Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 10/2/2011 5:12:51 PM EST
I just seen this video and couldn't help but laugh. ARF was calling Ron Paul nuts for thinking Anwar al-Awlaki should get a trial. Now that Herman Cain agrees with Ron Paul i was just wondering what ARF has to say.

starts at 6:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a1_73OyiWQ

This video made me like Cain even more.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:14:56 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:17:56 PM EST
IN for excuses!
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:19:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:23:26 PM EST by America-first]
The difference between Ron Paulians and normal people is that normal people don't have the need to defend and apologize for, every single, damned, word that a candidate they are considering voting for utters.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:19:56 PM EST
Cain before Perry or Romney! Even if I differ from him on this one.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:20:06 PM EST
I bet they don't agree on the FED
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:20:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:21:24 PM EST by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:21:33 PM EST
Well then. Fuck Herman Cain.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:21:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By jeepthing07:
I just seen this video and couldn't help but laugh. ARF was calling Ron Paul nuts for thinking Anwar al-Awlaki should get a trial. Now that Herman Cain agrees with Ron Paul i was just wondering what ARF has to say.

starts at 6:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a1_73OyiWQ

This video made me like Cain even more.
I'm waiting to hear what Col West has to say about it.


Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:22:10 PM EST
Heads will explode.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:22:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:31:00 PM EST by Plattekill]
You don't lead by following opinion poles. Principled people hold to unpopular beliefs, and make you think again.


In 2022, when the US is run by unelected tyrants, do you want a military drone operator ordered to kill your rebel son to remember a history of unconstitutional orders being obeyed, or a history of troops refusing to kill US citizens without trial?

I'm happy he is dead, but wish we could have had him tried, even by a military tribunal, in abstencia, first. Just so one man instead of 12, can't kill me, since that seems rather perfunctory.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:22:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:30:54 PM EST by ch1966]
I didn't hear him say anything about agreeing with Ron Paul.
Maybe it's Ron Paul who agrees with Herman Cain.

Who said it first?
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:23:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning1960:
Heads will explode.

No they won't. Because unlike Paulbots , it's easy to say "Fucker is fucked and not getting my vote" for people living in the real world.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:24:16 PM EST
He's completely off base.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:25:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:25:58 PM EST by Cypher15]
i dont think i would like to be considered "too dangerous to live" and executed without trial..
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:25:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:27:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

Cain's a fuckin idiot. Happy? I have no problem saying it. Fuck wad won't get my vote. Fuck him and Ron Paul.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:28:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:28:52 PM EST by America-first]
The difference between Ron Paul zealots and those who think for themselves has already been demonstrated several,times in this thread.

It will take some time for the Ron Paulians to understand that because the very concept of independent thought is alien to them, all that matters is what the old man says and it must be defended at all costs.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:29:36 PM EST
Al-Awlaki was never truly a US Citizen.

He was technically born in the US but basically grew up a Yemeni
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:29:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:30:57 PM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

If Cain is serious, then I can't vote for him. I mean the ONE THING Obama is doing right is fighting terrorists with deadly force on their home turf. You have to give him credit for that and I am thankful he does. It's inconceivable that a GOP commander-in-chief is going to worry about a terrorist's first amendment and due process civil rights to the point he ends up being softer than Barack Hussein Obama (mmmmm mmmmm mmmm). The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and I see no reason to extend its protections to people sworn to destroy it.

Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:30:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead08:

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

Cain's a fuckin idiot. Happy? I have no problem saying it. Fuck wad won't get my vote. Fuck him and Ron Paul.


Just curious. Were you a Cain supporter before this?
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:30:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

If Cain is serious, then I can't vote for him. I mean the ONE THING Obama is doing right is fighting terrorists with deadly force on their home turf. You have to give him credit for that and I am thankful he does. It's inconceivable that a GOP commander-in-chief is going to worry about a terrorist's first amendment and due process civil rights. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and I see no reason to extend its protections to people sworn to destroy it.



Amen!
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:32:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

RP is a nutjob on enough things to be a nut job. that doesnt mean SOME of his stances arent good.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:34:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By CRC:
Al-Awlaki was never truly a US Citizen.

He was technically born in the US but basically grew up a Yemeni


Birthright citizenship, how does it work?
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:34:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Jarhead08:

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

Cain's a fuckin idiot. Happy? I have no problem saying it. Fuck wad won't get my vote. Fuck him and Ron Paul.


Just curious. Were you a Cain supporter before this?

I was leaning that way.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:36:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By America-first:
The difference between Ron Paulians and normal people is that normal people don't have the need to defend and apologize for, every single, damned, word that a candidate they are considering voting for utters.


Exactly. That's what makes a ronulan a ronulan. They see the man as perfect in the face of contrary facts.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:37:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:38:45 PM EST by America-first]
Originally Posted By raven:

If Cain is serious, then I can't vote for him. I mean the ONE THING Obama is doing right is fighting terrorists with deadly force on their home turf. You have to give him credit for that and I am thankful he does. It's inconceivable that a GOP commander-in-chief is going to worry about a terrorist's first amendment and due process civil rights to the point he ends up being softer than Barack Hussein Obama (mmmmm mmmmm mmmm). The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and I see no reason to extend its protections to people sworn to destroy it.



That's exactly how I look at it, and although I despise the man to his corrupt, socialist, core, I do give Obama a modicum of credit for at least allowing the military to pursue and deal with terrorists abroad.

I can't support a candidate won't do at least as much as Obama to remain in pursuit of terrorists wherever they operate; whatever their country of origin may be.

Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:37:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Artillary:
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
Originally Posted By Artillary:
IN for excuses!


I think you wiil learn the difference between Cain supporters here and Paul supporters.

Cain supporters can disagree with him. As I said I disagree with him on this one, but he still has enough right to get my vote.

Paul supporters accept Pauls word as gospel and twist their own thinking to match his and defend anything he says in a weird form of libertarian groupthink.


I believe the OP's point is more about non Ron Paul fans saying that Ron Paul is a kook, nut job, crazy...for believing the same way. So lets hear you call Cain a kook, nut job, crazy...

If Cain is serious, then I can't vote for him. I mean the ONE THING Obama is doing right is fighting terrorists with deadly force on their home turf. You have to give him credit for that and I am thankful he does. It's inconceivable that a GOP commander-in-chief is going to worry about a terrorist's first amendment and due process civil rights to the point he ends up being softer than Barack Hussein Obama (mmmmm mmmmm mmmm). The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and I see no reason to extend its protections to people sworn to destroy it.



Cain has no background in these matters. Obama had a broader idea, having been a Senator, and even an ideal of the House and Senate intelligence oversight functions, and still campaigned in a way that made a lot of us question whether he would prosecute this fight. Everything changed when he took office.

Put a man in there with a little bit of common sense, reality will take it from there.

Now, if my computer wouldn't keep locking up, I could see what Cain actually said - something tells me it was nothing like what Paul said. FWIW, I could easily see why someone could get tripped up with the criminal law argument - especially if a manipulative person presented it that way, and he didn't think about it / have background in what was actually at issue there.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:43:22 PM EST
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:46:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


This. He lost his rights as an American when he declared war with us. Had he just been a vocal critic, he would still be alive. He chose his path.


Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:47:01 PM EST
1. The issue is not extending the constitution, but withdrawing it's protections from citizens. It limits the power of governments, and the right to life is the core of all rights.

2. Obama has never done anything right. Learn that fact, and apply it to all future situations. You can trust but verify the Russians, but never trust Obama. Christ!

3. What is so difficult in having a military tribunal try citizens even in their absence? Because it grants legitimacy to trying terrorists in military courts, which Obama is against. Due process is possible by the military, unless you are a Marxist Socialist Phony President.

4. Due process protects OUR rights, when Obama-Napataiatano-Holder declare gun owners "domestic terrorists".

5. The Constitution is not being protected by the people sworn to uphold it, including when the violate it in every way, even ways you approve of.

6. Supporting Obama's violations of the constitution does make it a suicide pact. Stop and think.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:47:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By wtturn:
Originally Posted By CRC:
Al-Awlaki was never truly a US Citizen.

He was technically born in the US but basically grew up a Yemeni


Birthright citizenship, how does it work?


Never had US sensibilities.

Technically he may have been born in New Mexico but he was NOT an American
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:47:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


This. He lost his rights as an American when he declared war with us. Had he just been a vocal critic, he would still be alive. He chose his path.


odd, seems we have laws covering that already... like treason..

Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:48:20 PM EST
The guy was like a mad dog needing killing. Pretty simple. RP and Cain and everyone else can argue the pros and cons till hell freezes over but the SOB is dead and the world is a better place for it.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:48:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Originally Posted By wtturn:
Originally Posted By CRC:
Al-Awlaki was never truly a US Citizen.

He was technically born in the US but basically grew up a Yemeni


Birthright citizenship, how does it work?


Never had US sensibilities.

Technically he may have been born in New Mexico but he was NOT an American
ill repeat it for him. Birthright citizenship, hows it work?



Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:49:03 PM EST
Maybe it would be better if the CIA just kept this shit quiet.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:50:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Illini75:
The guy was like a mad dog needing killing. Pretty simple. RP and Cain and everyone else can argue the pros and cons till hell freezes over but the SOB is dead and the world is a better place for it.

in bold: yep, i agree there... however


he was a US citizen and under the Constitution, had the SAME EXACT RIGHTS as any one of us.

but its fucking arfcom, as long as it doesnt affect you its ok to pick and choose what amendments to follow.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:51:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


This. He lost his rights as an American when he declared war with us. Had he just been a vocal critic, he would still be alive. He chose his path.




You never lose your rights as an American or as a human, not without due process.

It's just that rights have nothing to do with whether or not you are a legitimate military target in an armed conflict.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:51:04 PM EST
Citizen or not, at time of WAR, he branded himself an enemy of his country. Therefore, DEATH was his just reward. Fuck him. And any other "citizen" who chooses the other side.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:52:22 PM EST
Picking a candidate sure isnt easy.. it isnt changing my doom and gloom outlook for the future either.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:54:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


Where is this written?
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:55:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Illini75:
The guy was like a mad dog needing killing. Pretty simple. RP and Cain and everyone else can argue the pros and cons till hell freezes over but the SOB is dead and the world is a better place for it.

in bold: yep, i agree there... however


he was a US citizen and under the Constitution, had the SAME EXACT RIGHTS as any one of us.

but its fucking arfcom, as long as it doesnt affect you its ok to pick and choose what amendments to follow.


When you take up arms against the US military on a foreign battlefield, then it's battlefield rules.

Offing this fuckjob was the same as shooting down Yamamoto, nothing more, nothing less.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:55:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 5:56:35 PM EST by Tango7]
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:57:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2011 6:00:14 PM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


Where is this written?


Most of it is from the Geneva conventions of 1949.

Do some Googling.

EDIT: Look, I did some of your homework for you:

Geneva protocols regarding classification of combatants in armed conflict:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac_2.htm


Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.


Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:58:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By slama682:
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Illini75:
The guy was like a mad dog needing killing. Pretty simple. RP and Cain and everyone else can argue the pros and cons till hell freezes over but the SOB is dead and the world is a better place for it.

in bold: yep, i agree there... however


he was a US citizen and under the Constitution, had the SAME EXACT RIGHTS as any one of us.

but its fucking arfcom, as long as it doesnt affect you its ok to pick and choose what amendments to follow.


When you take up arms against the US military on a foreign battlefield, then it's battlefield rules.

Offing this fuckjob was the same as shooting down Yamamoto, nothing more, nothing less.
i dont recall Yamamoto being a US citizen

Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:59:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


Where is this written?


Most of it is from the Geneva conventions of 1949.

Do some Googling.

Constitution > Geneva
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 5:59:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


Where is this written?


So I understand, during wartime it's legit to target the enemies command and control structure, unless one of your enemies was born in the US, then you need to arrest him?

Al-whatever the fuck his name was was part of Al-Qaeda's command structure. The communicated with the shooter from Fort Hood, with the dumbass who tried to bomb Times Square, and with two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was a combatant and a commander in a global war on Terrorism that had targeted the US and its citizens. That job has hazards, and eating a missile strike is pretty high on the list.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 6:01:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By 2tom2:
He will learn.

Inside our borders then a fair trial is in order....as an enemy combatant on a battle field. Game over


Where is this written?


Most of it is from the Geneva conventions of 1949.

Do some Googling.

Constitution > Geneva


The Constitution does not prohibit warfare, or restrict its conduct based on the citizenship status of the enemy.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 6:02:09 PM EST
Yemen does not extradite, no matter the charge, to the US or anywhere else. It doesn't happen, so we were never going to get al Awlaki in front of a federal judge.

Our choices were:

1) Let al Awlaki continue untouched in perpetuity to "inspire" others to pull stunts like the underwear plane bomb and Major Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood.

-or-

2) Send a CIA SAD team to kidnap him and bring him to the US to face justice.

-or-

3) Hellfire for fun and profit.

Ron Paul fans: Assuming you hate the fact that the government assassinated a US citizen for any reason at all, would you have supported a plan to kidnap him (extraordinary rendition) in Yemen instead if it meant getting him into a federal courtroom to face justice for his crimes?
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 6:04:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Maybe it would be better if the CIA just kept this shit quiet.


We have nothing to hide. We conduct ourselves in this war honorably and legally.
Link Posted: 10/2/2011 6:05:08 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top