One needs only be literate to figure that out for oneself.

4 people in decades constitutes a war? Not a strong argument. In fact, it's so weak it sounds ridiculous.

Paul was wrong, Americans don't have the right to know what their government's policy is regarding assassinating them? That's a fascist position. For which you've made absolutely no argument. We're waiting?

And on and on. You just gloss over the points, referencing your positions but making no arguments for them. To the literate, there was never a debate here, just me making arguments and you ignoring them in favor of referencing positions, often changing the topic(s).

Anyone who has the support of the people "can act independently of the so called 'nobility.'"

We still kindof have democratic processes in the USA. And they'd be more democratic if the people stopped putting up with the crap that goes on.

You obviously don't know the details around Petraeus's role in North Africa and the shenangicans which played out. Holder and Clapper made up the most ridiculous lies about the course of events that it might as well have been an admission of scandal and cover-up (I'm not referring to Petraeus's affair).

You don't have any more basis for suggesting Petraeus was a noble man (in spite of evidence to the contrary, since he lied and betrayed the American people he swore to protect) than you do in claiming that "only a leader who commands the love of the army can act independently of the so called 'nobility.'"

What happened to your supposed respect for empiricism? Because you have no evidence, no examples, and no explanation to support your claims regarding the requirements of a good leader. You're just giving us authoritarian talking points which you've obviously embraced.

The American people haven't elected a noble president in the past century. Nobody has tried to stop corruption. There's no evidence of a military backround being required; there are no examples of anyone, with or without such a backround, trying.

^ Anyone unable to identify troll please post notification below. I'd like to ignore you. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Moderators included.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … amp;ref=nf

North Korea is nothing but a pawn empowered by China. They don't have the technological know-how nor economic resources to feed themselves, let alone pose a nuclear threat on their own.

But nobody is calling out China, without which North Korea wouldn't even be making hollow threats (its ICBMs are garbage).

Because our leadership gains power from a supposed North Korean threat. They like this. They benefit from this. They're using this. They're not fighting this, they're milking it.

Like I said, nobody with a brain is buying Blizzard/Activision/Vivendi titles.

"First off this is dead wrong.  Congress doesn't have to make you happy about the war for it to have authorized a real live war.  It's Congress, and it voted for war.  The war is therefore legal."

Congress doesn't have the legal authority to declare an endless war on everyone as a way to effectively nullify the fifth amendment. You seem to have difficulty comprehending that the Constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the United States. Redefining the word war and labeling everyone as enemy combatants is not a power granted to the US Congress.

Obviously I would support ending the nonexistent "war" Congress has authorized to keep sheep like you terrified into surrendering your rights. Pointing out that sheep like you are the majority and people with positions like mine do not hold legislative majorities is not a logical argument, it's an appeal to the majority.

You've never responded in any way to the ridiculousness of this "war." You've never responded to the fact that we're supposedly at war with extremists from one part of the world but DHS is focused on terrorist threats from freedom loving white guys, who are stripped of their rights because of the supposed war with Al Qaeda of which they are no part.

You haven't countered anything, you've bickered about irrelevant details and ignored most of what I posted.

You never quoted me claiming the Constitution distinguishes, you quoted me and then ranted how you ignorantly concluded that I must reason that because blah blah blah blah. I said nothing I've said relies upon such a distinction. Good job quoting me out of context. That's about as productive as the rest of your evasive ranting that we're at war and our nonexistent enemy has turned 4 weirdo Americans against us.

Ohnoes 4 weirdos in decades. Better declare eternal war against everyone. Better forget about the Bill of Rights. We've got an insurrection of enemy combatants of numbers that can be counted on one hand!

Law requires knowledge of language and the meanings of words which you clearly lack.

Rand Paul was demanding to know the legal doctrine of the administration. His argument was that Americans deserve to know whether their government thinks it has the right to assassinate them. You're arguing for tyranny: That the people, who are sovereign and elect their leaders, don't have the right to know what the policy of their executive branch is regarding assassinating Americans. No wonder you're so evasive, dishonest, and nit-picking so much.

I'm sorry that my language is over your head, The Yell. My vocabulary is very simple. I don't think it's my fault. It seems obvious that you choose to ignore the majority of my points and arguments. There's nothing I can do about this. If you are not confident enough in your position to respond to most of what I say in any way, that's your failing, and I trust that any readers of this drivel will pick that up for themselves.

Additionally, If you think I've misused the word "literally" to describe something which is not literally true, please provide an example with which I may beat you over the head with the fact that you're incorrect and bitter over it.

You keep saying complete nonsense like this:
"You started this thread praising an idiot who says a wartime President can't fight a war on US soil against US citizens.  "

Which is false, because I never said that.

What I did say is that US citizens are not the claimed "Al Qaeda" enemy that we're supposedly at war with. What I did say is that white freedom loving Americans are who DHS is targeting despite the war supposedly being with somebody else. What I did say is that this doesn't make sense, and that a war with one group doesn't justify violating the rights of another group based upon exceptions in time of war. We're not at war in America. There is no insurrection (war).

You can bicker about a dozen guys from across the world not liking us all you want, the fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever which has ever met any criteria for literally any definition of "war" going on in America today. Your claim that there is is completely psychotic.

A "war" on African pirates wouldn't meet the legal requirements to ignore the 4th and 5th Amendments of Americans at home, because the claim that they're African pirates is ridiculous. They're not the "enemy" of the "war." A guy driving his kids home in Minnesota is still protected by the 5th amendment even if we're fighting a "war" on pirates in Africa or radicals in the Middle East who we arm and fund. Hell, he'd still have rights even if our government wasn't actively aiding the enemy it claims it's waging war against.

This is the sort of thing you never respond to, and never have, choosing instead to pretend I claimed some distinction in law between insurrection and war and bickering about it, explaining how you made up the distinction as if it matters or I care.

An insurrection would be a war. You're making the distinction, not me. You're stretching language to the point of complete ridiculousness, not me.

And you again make appeals to majority, that if a majority hasn't elected leaders to end the endless war, then clearly it's actually a war and both legal and rational. Because Congress passed a law that says we're at endless war with an enemy who we're still funding and arming to this day. Nevermind that this isn't a "war" as the word was used in the Constitution (nor an insurrection nor anything else the language makes exceptions to the Bill of Rights for). You're on a tirade of logical fallacies, refusing to read or respond to anything I've actually said. If the people in Orwell's 1984 didn't rebel, then there was nothing wrong with their government! Strong argument.

A free people should not be forced to subsidize the costs of irresponsible, trashy, idiotic people.

That's what Obamacare forces us all to do: Pay for contraception, pay for maternity care, pay for STD treatment. Even if we don't need it. Even if we do not engage in activities which have the slightest possibilities of resulting in the need for such care. Even if we're willing to pay for such services, should we require them.

It's tyranny and loss of liberty which results in behavior like this. Because most of them are not paying the costs that result from their idiotic and irresponsible activities; those costs are being socialized to us all by force of law. And nobody is dying for lack of such treatment without the ability to have kids (and pass on their trashy culture [or lack thereof] as well as their diseases).

Freedom is the solution to this problem. The government nanny state and tyranny are the cause. In a free society more of these idiots would be broke and/or in more pain and/or dying. And everybody would know how terrible their decisions and lifestyles really are.

He's not even addressing that point.

In response to my arguments he just says "well end it." Because obviously appeals to majorities are logical arguments.

Why bother thinking or arguing anything? By his logic, the sheep herd is always right. If they were going to do something, they'd have been herded into doing it already. Arguments are irrelevant because they don't think, they just do as they're told.

I made no claims that the Constitution distinguishes between "insurrections" or "war," The Yell. Please learn to read before responding to my posts that we may have a discussion.

What I said is that Congress doesn't have the legal authority to declare an endless war against everyone, nullifying the 4th and 5th amendments without the due process of amending the Constitution.

But, because I actually said that, you didn't respond on that topic.

Where's the evidence of insurrection of white freedom loving people against our federal government, The Yell? If there's actually a war going on in which they're the biggest terrorist threat, shouldn't you have any evidence to show for it? If it's a war, by definition shouldn't there be a lot of evidence?

You continually accuse me of theatre while refusing to respond to anything I've actually said. There's no need to be so defensive. And it's certainly not productive.

Debate over on the grounds that you declined to particupate. I won.

An attack by two or three idiots with virtually no support--and literally no state support except that of the USA--is literally not "warfare" by literally any definition.

You actually believe people selling newspapers in the Middle East start work at 6 am saying "Damn I hate America," and are still raging about America at the end of the day. You actually think they care about you or us. You actually think you're as much the center of their lives as you are of yours.

Most people in Afghanistan don't know what 9/11 is to this day.

Ignorant sheep like you, eager to be terrified by whatever your masters tell you, are far more dangerous than the tiny number of zealots who actually desire to attack America. History shows most of them are just seeking power locally by calling for hatred against a foreign enemy; none of them have carried out attacks themselves, and very few have shown any interest in or ability to inspire others to attack either.

Those that have had any success have had an eerier number of lucky breaks in millions of dollars from the USA, tours of the Pentagon, and lucky asylum rulings despite major evidence of supporting the 9/11 hijackers. If you were actually concerned with security and winning a "war," you'd probably start by examining the failings of the same US federal government which has both allowed attacks to occur, refused to investigate those connected to attackers, and continues to fund and aid "Al Qaeda" organizations to this day.

You have absolutely no comment on the fact that DHS memos all warn about white freedom lovers in the USA being the biggest threat (enemy) in this "war" on terror. Fitting, because this fact makes your stance that endless war against everyone is a ridiculous re-conception of what "war" is. And a redefinition of the war into something which would fit better in  Orwell's 1984 than reality.

Congratulations, you're the number one enemy of America (white "conservatives" have a stigma of valuing liberty, and DHS pegs these as the #1 terrorist threat, #1 enemy of America), and you accept Obama's argument that he has the legal authority to kill you without trial or any due process whatsoever.

Watch out which publications you expose yourself to, or what you say. Someone might confuse your dissent with the actions of authorities with terrorist thoughts. They're extremely related, warns DHS.

In fact, I'm not comfortable talking to a terrorist on this forum. I don't want to risk being confused with having your terrorist ideologies by talking to you. People talking about small government, freedom, and afraid of gay people are the #1 terrorist threat to America, DHS has warned me. And that's you. Good talk. Have a nice day.

The "war" authorized by Congress is supposedly on terrorist threats to the United States. Examples of such threats are presumably the 9/11 hijackers and a handful of other would-be Arab/Muslim attackers from the Middle East.

Yet DHS documents reveal that they're most focused on white guys who value freedom, none of whom have attacked the United States. You're pretty much accepting that our government is at war with literally everyone, and they can kill literally anyone. Which, of course, they don't have the legal authority to do.

The Constitution hasn't been amended, and Congress cannot pass laws which violate the fourth of fifth amendments. It's still illegal to bomb Americans who aren't in combat or imminent threats. Laws supposedly permitting it are illegal. The fact that the current administration redefines the words "imminent" and "threat" and "combatant" doesn't change the Constitution, and it expressly forbids what they're doing and what Congress has authorized.

If there was an insurrection, they could legally combat it. Since there isn't one, they have no legal authority to bomb Americans or put their hands down children's pants.

The "war" authorized by Congress is an endless war against anyone and everyone it wants to search or kill, sidestepping Constitutional protections. Congress does not have legal authority to waive the Constitution whenever it's convenient. They passed a law saying they can do whatever they want. Unfortunately for them, the Constitution, the source of their legal authority, does not grant them the power to pass such a law. It's illegal, and our courts would strike it down if they were (A) not corrupt and (B) literate.

You accept your government's right to shoot you for your political beliefs which don't adhere to Obama's vision of America. That's what you're arguing here. That they can literally shoot you for being a traitor, and it'll be legal because shooting you makes you a combatant.

That's not American, and that's not legal in America.