Well said, sir. I love the story of your upbringing and how it instilled a deep appreciation for what makes this country unique. “Only in America,” as we used to say. Keep fighting the good fight.
" Education becomes catechism." Yup. What's sad is the number of college graduates who believe they're all free thinkers and not captured psyches.
Adolf Hitler strongly promoted free speech. You were free to praise Nazis. On the ither hand, those who doubted him were strongly censored and jailed.
Those who believe that certain opposition speakers shouldn't be allowed to speak in public are totalitarians at heart. Totalitarianism thrives on absolutism, and dies in relativism. If you are sure your side is right, you are the problem.
Yeah history is replete with examples of countries where you can say “oh yeah that assassination REALLY helped that country out,” right?
Most people all hard charging to “fight the libtards” or “punch a Nazi” have never been exposed to much violence. Those of us who do it for a living aren’t a quick to pull that metaphorical trigger. Because we know you’re always a risk of losing something, up to and including your life, when you play that particular game
“What if this trend towards political violence continues on campus?” But I had to remember that the trend towards political violence had been steadily increasing for years.
Another thing well worth remembering is the wisdom of the warning in a fairly famous SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), quoting the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)) put it:
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Trump is a great teacher. He's publicly killing people based on his ipse dixit that it's "self-defense" against a Venezuelan invasion force attacking the U.S. one tiny boat at a time.
Where were you when Obama was droning people -- including US citizens -- left and right?
Did you retire to your fainting couch then too?
For the record, I was fine with Obama droning terrorists and Trump zapping drug runners from cartels. Both are akin to pirates, on whom military force has been used without compunction -- until very recently -- for thousands of years.
Feargall, what does your question matter? What does it matter where anyone was? What matters is what conduct is constitutional, not whether every person who considers the current president's blatantly unconstitutional misconduct also addressed a prior president's conduct.
Since you asked, however, I'll say that I thought very little about the Obama conduct that you mentioned, in part, because it didn't seem as dangerously maniacal as Trump's killings. Unlike Obama, Trump is killing unidentified people because he merely thinks they will commit a crime (smuggling drugs) sometime in the future somewhere in the U.S. In part, I also wasn't worried that Obama was trying to drag the U.S. into a conflict without Congressional approval (as Trump obviously is trying to do).
If you think a constitutional argument can be made supporting Trump's conduct, please feel free to make it. But please don't join the people who pretend that violations of our Constitution are ok just because they seem somewhat analogous to something someone else did.
What makes you say I'm "a politically motivated hypocrite"? What do you know about what motivates my politics?
What (if anything) in our Constitution makes you think POTUS was given the power to blow up tiny boats and the people in them merely because he accuses unidentified people of planning to smuggle unidentified drugs into an unidentified part of the U.S. at some unidentified time in the future?
You are a hypocrite bc you ignored Obama's use of force in similar circumstances but are outraged by Trump.
See a dictionary for the definition of "hypocrite" if you are still confused. Maybe make yourself a diagram. Ask your caretaker to explain it.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
Tiny boats or large boats, aircraft or on foot, flying 757s, carrying bombs or fentanyl, anyone invading the US or conducting terrorist activities against Americans or our allies, is subject to the use of military force.
Feargal, when We the People ordained and established our Constitution to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, do you think that we placed no limits on the president's power to kill people for purportedly engaging in criminal conduct or his power to get us killed (by involving us in wars or other conflicts)? If you think our Constitution limited those powers of the president, how do you think it did so? If you think our Constitution did not limit those powers of the president, why do you think that?
Clearly, I didn't say I ignored Obama's use of force. I said Obama's use of force was vastly legally and factually different from Trump's.
What legal or logical argument led you to conclude that being Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy included the power to kill unidentified people merely because the president accuses them of planning to smuggle unidentified drugs into an unidentified part of the U.S. at some unidentified time in the future? More generally, what makes you think you have any idea what is legal or illegal for a president to do?
Are you under the impression that childish insults make you sound smarter?
Well said, sir. I love the story of your upbringing and how it instilled a deep appreciation for what makes this country unique. “Only in America,” as we used to say. Keep fighting the good fight.
" Education becomes catechism." Yup. What's sad is the number of college graduates who believe they're all free thinkers and not captured psyches.
Adolf Hitler strongly promoted free speech. You were free to praise Nazis. On the ither hand, those who doubted him were strongly censored and jailed.
Those who believe that certain opposition speakers shouldn't be allowed to speak in public are totalitarians at heart. Totalitarianism thrives on absolutism, and dies in relativism. If you are sure your side is right, you are the problem.
"At least, ideally that’s what we do."
That ideal seems to be waning.
Yeah history is replete with examples of countries where you can say “oh yeah that assassination REALLY helped that country out,” right?
Most people all hard charging to “fight the libtards” or “punch a Nazi” have never been exposed to much violence. Those of us who do it for a living aren’t a quick to pull that metaphorical trigger. Because we know you’re always a risk of losing something, up to and including your life, when you play that particular game
“What if this trend towards political violence continues on campus?” But I had to remember that the trend towards political violence had been steadily increasing for years.
Another thing well worth remembering is the wisdom of the warning in a fairly famous SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), quoting the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)) put it:
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Trump is a great teacher. He's publicly killing people based on his ipse dixit that it's "self-defense" against a Venezuelan invasion force attacking the U.S. one tiny boat at a time.
Where were you when Obama was droning people -- including US citizens -- left and right?
Did you retire to your fainting couch then too?
For the record, I was fine with Obama droning terrorists and Trump zapping drug runners from cartels. Both are akin to pirates, on whom military force has been used without compunction -- until very recently -- for thousands of years.
Feargall, what does your question matter? What does it matter where anyone was? What matters is what conduct is constitutional, not whether every person who considers the current president's blatantly unconstitutional misconduct also addressed a prior president's conduct.
Since you asked, however, I'll say that I thought very little about the Obama conduct that you mentioned, in part, because it didn't seem as dangerously maniacal as Trump's killings. Unlike Obama, Trump is killing unidentified people because he merely thinks they will commit a crime (smuggling drugs) sometime in the future somewhere in the U.S. In part, I also wasn't worried that Obama was trying to drag the U.S. into a conflict without Congressional approval (as Trump obviously is trying to do).
If you think a constitutional argument can be made supporting Trump's conduct, please feel free to make it. But please don't join the people who pretend that violations of our Constitution are ok just because they seem somewhat analogous to something someone else did.
It matters bc you are a politically motivated hypocrite, which undercuts your flimsy argument.
A Constitutional argument? What is to argue? The POTUS is using military force to defend the US from foreign incursions.
What makes you say I'm "a politically motivated hypocrite"? What do you know about what motivates my politics?
What (if anything) in our Constitution makes you think POTUS was given the power to blow up tiny boats and the people in them merely because he accuses unidentified people of planning to smuggle unidentified drugs into an unidentified part of the U.S. at some unidentified time in the future?
You are a hypocrite bc you ignored Obama's use of force in similar circumstances but are outraged by Trump.
See a dictionary for the definition of "hypocrite" if you are still confused. Maybe make yourself a diagram. Ask your caretaker to explain it.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
Tiny boats or large boats, aircraft or on foot, flying 757s, carrying bombs or fentanyl, anyone invading the US or conducting terrorist activities against Americans or our allies, is subject to the use of military force.
Are you really this thick? Cheers.
Feargal, when We the People ordained and established our Constitution to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, do you think that we placed no limits on the president's power to kill people for purportedly engaging in criminal conduct or his power to get us killed (by involving us in wars or other conflicts)? If you think our Constitution limited those powers of the president, how do you think it did so? If you think our Constitution did not limit those powers of the president, why do you think that?
Clearly, I didn't say I ignored Obama's use of force. I said Obama's use of force was vastly legally and factually different from Trump's.
What legal or logical argument led you to conclude that being Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy included the power to kill unidentified people merely because the president accuses them of planning to smuggle unidentified drugs into an unidentified part of the U.S. at some unidentified time in the future? More generally, what makes you think you have any idea what is legal or illegal for a president to do?
Are you under the impression that childish insults make you sound smarter?