' (an accusation, a trial, a conviction etc.)

 

(I'm not an American citizen - I am entitled to no protection whatsoever under the bill of rights and the US government could simply pick me up off the street, or arrest me at 4am in my house and I would have no recourse whatsoever. I'm also not bothered. / In general, the US government aren't that bad and I'm 'insignificant fry' - which is way smaller than small fry.

 

Or so I thought.

 

I'm military (read the bit above about Attila.)

 

I'm also a lawyer and although I don't practice[i'm retired] in the US, old habits die hard.

 

"On September 30th 2011in a Northern province of Yemen, Anwar Al Awlaki, an American Citizen and a senior figure in Al'Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, finished his breakfast and walked with several companions to vehicles parked nearby. Before he could drive away, a missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency struck the group and killed Awlaki, as well as a second American citizen,"

 

With my (one-time) military hat on, I would've said "Nice one!"

 

With a wig on, I would have to ask: "Given that you've killed two American citizens, how did you conduct thew 'due process' required under the terms of the Constitution?"

 

That question has been asked by others - but there was no reply.

 

Al Awlaki was almost certainly a Richard - but he was an American and under US Law, he was entitled to a trial.

 

If you (Obama) can do that to one American, what's to prevent him from doing it to another?

 

The law is there to protect people. If one guilty man gets away, but if the law protects thousands - if not millions - of others, who is the winner and who is the loser?

 

POTUS is the most powerful man on earth. To whom is he accountable?

 

It appears he can go around killing Americans and is not accountable for that.

 

'Executive Orders' were designed to allow the President - the head of the administration - to control those who administer (not those who govern!) on his behalf.

 

The new executive order (“National Defense Resources Preparedness.”) gives the president and his executive branch agency heads far more power than was contemplated by Congress in the Defense Production Act

The Act authorizes the president to prioritize contract performance and to “allocate materials, services, and facilities in such manner, upon such conditions, and to such extent as he shall deem necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.” The executive order follows this statutory grant as far as it goes, but then goes much further, particularly with respect to the energy industry.

Part II of Obama’s executive order (“Priorities and Allocations”) delegates to a broad array of executive agency heads the president’s authority over contract prioritization and allocation of materials, services and facilities across all major segments of the private sector economy, including agriculture, “all forms of energy,” “health resources,” “all forms of civil transportation,” “water resources,” and a catch-all for “all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.”

 

WHy did he feel that he needed those powers? Does he think that the Congress of the United States is incompetent?

 

Does he think he could do a better job 'all on his own' (without interference from congress?)

 

If he isn't elected, will he declare himself as the new American Dictator?

 

Best news I heard in a long time. How many mens lives would you be willing to risk to have to go in and take the SOB alive?

You're an old soldier. Go on, tell us how you'd do it.

 

Dont forget too that aL Awlaki was urging his followers to kill as many Americans as possible.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Harleyman

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

If I had the kit, Exactly the way they did it, Harleyman. - IMO, they got it right!

 

The drone crew did the right thing (IMO) and I've no doubt that the general supervising them authorised the attack ... but Obama didn't back up his troops.

 

When he was challenged (and the C in C should surely be challenged) he declined to comment.

 

I am indeed retired Military (as is my wife.)

 

Obama isn't my Commander in Chief, I'm pleased to say - because if he was, I'd feel sorely let down.

 

My Commander in Chief Liege Lord is Elizabeth, Duke of Normandy (I am not a citizen of the United Kingdom, either - we beat the crap out of them in 1066.)

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

... But the tea party, Sarah Palin's bunch would have none of it. They are reactionaries, trying to bring back the "good old Days" which were good for a few rich people but hell for anybody else...

 

A few questions for MS Palin:

 

Dear Sarah,

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your comments, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

 

 

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

 

 

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

 

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

 

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

 

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

 

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

 

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

Your adoring fan,

 

Rupert.

 

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian