This is what we get for allowing everyone to vote.

Leaving Al Qaeda alone? We're funding and arming them. You seem unable to comprehend my English.

Tell us more about how we're bombing Al Qaeda in Syria.

Awww, #3 at the behest of your globalist, authoritarian masters!

Because life is so hard! You can't do it on your own! You've given in to the lie. You've surrendered your freedom, your life.

Einstein,

I fail to see how laws against harassment, theft, or assault violate people's rights. That's what lying about a fire is. It's harassment, seeking to bother people with lies for no other purpose. It's theft of their time and their purchase, be it their booze or their classic metaphorical movie purchase. It's assault, intentionally creating an emergency situation based on lies which threatens bodily harm and injuries.

So we've established legal bases for laws against shouting fire in a crowded theater, or bar. Can you explain how this basis of law negates the 4th and 5th amendments again? I missed the part where you did that.

Killing, imprisoning, searching, and spying on Americans is not the same thing as killing Iranians as authorized by Congress (presuming they did so). Did you really need me to make this statement? Wasn't it obvious that they're not identical or even similar, in any way whatsoever?

Well damn, who could disagree with a customer! I mean expert!

The Yell,

You're comparing oil tankers supplying an enemy at war with US citizens living abroad living in residential neighborhoods, in nations which are not our enemies, which are not "at war" with or threatening harm to the US in any way. What are you talking about? An American watching television and eating with his family in Yemen, who trash talks the USA, is parallel to an oil tanker bound for Japan while we were at war with them? Yeah, that's a little bit of a stretch. That's ridiculous.

I'm not "blaming" America. But I'm not supporting the terrorists it funds, either. I'm pointing out facts which you seem unaware of. You do realize that the US funded the oppression of the Iranian people before their revolution and new government which hates us and actively seeks to kill Americans when it can--which is only when we're in neighboring countries oppressing their peoples as well? You do realize that we actively fund authoritarians and tyrants all over the world, and that their peoples know that we're their oppressors' source of money and power, right?

It's a fact that we oppress people across the world--much worse than the British ever oppressed us, which we reacted to with revolution. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

It's a fact that we've funded and even trained many Al Qaeda leaders and other "threats," some of which happened rather recently. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

it's a fact that nobody in Yemen is any threat to us whatsoever. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

It's a fact that Congress's legal authority to conduct war is not permission to ignore the rest of our laws and the rights of US citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution. You clearly disagree with this fact, but it's obvious that you're just blurring law with bizarre comparisons because you know you're wrong.

Please be specific with what you agree with. If you disagree that we've funded and trained Al Qaeda leaders, say it clearly. I'll take the time to link you sources for my claims before ignoring you in the future because you're apparently taking a position on facts you know absolutely nothing about. If you disagree that the American people haven't been harmed by Al Qaeda in the past decade, please inform us of what attacks have killed American civilians and assets that I'm not aware of.

You're ignoring the underlying questions I pose in favor of this vague nit-picking. You haven't told us what we supposedly gain from our meddling in the region. I know that the military-industrial complex gains a lot. I know that radical leaders gain a lot in the power vacuums we create. But what does our nation--it's people--gain? Absolutely nothing. So you ignore this question. You ignore the violation of our rights--the law--and every time I point it out. You ignore our government's connections--and funding and training--of Al Qaeda senior leaders. It doesn't even raise your eyebrows a little bit? Because you've said absolutely nothing about it. I think it's, at the very least, a little curious!

Hell, to this day we arm and fund Al Qaeda in Syria. But you disagree! Everything is alright. Nothing to see here. Keep losing your rights while we bankrupt your nation. Because supporting Al Qaeda in Syria is worth economic collapse, in your opinion. Blowing up people in Yemen is worth economic collapse, in your opinion. They're a threat! It doesn't make any logical sense to make that claim, but damnit you're sure of it.

I'm questioning if it is what it's been sold to us sheep as. It's a fact that we funded and trained a lot of its leaders. It's a fact that we funded and trained Saddam. It's a fact that we continue to fund the Saudis, who are the source of most of the 9/11 attackers. It's a fact that some of its leaders visited the pentagon in the past decade.

You're ignoring all of this entirely. I'm not "blaming" America, I'm pointing out really bizarre facts which are so inconsistent with what we're told that you refuse to acknowledge or respond to them in any way. Is that why you're ranting about Navajo rather than respond to anything I said?

You say that Al Qaeda is attacking the US, but when and where is that happening? I've already pointed out that they haven't even tried, let alone pulled off, a single cheap and simple attack in the past decade. DHS hasn't foiled a single plot except a couple they did most of the planning for in the first place. It's you ignoring that we haven't been attacked in more than a decade.

As I've already been over, Congress has the authority to authorize any military action it wants, except that which is prohibited by our laws. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to ignore the rest of the Constitution just because they authorize military action. It authorizes them to engage in military action which isn't otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, ie that which violates the 4th and 5th amendments. That they chose an illegal form of war is relevant. And still illegal.

In every other war there was actual combat between armed forces. Blowing up an American citizen's 16 year old son in Yemen with a drone isn't exactly the same thing as repelling the Axis invasion of Europe and killing traitors fighting among their ranks.

You're ignoring literally everything I'm saying regarding the way this "war" is being fought. You're ignoring its endless nature and the undefined nature of the enemy.

I love my country and am fully in support of defending it. That's what defending the 4th and 5th amendments, among other laws, is. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. You advocate ignoring law in favor of submission to globalist sheepherders who view you as livestock. I'm simply disagreeing that your chosen method of loving your country is beneficial to it.

Because some dirt farmer in Yemen angry at the US--which does oppress him--is literally not a threat to us in any way whatsoever. Maybe we should stop funding our economic collapse with drones over his nation and propping up his oppressive authoritarian overlords and stop giving him a reason to be angry at us. What do you know, that's good for us and him. The only people it's not good for are the globalist authoritarians you blindly serve out of some misguided and ignorant notion of patriotism.

Fun word play, but you know that I meant the origins of the ban are racist and based on cronyism.

Marijuana grows all over the globe. Most Americans have smoked it. Its ban is no more successful than the ban of alcohol was. You're drawing a distinction which isn't there.

Yes, the same general public which is supporting decriminalization and legalization in more and more states, in a larger and larger % nationally every year, is "solidly" repressive of it. Just not that solidly. And less solidly every year. And they have no basis for their repressiveness except racism and love of cronyism, which they reject more and more as they become aware of it.

The law exists as it does for racist reasons. The law exists as it does as a result of government corruption and cronyism, suppressing free markets and competition. You ignore this every time I point it out because your position is indefensible. I haven't even had to look up sources for my claims because you know they're true and it'd just be trolling to dispute them.

Our nation declared war on Japan in 1941 (Congress authorized action). Who/what is Al Qaeda? And why have all of its biggest, baddest leaders received American training and money? Why were some in the Pentagon recently?

Is a government-funded and government-trained false flag terror organization which hasn't so much as filled a fishing boat with fertilizer and crashed it into an oil rig in the past decade parallel to war with the nation of Japan?

Admittedly the Constitution is vague and grants Congress the right to authorize whatever military action it wants (though not action which violates the law, which it has). So your point that Congress has authorized complete tyranny and the illegal (5th amendment) assassination of American citizens without due process is conceded. My point that it's a result of an ignorant populace of sheep, however, goes without response or refutation.

Of course, you'll respond that we're at war, so that's an exception to the 5th amendment. A position which becomes ridiculous--and concedes my point that the sheeple have elected a Congress which is tyrannical--when you consider that the "war" we're at is an endless war against an undefined enemy. An enemy which, funny enough, our government frequently trained and funded.

But you got me. Congress can legally authorize most of what it has as far as foreign military action, so do a victory dance and respond to nothing else. The fourth and fifth amendments aren't my favorites anyway. It's only law. They can legally authorize blowing up people in Yemen. It's really important for our safety. Nevermind that they violate the law in assassinating American citizens. Nevermind that they violate the law in spying on American citizens. Some dude on the other side of the globe doesn't like us. Clearly violations of the law are legal, because Congress can authorize military action.

Shouldn't you have snipped the "the" as well?

Jeeze. Take pride in your craft. Do it right. Make it remotely clever or entertaining!

Which organizations have they "joined"? Sounds like those organizations needed better charters. And if Libertarian members' votes have so much sway, the organizations clearly didn't have very many "Conservative" members to begin with.

You're talking about relatively insignificant organizations, and organizations which would obviously be even more insignificant without Libertarian support which you're claiming is such a large portion of their members that it directs action.

Yes, of course Congress and all of government supports the false flags that get the sheep to give up their rights. It's still not a declared war; you're confusing political rhetoric with law. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone; there's no nation to declare war on (they give billions to nations they should consider action against). That they've authorized all kinds of junk and ignore standing law does not equate with a declaration of war.

I was pointing out that the majority of the American people do not agree with the position you espouse and claim a large portion of Americans agree with. You and Einstein keep pretending Americans are as terrified as weed as you ignorantly are. They're clearly not.

Obviously an idiotic oversimplification--aka completely wrong--since we have globalist authoritarian majorities in all branches of government, and have for decades.

You claim "Conservatives" in superior numbers to any other group, yet government has never shrank. Bush raped the fourth amendment. Obama agrees 100% with Bush on this topic! I guess Obama's a Conservative, in your view. Obama can kill American citizens without due process of law... Guess that takes care of the fifth amendment too. So, Conservatives are against law and order? Because you're claiming such a Conservative nation, yet supposedly "Conservative" positions are represented absolutely no where in leadership or law in this country.

40% "Conservative," 51% voted for Obama. By your logic, you must accept Obama as holding a superior position to yours.