• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

hawke812 said:
To other Americans, and to the rest of the world. It is like watching that Honey Boo Boo show, or even the many other "reality shows". Makes all of us Americans look bad:lol:
Click to expand...

Apparently there is nothing we can to do to look bad enough to stop the 3rd world Mexican invasion.
 
I'm sorry, but the father was directly responsible for this boy's death. Sucks, doesn't it?
 
liblady said:
I'm sorry, but the father was directly responsible for this boy's death. Sucks, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

actually, a missile fired from an American drone was directly responsible for the boy's death.

at the heart of the matter is whether it is good policy to kill US citizens without due process.

I'm supportive of the death penalty, and of war in general ( depending).. i'm not , however, supportive of summary executions of US Citizens by the US government.
(I find it odd that so many lefties are actually supporting this and I'm not... that's not the usual course of things.)
 
Thrilla said:
actually, a missile fired from an American drone was directly responsible for the boy's death.

at the heart of the matter is whether it is good policy to kill US citizens without due process.

I'm supportive of the death penalty, and of war in general ( depending).. i'm not , however, supportive of summary executions of US Citizens by the US government.
(I find it odd that so many lefties are actually supporting this and I'm not... that's not the usual course of things.)
Click to expand...

Maybe we don't have all the facts, but it seems to that his father was responsible for his well being. I am supportive of killing terrorists, and I don't think we have the luxury of private interviews with them before we take action.
 
Thrilla said:
actually, a missile fired from an American drone was directly responsible for the boy's death.

at the heart of the matter is whether it is good policy to kill US citizens without due process.

I'm supportive of the death penalty, and of war in general ( depending).. i'm not , however, supportive of summary executions of US Citizens by the US government.
(I find it odd that so many lefties are actually supporting this and I'm not... that's not the usual course of things.)
Click to expand...

lol @ someone trying to blame the dad for the US dropping a bomb on the kid.

PS also, there has been a huge political shift in support for the drone program. In fact, some polling I quoted earlier indicated that a majority iof progressives actually support the program.
 
liblady said:
Maybe we don't have all the facts, but it seems to that his father was responsible for his well being. I am supportive of killing terrorists, and I don't think we have the luxury of private interviews with them before we take action.
Click to expand...

oh, to be a fly on your wall, prior to 08, while discussing GWB's wiretap program
 
Kal'Stang said:
What a racist piece of crap post. Not to mention a very ignorant one.
Click to expand...

Yo, Stang, What words would someone like yourself use to describe the 9/11 Muslim attack on America's World Trade Towers?
 
Ray410 said:
Yo, Stang, What words would someone like yourself use to describe the 9/11 Muslim attack on America's World Trade Towers?
Click to expand...

Irrelevent to the racist piece of crap post that you made Ray. The whole of the Muslim world did not attack the WTT's. Only a few waco's from another country did.
 
Ray410 said:
Yo, Stang, What words would someone like yourself use to describe the 9/11 Muslim attack on America's World Trade Towers?
Click to expand...

May I answer the question?

The best word to describe the attacks of 11 September would be DECEPTION.

Of epic proportions.
 
liblady said:
I'm sorry, but the father was directly responsible for this boy's death. Sucks, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

Sons bear the sins of the father?

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." - Deuteronomy 24:16
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevent to the racist piece of crap post that you made Ray. The whole of the Muslim world did not attack the WTT's. Only a few waco's from another country did.
Click to expand...

Yo Stang, Listen up: The inquiry regarding your personal opinion of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is just as relevant as determining if a witness for the defense in a trial is a released felon, it goes to witness' credibility to comment. At this point, you appear to be an anti-American Muslim. If so, your opinions on any subject pertaining to America are of no value. Plus, on a much smaller level, it's always informative to others if someone runs from a simple question as you did.
 
Ray410 said:
Yo Stang, Listen up: The inquiry regarding your personal opinion of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is just as relevant as determining if a witness for the defense in a trial is a released felon, it goes to witness' credibility to comment. At this point, you appear to be an anti-American Muslim. If so, your opinions on any subject pertaining to America are of no value. Plus, on a much smaller level, it's always informative to others if someone runs from a simple question as you did.
Click to expand...

You disagree with someone, then proceed to accuse them of appearing to be an anti-American Muslim:shock:

Ahh yeah, a shining example of a "true" American:lol:
 
hawke812 said:
And this is relevant to this thread topic how:lol:
Click to expand...

You said that Americans look bad to the rest of the world. I replied that we didn't look bad enough to the Mexicans to stop their invasion. Isn't that relevant to refute your comment?

Even though I may not be completely accurate because the Mexicans are always complaining that the minimum wage isn't high enough for them to support their huge families in the United States.
 
Ray410 said:
You said that Americans look bad to the rest of the world. I replied that we didn't look bad enough to the Mexicans to stop their invasion. Isn't that relevant to refute your comment?

Even though I may not be completely accurate because the Mexicans are always complaining that the minimum wage isn't high enough for them to support their huge families in the United States.
Click to expand...

Incorrect sir. You are twisting my words to fit your agenda.

I said: "To other Americans, and to the rest of the world."

Did you even notice "To other Americans".Why do you completely ignore my comment of "other Americans"? Do we not deserve consideration to be discussed with the rest of the world? Are we not as good as the Mexicans, to not even be mentioned?

Shame on you sir, shame:thumbdown

Edit: And the "Mexican Invasion" as you put it, is irrelevant to how we as Americans look. You bring up a red herring. I don't care how we look to the Mexicans crossing the boarder illegally. That is a completely different and unrelated issue. I care how we as Americans look to other nations and people as an example. We can be better than this. We don't have to look down unto peoples like you do.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
Yo Stang, Listen up: The inquiry regarding your personal opinion of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center is just as relevant as determining if a witness for the defense in a trial is a released felon, it goes to witness' credibility to comment. At this point, you appear to be an anti-American Muslim. If so, your opinions on any subject pertaining to America are of no value. Plus, on a much smaller level, it's always informative to others if someone runs from a simple question as you did.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The reason that it is irrelevent is because your original post that I responded to was talking about all Muslims. The only muslims that were responsible for 9/11 were the ones in control of the planes and the ones that planned it. The majority of Muslims had nothing what so ever to do with 9/11 and were just as shocked at what happened as your or I. Yet you are quite willing to lay the blame on all of them. Tell me, do you blame all Americans for Timothy McVeigh? Are all Americans not American because of what he did? How about Christians? Do you blame the whole of Christianity for abortion clinic bombings? No doubt your answer will be no. And that shows how hypocritical and biased and racist and ignorant your post really is.

To blame the actions of a few on the whole is a sure sign of prejudice and/or ignorance. And anyone with an ounce of sense knows this.

Sorry but I will not jump on your bandwagon just because I think what the individual Muslims that were the perpetrators in 9/11 did was despicable. I have far more intelligence and common sense than that.
 
Ray410 said:
You said that Americans look bad to the rest of the world. I replied that we didn't look bad enough to the Mexicans to stop their invasion. Isn't that relevant to refute your comment?

Even though I may not be completely accurate because the Mexicans are always complaining that the minimum wage isn't high enough for them to support their huge families in the United States.
Click to expand...

Are you Native American, by any chance?
 
Deuce said:
Are you Native American, by any chance?
Click to expand...

The damage done to the United States by you Mexicans far surpasses anything done to the American Indians. Just in Chicago alone, one single American City, the "Latin Kings" have over 18,000 gang members. Over 200,000 in Southern California alone, all aligned with the Mexican drug cartels.
 
Last edited:
Ray410 said:
The damage done to the United States by you Mexicans far surpasses anything done to the American Indians. Just in Chicago alone, one single American City, the "Latin Kings" have over 18,000 gang members. Over 200,000 in Southern California alone, all aligned with the Mexican drug cartels.
Click to expand...

Well, first, the idea that Mexican gangs have done more damage is ludicrous.

Second, you've missed the point. You are an invader.
 
Hatuey said:
Again, for the third time - SOMETHING BEING MADE INTO LAW, DOES NOT MEAN IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL. You're playing the circular logic game. It's constitutional because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. That's simply not the case. Something being made into law, does not mean it's constitutional. End - of - story.
Click to expand...

It's constitutional because it falls in line with the powers given to the legislative and executive branches in the constitution, the AUMF was a piece of legislation created over 10 years ago, it's been cited in court cases, the supreme court is well aware of it's existence so yes the fact that they have not ruled it unlawful says a lot, it says enough to reasonably say that it is in line with constitutional law (as we interpret it today). Obviously that can change but it's common knowledge that our views and the way we interpret things change with time and that certain laws change in different generation so I shouldn't have to point that out. It holds even more true since the US Supreme court has in the past supported an increase in the powers of the commander and chief if congress also supports the actions taken by the commander in chief (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
 
Monserrat said:
It's constitutional because it falls in line with the powers given to the legislative and executive branches in the constitution, the AUMF was a piece of legislation created over 10 years ago, it's been cited in court cases, the supreme court is well aware of it's existence so yes the fact that they have not ruled it unlawful says a lot, it says enough to reasonably say that it is in line with constitutional law (as we interpret it today). Obviously that can change but it's common knowledge that our views and the way we interpret things change with time and that certain laws change in different generation so I shouldn't have to point that out. It holds even more true since the US Supreme court has in the past supported an increase in the powers of the commander and chief if congress also supports the actions taken by the commander in chief (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
Click to expand...

Good lord, does separation of powers mean nothing to you? It's simple. Congress passes a law, executive signs it, SCOTUS rules on its constitutionality. It's literally the basis for our entire government. A law getting passed does not make it constitutional anymore than somebody getting away with a crime make them innocent.
 
Thrilla said:
actually, a missile fired from an American drone was directly responsible for the boy's death.

at the heart of the matter is whether it is good policy to kill US citizens without due process.

I'm supportive of the death penalty, and of war in general ( depending).. i'm not , however, supportive of summary executions of US Citizens by the US government.
(I find it odd that so many lefties are actually supporting this and I'm not... that's not the usual course of things.)
Click to expand...

I think the accuracy of drones and the justification for using them should be the main issue here. The US wasn't targeting an american citizen, they were targeting a ranking member of Al-Qaeda. If anyone can prove that they were going after the son of Awlaki than I would be in agreement with most of the people here.
 
Hatuey said:
Good lord, does separation of powers mean nothing to you? It's simple. Congress passes a law, executive signs it, SCOTUS rules on its constitutionality. It's literally the basis for our entire government. A law getting passed does not make it constitutional anymore than somebody getting away with a crime make them innocent.
Click to expand...

This is going nowhere, I explained my reasoning I cited a court case supporting it. I am aware of the division of powers, I'm glad you are too... If you disagree with my reasoning than you disagree with it even though it's right :cool:
 
hawke812 said:
Care to elaborate?

Sons bear the sins of the father?

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." - Deuteronomy 24:16
Click to expand...

Not at all. The father knowingly put his son in danger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom