Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

www.bbc.co.uk


It's just another example of Obama being drunk with power and his blatant disregard for our Constitution. Drone strikes on Americans if they are an "imminent threat to national security.." Who decides what a threat to national security is, especially with people like Janet Napolitano calling the Tea Party terrorists? I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with the ACLU, but it seems like nothing's impossible these days! My goodness, I can't believe over half the country still believes in this guy. faint

Feb 7th 2013 new

Oh, and additionally - can you believe the outrage that would ensue if Bush did this?

Feb 8th 2013 new

(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said: www.bbc.co.uk just another example of Obama bein...
(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said:

www.bbc.co.uk


It's just another example of Obama being drunk with power and his blatant disregard for our Constitution. Drone strikes on Americans if they are an "imminent threat to national security.." Who decides what a threat to national security is, especially with people like Janet Napolitano calling the Tea Party terrorists? I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with the ACLU, but it seems like nothing's impossible these days! My goodness, I can't believe over half the country still believes in this guy.

--hide--


I don't understand why it is so bad to target a person who clearly has turned against our country, whether he
be a citizen or not.

I would say that anyone who joins Al Quida, has defected, and becomes an enemy of America. Why should
they have any more rights which are granted under our constitution?

Feb 8th 2013 new

(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said: Oh, and additionally - can you believe the outrage that would ensue if Bush did this?
(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said:

Oh, and additionally - can you believe the outrage that would ensue if Bush did this?

--hide--
Hi Rebecca, ....or the outrage if Romney had begun his political career in McVeigh's visitor's cell, and had worked with him for years.


....Or the outrage if Nixon in 1970 had advocated that the current administration's gun control policies be enforced on Dohrn and Ayers, who terror bombed and and demanded that everyone arm themselves and resist the government.


Plus ca change....

Feb 8th 2013 new

(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said: www.bbc.co.uk just another example of Obama bein...
(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said:

www.bbc.co.uk


It's just another example of Obama being drunk with power and his blatant disregard for our Constitution. Drone strikes on Americans if they are an "imminent threat to national security.." Who decides what a threat to national security is, especially with people like Janet Napolitano calling the Tea Party terrorists? I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with the ACLU, but it seems like nothing's impossible these days! My goodness, I can't believe over half the country still believes in this guy.

--hide--

Just a small correction.

Over half this country does not believe this guy. Only Over half of those who voted do. And, unless I am mistaken, the number who actually voted is around 60% of people eligible to vote. That means only, roughly 32.5% of the eligible voters believe in him. With over 5 million more voters eligible to vote only a little over 118 million voters cast ballots compared to 131 million 4 years ago. The turnout was lower than 2004.

Unfortunately 54% of Catholics who voted, voted for this bum.

It has been a long time since any President can claim that the majority of Americans voted for him.

Feb 8th 2013 new

I was just talking about this yesterday with one of my very liberal friends. He definitely agreed with me that most of the media and everyone else on the left would have been in an uproar over the past four years, over this matter, if Bush had been in office instead of Obama. With Obama in office... hardly a peep from the left except within the past week or so.


I think that this could be necessary (for instance) for certain (few) American citizens who are obviously collaborating with enemies of the U.S. and are in countries where we cannot legally (through the cooperation of the government of such a country) apprehend them. That said, I am very uncomfortable with any president (of any party) unilaterally making such a decision concerning an American citizen.


My best solution (so far) is that if such a person is on the president's list, the president should be required to assemble three federal judges and convince them with his evidence of the persons wrong-doing. I think that if the evidence is as strong as it should be, there should not be a problem unanimously convincing three federal judges, months, weeks or days in advance, within a couple of hours, that such action is in the interest and absolute necessity of national security. Perhaps it should also be necessary that each of the three federal judges must have been appointed by three different presidential administrations, with at least one judge having been appointed by a previous administration of the opposite political party. If all of this were done, I think that this process would provide appropriate constitutional protections for the American citizen while also making sure that there is broad agreement that such a person is a great threat to national security.


Just my thoughts.


Ed

Feb 8th 2013 new

(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said: www.bbc.co.uk just another example of Obama bein...
(Quote) Rebecca-727981 said:

www.bbc.co.uk


It's just another example of Obama being drunk with power and his blatant disregard for our Constitution. Drone strikes on Americans if they are an "imminent threat to national security.." Who decides what a threat to national security is, especially with people like Janet Napolitano calling the Tea Party terrorists? I never thought I would see the day that I agreed with the ACLU, but it seems like nothing's impossible these days! My goodness, I can't believe over half the country still believes in this guy.

--hide--



I don't think it has anything to do with believing as to why they voted for him. It has to do with handouts from the government which is what he is supplying. As soon as Romney brought up a percentage of how many Americans were being helped by the government he became more unpopular. There are many people in this country that simply don't want to get off of their behinds.

Feb 8th 2013 new

(Quote) ED-20630 said: I was just talking about this yesterday with one of my very liberal friends. He definitely agreed wit...
(Quote) ED-20630 said:

I was just talking about this yesterday with one of my very liberal friends. He definitely agreed with me that most of the media and everyone else on the left would have been in an uproar over the past four years, over this matter, if Bush had been in office instead of Obama. With Obama in office... hardly a peep from the left except within the past week or so.


I think that this could be necessary (for instance) for certain (few) American citizens who are obviously collaborating with enemies of the U.S. and are in countries where we cannot legally (through the cooperation of the government of such a country) apprehend them. That said, I am very uncomfortable with any president (of any party) unilaterally making such a decision concerning an American citizen.


My best solution (so far) is that if such a person is on the president's list, the president should be required to assemble three federal judges and convince them with his evidence of the persons wrong-doing. I think that if the evidence is as strong as it should be, there should not be a problem unanimously convincing three federal judges, months, weeks or days in advance, within a couple of hours, that such action is in the interest and absolute necessity of national security. Perhaps it should also be necessary that each of the three federal judges must have been appointed by three different presidential administrations, with at least one judge having been appointed by a previous administration of the opposite political party. If all of this were done, I think that this process would provide appropriate constitutional protections for the American citizen while also making sure that there is broad agreement that such a person is a great threat to national security.


Just my thoughts.


Ed

--hide--
Hi Ed, that is an excellent, technically feasible and probably Constitutional proposal. My quibble would be similar to the problem with the executive orders and proposed Congressional legislation regarding firearms : just as criminals by definition are not constrained by laws, a President who has already ignored the Constitution and the WPA will not be constrained by a court. As in so many sticky, twisted, unknown threads of history, this leads back to FDR. Check his policy when Nazi spies were caught landing on U S beaches. While the suspects were tried by an FDR personally appointed Military Commission, the precedent was set for Presidential control of the process of dealing with irregular enemies who had actually not accomplished their mission. At least those suspects got a hearing. cryptome.org , www.stoptheaclu.com

Feb 8th 2013 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: I don't understand why it is so bad to target a person who clearly has turned agai...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:



I don't understand why it is so bad to target a person who clearly has turned against our country, whether he
be a citizen or not.

I would say that anyone who joins Al Quida, has defected, and becomes an enemy of America. Why should
they have any more rights which are granted under our constitution?

--hide--

Two reasons that I can see. One, who determines who these terrorists are? As I said previously, this admin has indicated that Tea Party members are terrorists! Second, Americans have a right to due process, like it or lump it. Obama doesn't get to decide which Americans have this right. We now have an administration who believe we should bring members of Al Quida to NY for trials, but just blow American citizens away, no questions asked.

Feb 8th 2013 new

Yes, Bernie - somehow the Left gets away with anything.

Posts 1 - 10 of 49