Should Obama be impeached?

Guns Guns Guns · 10-01-2011, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by poet

Well, I will if you stop being so pollyanna-ish. Are you such a glutton for attention? A poll? This is more about you than a real query. Nobody is stupid, except the usual suspects. Look, either we have a war against terrorism, or we don't. Bush locked away enemy combatants.....and the left did howl. You're up in arms about a "high-ranking" Al Qaeda operative, simply because he was an American citizen? He jettisoned his rights when he declared war on America......sorry. You can't have it both ways, even though you're trying.

It seems the Fifth Amendment prevents executing an American citizen without due process. Care to discuss that fact?

**poet** · 10-01-2011, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by \(\()/)/

It seems the Fifth Amendment prevents executing an American citizen without due process. Care to discuss that fact?

Not when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Due process is, of course, only when it's convenient. There are exceptions to rules, as sanctimonious as you're pretending to be.

Guns Guns Guns · 10-01-2011, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by poet

Not when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Due process is, of course, only when it's convenient. There are exceptions to rules, as sanctimonious as you're pretending to be.

So asking if the government should adhere to the Constitution is "sanctimonious"?

Please, do cite some case law that proves your assertion that due process is waived "when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".

I await your next nonsensical reply with a growing sense of amusement.

**poet** · 10-01-2011, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by \(\()/)/

So asking if the government should adhere to the Constitution is "sanctimonious"?

Please, do cite some case law that proves your assertion that due process is waived "when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".

I await your next nonsensical reply with a growing sense of amusement.

Shall I cite the instances where the government, itself, did not adhere to the Constitution for convenience or political sakes? We'd be here for a while.
And you do know what I mean by "the government", don't you? Or do I have to spell it out? You know, to some, bending laws to suit one's agenda ain't nothing but a thang.
And do as I say, not as I do, has become conventional wisdom. You do know we're living in Amerikka, don't you?
Don't come at me with this bullshit...I went to school, and I keep up with current events. Go play with the children.

Guns Guns Guns · 10-01-2011, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by poet

Shall I cite the instances where the government, itself, did not adhere to the Constitution for convenience or political sakes? We'd be here for a while.

I have time. Go ahead and cite them - with sources, please.

Originally Posted by poet

And you do know what I mean by "the government", don't you? Or do I have to spell it out? You know, to some, bending laws to suit one's agenda ain't nothing but a thang.

Spell it out.

Originally Posted by poet

And do as I say, not as I do, has become conventional wisdom. You do know we're living in Amerikka, don't you? Don't come at me with this bullshit...I went to school, and I keep up with current events. Go play with the children.

I thought that's exactly what I was doing when I engaged you in discussion, kid.

**poet** · 10-01-2011, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by \(\()/)/

I have time. Go ahead and cite them - with sources, please.

Spell it out.

I thought that's exactly what I was doing when I engaged you in discussion, kid.

Unless you're older than me (58), I'm not your kid.
And my query was rhetorical... I have better things to do with my time, than to school you.

Guns Guns Guns · 10-01-2011, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by poet

Unless you're older than me (58), I'm not your kid. And my query was rhetorical... I have better things to do with my time, than to school you.

Yet you behave like a child, and you have nothing to back up your claims.

You lose. I win.

**Minister of Truth** · 10-01-2011, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by \(\()/)/

Yet you behave like a child.

IRONY ALERT

Guns Guns Guns · 10-01-2011, 10:11 AM

3DWEEB ALERT

Youngin pwned.

**poet** · 10-01-2011, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by \(\(=)/)/

Yet you behave like a child, and you have nothing to back up your claims.

You lose. I win.

Really? Well, you can take your bully arrogant marbles and go home. And see if anybody cares. I don't. Drama queen.

**poet** · 10-01-2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by \(\(=)/)/

3DWEEB ALERT

Youngin pwned.

No, it's true. You're the problem child on the board.

Guns Guns Guns · 10-01-2011, 11:05 AM

LOL, you care so little you just had to post twice, loser.

**poet** · 10-01-2011, 12:10 PM

LOL.

**Schadenfreude** · 10-01-2011, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by \(\(=)/)/

The Obama administration had long argued that Mr. Awlaki, 40, had joined the enemy in wartime, shifting from propaganda to an operational role in plots against the United States, and last year it quietly decided that he could be targeted for capture or death...

Civil libertarians questioned how the government could take an American citizen’s life based on murky intelligence and without an investigation or trial, claiming that hunting and killing him would amount to summary execution without the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/wo...nal-issue.html

he may be on firm legal ground, but was he right to do it?

awlaki represented a clear and present danger to the u s of a

still i am uncomfortable with the precedent

but i glad that they are dead...it is a quandary though