Put Down the Drink in Your Hand

July 26, 2018 By: Juanita Jean Herownself Category: Uncategorized

 

.

Be social and share!

0 Comments to “Put Down the Drink in Your Hand”


  1. Old Fart says:

    Oh please…

    They’d repeal the Nineteenth Amendment at most…

    1
  2. Funny, extra-judicial assassination by drone and vastly widening surveillance of Americans, the two areas where President Obama played fast and loose with the Constitution were ignored or applauded by the GOP and the media, while wearing a tan suit or fist-bumping were viewed as high crimes and misdemeanors.

    2
  3. But only the 2d is mandatory. All other parts of the Constitution are meer
    Suggestions. Tongue firmly in cheek.

    3
  4. Jonathon Hubbert says:

    O’Bama’s use of uninhabited aircraft vehicles was covered by the ‘War Powers’ clause of the Constitution. Surveillance is not unconstitutional, but acting on said surveillance may be unconstitutional, if the action itself is not Constitutionally protected. the republi-can’ts & republi-cons are bereft of a cents [sic] of humor, their being bankrupt: morally, fiscally, ethically, emotionally and intellectually — only makes them attractive to certain voters.

    4
  5. @Wally

    Give me an example of “extra-judicial assassination” please. Executive orders back to Jerry Ford ban assassination as an instrument of foreign policy.

    5
  6. Mic,
    Remember we are talking about my favorite President since Jimmy Carter. In almost all ways Barack Obama is an exemplary human being. Way better than me, for sure. But, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush
    And there was that Bin Laden, shot and buried at sea thing. I thought we tried people for their crimes.
    So, only the expanded spying on citizens and the drone strikes. Yet, everyday somebody was screaming Obama this, Obama that.

    6
  7. @Wally

    Well you pulled one of the more troubling events out of recent American history. I understand the rationale for shooting and burying at sea an international criminal, but it does seem to violate the whole “we don’t assassinate foreign folk to further our foreign policy” contained in several EOs. And then we do when confronted by bin Laden, who hid out in Pakistan for years. Pakistan is an ally in the region. Except when they aren’t.

    I worried that the US putting bin Laden on trial would give him a platform from which to spew, unless US DoJ was very specific in its direction of prosecution. For example, prosecute first the deaths of Muslims known to be in any of the WTC buildings that morn.

    This may be a Truman atomic bomb sort of decision in that either decision leads to criticism and second guessing. There are reasons I should not become a POTUS. These decisions made at a moral cusp are merely one of them.

    Thanks for the ethical conundrum.

    7