Republican Foreign Policy Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]joebassin wrote:

It is power hungry people who wants more power. Were that will lead them they don’t care, they just want more and more and know they can have it just step by step. [/quote]

New Kids On The Block - Step By Step - YouTube [/quote]

Glad that you find it amusing.

I think that there is nothing funny about the US passing on the torch after not even a hundred years.

This is a tragedy and no cause for celebration.

Then again, the Chinese rarely, if ever ventured beyond their own back yard…

So, maybe it is all for the better…
[/quote]

The Chinese are not strong enough right now. When they will be that may be a different story.

42

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

He was an “enemy combatant”.

…without any proof whatsoever…[/quote]

Anwar al-Awlaki in as-Sahab(al-Qaeda) video calling on the Ummah(Muslims everywhere) to kill American civilians and servicemen and women and praising his “student” Major Nidal Malik Hasan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n[/quote]

Free speech darling, free speech.

One of those God given rights the US government is supposed to protect.

Maybe there are limits to it, we are all eagerly awaiting the SCOTUS decision.

Oh wait, we dont, he was killed on an elected bureaucrats say so. [/quote]

Incitement to murder and treason is not free speech. There’s also the matter of his involvement in planning, logistics and financing of several attacks. Not free speech darling. Bye now.[/quote]

Proof, honeybun?

You know, the kind of proof that stands up in court, sugartits?

Not to mention some procedural formalities, like how the US jurisdiction suddenly seems to be the whole planet and not just mainland US, sweetypie?

[/quote]

It seems you never fail to conveniently forget that the US court system is relevant to domestic law and order. Enemy combatants, like your relatives 70 years ago, remain outside its jurisdiction. That jurisdiction resides with the executive branch.

You know this and we’ve been over it a thousand times and yes, you will argue it again but you will again be wrong when you do so.[/quote]

You would thus agree that any country as the right to kill a US citizen in the US, if it deems this said citizen an enemy combattant. For example the talibans are legitimate to go after George Bush and blow it’s house killing him and his wife, which would be considered a collateral damage.

43

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

He was an “enemy combatant”.

…without any proof whatsoever…[/quote]

Anwar al-Awlaki in as-Sahab(al-Qaeda) video calling on the Ummah(Muslims everywhere) to kill American civilians and servicemen and women and praising his “student” Major Nidal Malik Hasan:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n[/quote]

Free speech darling, free speech.

One of those God given rights the US government is supposed to protect.

Maybe there are limits to it, we are all eagerly awaiting the SCOTUS decision.

Oh wait, we dont, he was killed on an elected bureaucrats say so. [/quote]

Incitement to murder and treason is not free speech. There’s also the matter of his involvement in planning, logistics and financing of several attacks. Not free speech darling. Bye now.[/quote]

Proof, honeybun?

You know, the kind of proof that stands up in court, sugartits?

Not to mention some procedural formalities, like how the US jurisdiction suddenly seems to be the whole planet and not just mainland US, sweetypie?

[/quote]

It seems you never fail to conveniently forget that the US court system is relevant to domestic law and order. Enemy combatants, like your relatives 70 years ago, remain outside its jurisdiction. That jurisdiction resides with the executive branch.

You know this and we’ve been over it a thousand times and yes, you will argue it again but you will again be wrong when you do so.[/quote]

“Enemy combatants”

Is that like “Anyone my president wants killed” ?

At least the Romans had the foresight to only elect a dictator for 6 months.

Habeas corpus, division of powers., due process, these are the pillars of our civilization.

Dispose of them, I dont care, but suffer the consequences.

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The boy that cried wolf.[/quote]

You mean the wolf that is forever circling our brittle palisades?

That wolf?

The wolf hat is so conveniently forgotten whenever a sense of normality sneaks in?

That wolf?

45

[quote]orion wrote:
PS: you need a song.
[/quote]

Here’s one for you sailor

46

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
PS: you need a song.
[/quote]

Here’s one for you sailor

Would that lead to hundreds of thousands of Americans to march down Pennsylvania Avenue?

You gotta fine tune it to your audience dude…

57

[quote]orion wrote:

You gotta fine tune it to your audience dude…

[/quote]

Plenty big truth

58

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I don’t recall hearing Huntsman’s name being in the “kook corner.” Can I ask why you think this?

[/quote]

Huntsman indicated that he would withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. He also sided with Ron Paul in opposing waterboarding. I’m just lumping Santorum, Huntsman and Paul together as foreign policy kooks.[/quote]

haha. Is McCain a “half-kook”? [/quote]

McCain? He’s pretty good foreign policy wise. Although he got distracted by Iraq and missed the al-Qaeda/Taliban resurgence in Af-Pak 2002-2006.[/quote]

“distracted by Iraq” lol, now you are talking like Obama circa 2007.

The “McCain” thing was a joke …because of your criteria (He fit into one, not the other). Looks like I’d better work on my humor(humour).

59

[quote]Sloth wrote:
… [/quote]

I’ve also got a question for you Sloth: Will the conservative branch support Gingrich? I think you said they would just stay at home for Romney, what about Newt?

Thanks for your thoughts.

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So Joe, the point is there simply is no precedent for your desires.[/quote]

Your level of doublethink is astounding!