kurtster wrote: 
Obama is not a privileged (spell the word right!) elitist, at least he wasn't.

 hippiechick wrote: 

FYT

 bokey wrote: 

 kurtster wrote: 
That's because that's where smart people go to school.

 aflanigan wrote: 

1- I was just pointing out the correlation between the brainwashing , moral stripping elite white collar scumbag factories dominance of the country and it's death rattle years.

2- Powell hasn't run because of his wife's health issues.

Were he to do so, I would try to be the first in line to cast my vote for that man of character, strength and integrity.

 When an Obama or Romney speak, a child can tell they are lying/spewing vapid platitudes. You can almost smell the evil intentions.

When Powell speaks, you can see his character and decency.

At least I can. I don't wear any tinted lenses or let myself get brainwashed by the TV news. I watch whats going on, try to figure out why and judge accordingly.

 aflanigan wrote: 
I've been pushing this point for years.

Things were different in the past, yes.

When Obama completes his second term, the Ivy League will have ruled this country for 28 years.

Looking back over what has happened since 1988, that is a strong indictment for something different, much different.

And as usual, I will again point out that our choice in 2004 was between fraternity brothers who are also cousins.

 bokey wrote: 

It's an interesting correlation, but it hasn't always held, has it?  I think there was a time when having been a general was considered a good prerequisite to being electable as president (think Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, etc.)  Then there was nuclear sub officer Carter, PT Boat skipper Kennedy, Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt (also definitely an Ivy League patrician, unlike Grant, Jackson, Carter).  So are we due to have another wave of military background candidates next?  Will Colin Powell face off against Petraeus in 2016?

Here's the entire problem in a nutshell-it's the "haves' not being content with that. Their ego driven mania allows them no compassion or basic human decency. The Ivy League is pretty much like the military, they are just taught to kill in different ways. They use a pen and let some disadvantaged poor person do their dirty work(where's Pol Pot when you REALLY need him? )—-

Over the past 25 years, the Ivy League has dominated every single U. S. presidential election, often doing so on both sides of the aisle.   Since the Presidential Election of '88, voters have had the following "choices":

 buzz wrote: 

All I know is you can't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

 buzz wrote: 
I do not want people killed in my name, in secret, or out in the open. Same standard for a Republican, certainly. Obama may be doing things I don't like, but I am sure that Romney would have been much worse, based on who were his foreign policy advisors were.

 hippiechick wrote: 



You voted for him. Do you want him conducting the peoples business in secret? What if it was a Republican pres? Same standard?

 hippiechick wrote: 
Good point. How much should the everyday American know? Would 'loose lips sink ships?'

 buzz wrote: 
That's exactly what I am talking about. Do we want transparency, or is our government entitled to privacy in order to protect our safety? 

 hippiechick wrote: 



Obama promised us the most transparent administrtion in history. Doesnt that mean we should be able to see his kill list?

How much rights do the citizens have to know what our government is doing? Are we entitled to complete transparency? 

speaking of fear in the mitt thread made me think about this excellent four part Higgs talk

long intro speech begins @ 6:20

 steeler wrote: 
We have precedent for war against non-state actors: the Barbary Wars of the early 19th century. Congress specifically authorized action against the Barbary Corsairs. This did not amount to a declaration of war against a state, but authorized military action.

Until now the question never arose because the technology didn't exist to assassinate people remotely, but that doesn't mean the constitution doesn't apply. We now have a power we can't legally use. The president isn't supposed to be able to just kill people.

Put this in perspective: what if the president of Mexico had drones at his disposal. Would killing a Mexican citizen (or anyone else, for that matter) on US soil be anything but an act of war?

 romeotuma wrote: 

Part of the legal conceptualization struggle on a number of issues that have arisen  has  been whether to apply a criminal justice model or a military justice model.

These actors, however, are weaponized as militias. Witness the battle right now in Syria and the debate on whether and how much other nations should arm and provide military aid (e.g.,secure fly-over zones) to the rebels.    

 romeotuma wrote: 

We are now dealing with non-sovereign organizations that exist within multiple countries and wage war on a multitude of fronts, but are not even necessarily recognized by the sovereign nations from which they operate.  The Founders would not have contemplated such a situation.  Declarations of war at the time of the Constitution and, really, until very recently, would have been against sovereign nations.  Today, we are faced with declaring war against, perhaps, even individuals.  For example, the war is not against Yemen, but against actors within Yemen.

Those, like Ron Paul,  who pronounce that it is just a matter of "following the Constitution" give short shrift to these complexities. This is an example of how construing the Constitution is not a black-and-white exercise.  It is not clear in all instances what following the Constitution would mean. It requires extrapolation. There can be reasonable differences among reasonable folk as to what the Constitution would require in a given situation. Another quick example:  4th Amendment protects one's home from warrantless searches and seizures.  Technology changes and infrared sensors can detect marijuana plants growing within a home without any government official entering that home or even stepping on the property. It had to be determined whether the use of these infrared sensors for this purpose constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment.

 

 Lazy8 wrote: 



It is complicated. On whom would we declare war?