• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Everything posted by beowulf

  1. Consider it's not just for himself but any President in the future. Do you really think there will never be a President that would never abuse this power???
  2. That is only a hypothetical scenario. There is nothing that stops the President from saying so and so is a terrorist and we need to take him out and then orders a drone strike. Claiming that it's to protect the country from a 9/11 like attack. Since a 9/11 attack doesn't happen he can claim that he thwarted the attack and therefore he was justified in the drone strike. Who will question it? How would any one say anything different?
  3. What makes this worse is there is no oversight. No judge that OK's a drone strike. It's entirely at the President's discretion. What if he is wrong? Will he then be prosecuted for murder?
  4. You are trying to find a scenario that sounds good for this type of power. This is not something the president should have or anyone. It's not right that this is done in other countries much less our country. Due process should not be circumvented at the President's will to assassinate US citizens suspected of anything. Catching someone in the act of a crime is not the same thing.
  5. I wouldn't send a drone to do that. Fighter jets would scrambled. Not the same thing as drone usage. Drones have been used to attack ground personnel and considering their uses in other countries they have caused numerous collateral fatalities. Do you really think the President should have that kind of power?
  6. You are assuming that enough information would be had to determine guilt. Catching someone in the act is an obvious decision. You are assuming that the president will have that in any order of use of drone strikes. Considering past drone strikes its not likely.
  7. You are assuming knowledge of the future in your example. Would you kill someone you suspect of doing something like Timothy McVeigh? What if your suspicions are wrong? Is suspicion enough to make yourself judge, jury and executioner?
  8. Apparently Yes.
  9. Yes, this and limiting the size and power of the government to identified Constitutional levels Counting on the government to act with restraint, absent adult supervision, is pointless. This piece came from last year, but the basics still apply: "If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey The core issue is that our government has behaved like a teenager with a no-limit credit card; it is not possible to make enough to keep up with their expenditures. The problem is that we have been spending money we don't have for the past half century, and we are beyond the tipping point. It is no longer a question of 'if' so much as 'when, and how bad.' It was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor That example is not very accurate. The spending cuts are not cutting what US Gov is currently spending. It's instead cutting the increase to what they are currently spending. So instead of cutting the $75,000 a year budget, the budget is increasing by $5,000 a year to $80,000 and that is being cut to $78,000 a year.
  10. You're going overboard. Double barrel shotguns are not well suited for combat/defense, but they're also not some antiquated technology that you only buy if "that's all you can afford." That's absurd. Competition over/under models can set you back 10 times what a remington 870 costs. Example: Not an over under, the price is why I posted it.
  11. well, that's one question. don't be shy about the other one Good luck!
  12. How it come across if someone said that they think you ought to not have your job, that half of the people at your company should just be fired because you don't agree with the way it does business, consequences be damned? Not very nice, I'd say. I am sorry but you don't have my sympathy. Lots of people in the private sector get laid off all of the time. Why are you special?
  13. Here is an interesting take on Obamacare.
  14. Funny, don't you think, that people and institutions are still willing to lend us money at these absurdly low interest rates. Or maybe you're just wrong. Just because the US can borrow at low interest rates doesn't mean it's a good idea and doesn't mean it will last forever. Also it's no indication of the ability of the US to repay the debt. The Fed is currently monitiziing the debt and there is no way for them to unwind their balance sheet with out causing problems.
  15. I don't disagree. The US is practically bankrupt already. The debt can't be paid down and the interest rates can't be allowed to go up. That would increase the amount of interest payments on the debt dramatically.
  16. No, I was referring to your video. I know. I hate having to paraphrase something I really didn't watch all that carefully and am not certain whether or not I agree with. The basic point I got from it was that hospitals have a monopoly on health care so they take advantage and charge what ever they want, along with pushing small doctors out of business. I only watched it once. It's not an issue that I really care about too much. Nothing I can do about the rising health care costs and I think ACA will make it more expensive, not less.
  18. Yeah, and I don't think you were right.
  19. There was a substantial number of people that advocated allowing the southern states to secede. Also many people objected to the war and were imprisoned because of that.
  20. Lincoln's lack of diplomacy led to a civil war that killed upwards of 800,000 people. I don't see how that was a good thing.
  21. I am not a southerner. I was born and raised in Illinois, Land of Lincoln. There is so much mythology built up around Lincoln that many seem to see him as some sort of god. He was a lawyer, politician and not much of a diplomat.
  22. I am sure it did and that is the part of the point. Lincoln was a racist, most people at that time period were racists also. If the war was about freeing the slaves he wouldn't have had much support and the war would not have happened.
  23. It wasn't for getting rid of slavery.