Actually, since you're being critical of my post, the constitution doesn't apply to america. It applies to the U.S. America consists of Canada, the U.S. and South America, hence the word America, from the Italian Cartographer Amerigo Vespucci, who got the credit Columbus always desired, since you're so keen on technicalities And btw, isn't this the what 5th or 6th "conflict" Obama has gotten us into without consulting congress at all?
I don't think that it's this in particular, as many people would see the number 100 as relatively small, but it's just ANOTHER war. You can't honestly say that it's necessary for us to be in all these different countries. Pakistan, Syria, Lybia, Afghan, ect. I don't think it's right for us to jump on every single revolution or conflict. There is always going to be death, rape, and other injustices; every single country has seen this on a large scale at one point or another.
Honestly, I still dont get your point tbh. We're not being threatened, so what obama is doing is technically illegal. That was the point I was trying to make. Your response imo, seems like you were trying to disagree with me, even though, by what you wrote, you actually agreed that this was a wrong move. And regardless where we are, as a nation, we're bound by the constitution. You need to educate yourself apparently. Also, didn't realize there was more than one america. Last time I checked, they were still connected.
No, of course not. We wanted to go in kill Saddam Hussein about 15 years before he was executed, and I was for it, but not the occupation of the country.
Man Idk. this right here - "Im not a fan of Obama by any means, but Im also not a fan of rape of any human, especially children. I coulda swore we had this thing once called "The Constitution" that tells people in government how to do their jobs, what powers they have, etc. Apparently this document was lost or something, because no one is doing their job anymore and no one, once elected, seems to know what their job is, how to perform it, and who their boss really is. " - I thought you meant he should be able to invade countries based on Immoral activities being conducted within. And then you mentioned the Constitution and I was just like...wut. But nah, I am very familiar with the Const. and yeah, I believe we are on the same page lol. Still, they are divided into 3 different parts hence North America, South America, and Central America - Americas referring to all 3 parts.
Incrementalism at it's finest. If a tree falls and lands on 200 African children and no U.S. citizen is around, does Obama hear their cries for help?
That thing in bold, my friend, is called sarcasm. It is lost too often on the internet. It's all good, no hard feelings. I seriously started to think you might be a Sarah Palin fan.....haha, peace.
Here I disagree in some sense. For example, there will always be murder. There has been for 3,000 years (longer of course, but let's say from the beginning of Western history) and you can say there always will be, fine.. But, (and here I anticipate getting flamed) if you were to take away all of the guns in the US, the murder rate, non suicides, would drop to almost nothing compared to what it is now.
You know they don't have guns in England like they do in the U.S. You also realize, they stab the fuck out of each other over there. Ive been stabbed, and, Ive been shot. Let me tell you, I'd take a bullet over a blade any day. Im not talking statistics, Im talking experience.
I wasn't aware that you needed a gun to kill someone? I guess knifes are no real danger... Don't even think about crow bars... Baseball bats... A huge black guy... A whip... A bottle... A bowling ball?... Golf club... A large stick... An umbrella... Trains...Planes....Automobiles... Brass knuckles... A molitov... Nunchucks... A sword.... A NINJA. If I encounter a ninja in a dark ally, I would be SUPER PISSED if I didn't have a gun because "it's dangerous". Sure, guns can be used for bad, but they can also be used for protection. I would much rather have a gun if I was in danger rather than a phone and 10 minutes to wait for the cops to show up.
the president can do this but remember theres that 60 day rule or whatever that obama violated with libya.
It would be rude of me to point out you're still able to post a reply to me, but seriously I'm sorry for your personal experience, but I am just trying to make a political point. If it were up to me there would be no violence with guns, knives, or fists ever. But another thing I've learned is there's no difference in the meaning of 'justice' and 'revenge'. And I'd like to bring up an old common hypothetical utiliterian question that I think is relevent to the government intervention discussion.. It goes like this, 'Even if we all can agree that murder is wrong, if you could go back in time and pull the trigger to kill Hitler, in turn saving millions of people, would you?'
So what you're saying is that we should send our US soldiers over there and have them KIA to not even guarantee freedom for some 3rd world country?
Didn't you see that Michael Moore movie.. Smh. Kidding aside, it's just common sense. Another thing that's common sense, people in Texas love guns and it has the strictest enforcement of marijuana laws. Pick a side, either fear or love and compassion.
I pick guns & cannabis, why can't I have both? What is with your narrow black and white analysis? But seriously, this notion that banning gun ownership would result in a plummet in violent crime is just ridiculous. Prohibition of alcohol gave control of alcohol over to the gangsters, the same power over guns would be given to gangsters as well. Criminals are already in violation of the law, what do they care about breaking one more? A gun ban would send the cost of guns through the roof and criminals would have a monopoly over them, thus giving them more profits and power. Also, your local police force would still arrive in an hour's time when they are needed within 2 minutes. You cannot legislate morality. This is painstakingly obvious with our drug laws, so why does the moral stance of "Guns are bad, nobody should have them" make any more sense to you? People will always have guns, the genie has been out of the bottle since the invention of firearms.
Well, I suppose we disagree on some things. I think if you want guns, it should be your right, I'm not actually for the government taking them from people. (Though note what that guy from the UK said above and check out violent crime rate in comparison) And not to direct this at you, but in general, people who want guns are just sad and pathetic to me.