The Million-Ton Gorilla

[Bonobo]

Will you support the powers claimed by President Obama (to kill anyone that represents a fuzzy danger to the US whether they are US citizen or not and no matter where they are) when they are used by a President you oppose and do not trust?

[graham4anything]

1. I won't waste my vote in protest like some did in 2000. Just say NEVER AGAIN.

if everyone does that, we don't have to worry.

too bad people in 2000 didn't think about their protest vote and thought they were so cavalier.

We wouldn't have had all the things that happened, happen.

The worst democratic canidate, is better than the best republicantealibertarian.

BTW, where were the protests when Thomas Jefferson said all MEN were created equal.
He seemed to have left out 65% of the population of the US of A when he said that.

[Bonobo]

2. Yeah why would we have to worry about a non-democrat becoming president?

It never happens, right?

[graham4anything]

4. People shouldn't have tossed LBJ aside in 1968. Might have been 53 straight years & counting

of democratic presidents.

Protest votes have caused the direct corrolation to having a republican elected.

Obviously, wihtout protest votes in 1968, 1980 and 2000, there never would have been a modern day republican president.

Ask yourself this in 1980...would Jimmy Carter have done what George Bush did?(either of them?)

Don't like Bush? Don't elect Jeb.
Where the two choices are presented to you in 2016, don't vote for Jeb.

It really is that simple.

[MadHound]

7. Yeah, and forty more years in Vietnam,

LBJ did alright on domestic policy, but that doesn't redeem him for his foreign policy.

LBJ, LJB, how many kids did you kill today.

[graham4anything]

8. Nixon sabatoged the peace talks. Fact. Reagan sabatoged the hostages. Fact.

and McNamara was hired by the guy before LBJ.
and Eisenhower started the war.

Again, you ignore the facts.
LBJ would have beaten Nixon in the election.
HHH was an inferior candidate,who had all the baggage of LBJ but none of the achievements.

it matters little to bloviate against LBJ.

the fact is, Nixon won and LBJ was not in the race.
LBJ in the race would have won, down and dirty.

But don't let facts get in your way.

John Anderson ran in 2000. 7 plus %.

tell me again, Reagan was better than Jimmy Carter???? HUH????

Fact is, protests votes have led to Nixon, Ford, 41, 43 and if people do so again in 2016,
back to the Bush's again.

So tell me about it.

BTW, why not blame Congress? They have authorized the war on terror three or four times now. Yet people keep electing republicans to the house.

[MadHound]

10. Gawd, you are so historically and politically illiterate I'm not even going to bother to educate you

I don't have the time, nor the inclination. You know, what they say about teaching a pig to sing.

[graham4anything]

37. no, you have it backwards

ANYONE would have done what LBJ had happened to him in Vietnam no matter who was president. If you were in the 1960s, you would know that losing was not an option.
Hence, the space program proved that.

however
NOONE but LBJ would have done the Civil Rights/Voting Rights acts.

You change what you can
you accept what you cannot change
and wisdom is knowing the difference.

one day at a time.

imho.

You don't tear a home down, just because one shingle is loose. You just rebuilt the house
and voila, everything is better.

[WinkyDink]

60. LBJ withdrew from the race voluntarily.

[graham4anything]

61. yeah,but the people should have demanded he run

the point is, he would have beaten Nixon.

he would have negated the Wallace votes for one thing.
another case of a 3rd party ruining things.

BTW, was Kissinger better than McNamara?

[jerseyjack]

5. You're right. Move on. Nothin' to see here.

We elected the best guy ever for the job. His Attorney General can't be topped. And Christ, we really are gonna miss Geithner.

Now I'm gonna go back to watch my recording of America's Got Talent so don't bother me no more.

[rhett o rick]

18. Your blame for 2000 is misplaced. Always trying to blame someone else. nm

[graham4anything]

40. no, its the ones that blame our President, that are attempting to shift the blame

vote for a protest
then whine
very easy to do when they didn't vote for the one that would have been different.

[Katashi_itto]

52. Yep, after all, the choice was Romney (or any Repuke) or a centrist, moderate "Republican"..

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama says he would be “considered a moderate Republican” in the 1980s because his policies are “so mainstream.”



I will take Obama any day over the other choice.

[MrSlayer]

3. What does it matter?

Seriously. It's not like anyone in Washington on either side gives a damn what we say or what we think. BushCo didn't give a shit that we were against torture, ObamaCo doesn't give a shit that people are against droning. Look at how they crushed Occupy. Forget about it and go about your life, this country is done.

[coalition_unwilling]

6. We are eminently disposable, commodities to the global 1%. The question, as

V.I. Lenin put it 100+ years ago, is "What is to be done?"

[JaneyVee]

9. It amazes me that people think this is a new practice/tactic being used by our Govt.

[Bonobo]

12. Oh. nt

[Democracyinkind]

51. Please link me to material regarding our previous standing assassination programs

The Phoenix project?

I can't think of anything that is comparable. Only a drone's persistence allows for this kind of program. Therefore I doubt your claim.

I do see a difference between selected individual assassinations (f.e., during the Cold War) and Obama's "signature strikes".

Bush wanted "signature strikes", yet they talked him out of it. Reflect on that.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Obviously the way to defuse these concerns about Obama's arbitrary execution powers

and how successors might abuse them, is to make him President For Life. Then you know it could all be passed down to someone who can likewise be trusted, because they were raised with his principles.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Nope.

btw, a million ton gorilla makes no sense. Just stick with the standard 800 pounder.

It's like the dopes who put "+1,000,000" after someone's post, as if they represent a million DUers.

[bahrbearian]

14. -1,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Arctic Dave]

15. No. Obama has reached Level 1 douchebag.

Him bush will be golf buddies one day and the can tell each other stories of torture and extrajudicial killings over cold beers.

[jeff47]

16. Could you do me a favor?

Could you point out the part of the Constitution that says it applies outside US jurisdiction?

And could you point out the part of the Constitution that grants any special rights to US citizens beyond voting and holding office?

I you want to save some time, neither one exists. Anyone within US jurisdiction has Constitutional rights regardless of their citizenship, and the Constitution does not apply outside US jurisdiction.

[Bonobo]

17. Oh. And what does that have to do with anything I asked?

Let me save you some time.

Nothing.

[jeff47]

20. It means every single president has had this same power.

The fact that you're only concerned now doesn't mean this power is new.

[Bonobo]

21. They may have had the power, but they were never bold enough to claim it was legal

for a President to order the killing of a US citizen. They would have hidden such actions.

[jeff47]

24. So....it's better that they lied?

Most people would consider lying about it to compound the evil.

And again, where in the Constitution do citizens get extra protection? The entire point of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is that they apply to all people under US jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship.

So are these killings just dandy with you as long as only foreigners die? No? Then why make citizenship magical?

[Bonobo]

26. More reductionistic side-tracking. Sorry, I pass.

Your post is ridiculous, absurd and laughable.

[jeff47]

29. It's side tracking to point out foreigners dying to the same attacks are just as horrific?

Wow, that's really pathetic of you.

They're still people. Doesn't matter what their birth certificate says. Yet you're only upset that US citizens can die?

[Bonobo]

31. No, you misread me entirely if you think that.

I am appalled.

My wife and children are foreign citizens. I do not take kindly to the idea that they can be bumped off if Mr. Obama feels they MAY be associated with a "terrorist" organization.

[jeff47]

35. So why are you trying to give citizens magical protections?

It's equally bad regardless of the target's citizenship.

At the same time, there's nothing requiring due process outside US jurisdiction.

[Bonobo]

38. I'm not and yes, there is something preventing non-citizens be killed at the discretion of the POTUS

"At the same time, there's nothing requiring due process outside US jurisdiction."

Yes, there is.

POTUS cannot unilaterally decide that the citizen of another country be killed. It is a violation of the principle of sovereignty and it is a violation of international law.

And then there's just the law of morality -informal and unwritten though that may be.

[jeff47]

41. No, actually assassination's legal.

There's only two things stopping it: an Executive order signed by Ford, and Congress's willingness to pay for it.

And then there's just the law of morality -informal and unwritten though that may be.

And instead of railing against Obama, we need to rail against all of the presidents. Limiting our outrage to this situation means we will fix only this situation. We need to fix future ones too.

[Bonobo]

42. My outrage is not limited to this president.

But the thing is, when Republicans do it, all Dems seem to agree it is wrong.

Why does the morality of it change when a Dem does it?

[jeff47]

44. Dems in office were just dandy with it when W was doing it. (nt)

[Bonobo]

43. Depends on whose "legal" you go by.

It is not legal by French law for the US to come in and assassinate a French citizen.

[jeff47]

45. No, but it's legal under US law to do so. (nt)

[KakistocracyHater]

48. & right there you slipped up-you don't WANT this fixed

you'd rather blur things out "rail against all the presidents"

resource burn iow

[jeff47]

55. Yes, because you're inside my head

and not making up outrage so you can feel superior.

It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to make sure we fix this for all time instead of applying a patch in this one, narrow situation that will be abused by a future administration.

Clearly you have won the day with your incredible intellect!

Heck, I don't even need to add the sarcasm tag, since you know exactly what everyone on the Internet is thinking.

[KakistocracyHater]

58. you're using a well known technique of blurring

or trying to blur things. play dumb, upside down thinking, ANYTHING to justify letting 1 man be judge jury & executioner. dumbass

[think]

39. A supected terrorist is a dead terrorist

even if he's just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time.....

[KakistocracyHater]

59. yeah GUILTY BY BLOOD RELATION

'just us' system indeed

[JaneyVee]

25. Jeff is saying what I was saying above, this is nothing new. Would it make you feel better if

such actions were hidden even though you know they're still occurring?

[Bonobo]

28. You do not see the danger in codifying such actions?

At least being hidden indicates a level of shame and recognition of their lack of morality.

Once you can get it out in the open, it becomes the new normal - so yes to your question.

[JaneyVee]

34. All war is a lack of morality. I just can't seem to work up the paranoia about this because

I'm not planning on going overseas and becoming affiliated with a terrorist organization. Truthfully, I'm more concerned about the thousands of innocent citizens killed by police each year without a trial or due process right here in the US. Many of them minorities.

[Bonobo]

36. So can you answer the OP question?

Are you okay with this power being used with impunity by a Republican president who may have a very different idea of what constitutes a threat to US security?

[KakistocracyHater]

49. that poster pointed out "many of them minorities"

so sounds like they are not worried because he/she is white, & so ok with such a claim to power.

[JaneyVee]

53. I'm speaking of the police, here in America.

[JaneyVee]

54. No, I said it should expire under this administration.

[rhett o rick]

19. WTF does that have to do with the price of prunes in Peru? nm

[jeff47]

22. It means presidents we despise already had this power

Because every single president has had the power to assassinate anyone he feels like, as long as they're outside US jurisdiction.

So, hate W? Well, he could do the exact same thing. Hate Nixon? Well, he could do the exact same thing.

The only things reigning in this power is the killing has to be small enough to not be a war, and Congress has to be willing to pay for it.

[cliffordu]

23. In the last election, who did you vote for?

[Bonobo]

27. I voted for...

Mr. None-of-your-fucking business.

[cliffordu]

32. LOL.

PERFECT reply.



I voted for the current President of the United States of America.

And I'd do it again if I could.

[graham4anything]

62. Yup. I would vote for a 3-4-5-6-7-8 term. Wish they would change the rules however

I expect hillary45 to nominate him to the US Supreme Court in 2018, and Michelle46 to run in 2024.

[sagat]

30. Yes.

[think]

33. FUCK NO! We use to have rights in this country. The right to live

and to be allowed a trial is the VERY LEAST an American should expect from it's government IF it is still truly a democratic republic.....

[ReRe]

46. No...

...and I won't support them while PO is in office, either. Even though I voted for him. 1st and 2nd time.

[JDPriestly]

47. I do not support the idea that any president can order the murder of an American citizen.

A judge can order a criminal penalty in compliance with the law and following due process.

No president has the authority to try, sentence and execute an American citizen. That is my opinion.

If our government wants to change the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, let them amend the Constitution. And then let's evaluate and elect or not the people who voted for and against the amendment.

If "times have changed" and the president needs this authority, we should change the Constitution so that there are checks and balances on the exercise of that authority. As it is, the presidency is claiming a power that can be exercised arbitrarily, unfairly, not at all, willy-nilly. There is no Constitutional basis for this in my opinion. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not within the framework of our rule of law.

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Give them this inch, they'll take a mile.

[RoccoR5955]

56. I support the rule of law

And the President, no matter who s/he is, shall obey it.
Without that, we are not a country of laws, but a country of tyranny.

[woo me with science]

57. kick