13 comments
3 Like
If it matches the criteria of a drone strike based upon current guidelines, I don't care whether he's American, Saudi, Pakistani, Iranian or Kim Jong Il. While I'm happy to have a debate upon the criteria of drone strikes and the completely unregulated and unchecked use of them, I have little interest in the debate over whether holding an American Citizenship constitutes a body armor that wraps around the individual. It shouldn't. Rights are rights no matter what race.
Related: the entire idea of suspending rights for non-nationals in Gitmo and being able to get away with it because they're non-nationals.
1 Like
When we decided that the reference in Revelation to "a city shining on a hill" just had to be about us... and our job was to tell the Almighty when the time was right for the Rapture and set it off...
After all, we're "special" and "exceptional"...
1 Like
From the article:
"Regardless of the government's methods, Obama won out over Romney in the category of readiness to handle an alien invasion. Incidentally, many survey respondents picture that invasion as an "Independence Day"-style attack on Washington, D.C.: Nearly one in five think the nation's capital is the most likely landing zone for a UFO."
1 Like
It's a good thing that the constitution doesn't give a damn about how many that think the earth is flat. Wrong is wrong.
6 Like
"49% - Percentage of Americans who favor killing U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activities..."
Not "guilty of"..... "SUSPECTED OF".... and we can't even find out for sure what the parameters are for determining this so-called "suspected" guilt. And the judge isn't even necessarily someone actually elected to the job.
"9-11" just blew a big ol' hole in our national moral compass, didn't it?
Ted made threats against the President. A Texas congressman invites Ted to be in the same building as the President. What's wrong with this picture?
