>> ^Duckman33:

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.



I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.

If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.

Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.

If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?

If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


Wow. Thank god for the internet. If google says it's true it sure is. If google says the next guy on the street is a bad man i say let's sent some drones and kill him. just so, no judge. And there i was thinking of life as being so complicated. Have to get me some of those penis enlargement pills. google say they work just fine.

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.

By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.


Have you typed his name into google?

Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?

1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?

2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.

You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.


And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

>> ^bcglorf:


Bin Laden's death was different than this how? I suppose that he wasn't an American citizen and that he allegedly had the opportunity to surrender during the firefight?
I agree with bareboards2 here in vehemently rejecting the whole special status of American citizens versus any other unlucky schmuck.
The whole 'confusion' is that the Whitehouse refuses to even acknowledge the assassination question, not even to deny it. Meanwhile the reporter assumes it as part of his questioning. The confusion is utterly intentional and deliberate on behalf of both parties. Politics are stupid, even when discussing vitally important matters.
What I want to compare these kind of events to is serving arrest warrants for criminals that refuse to be taken alive. Both Bin Laden and Awlaki would have been arrested the second they set foot on American soil. Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.


Don't make assumptions, please. I spoke loudly over OBL's assassination. But in this particular case it's a very specific encroachment against the protections of the social contract (aka the Constitution), and that's what I'm talking about here. Specifically.

>> ^blankfist:

It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote


Bin Laden's death was different than this how? I suppose that he wasn't an American citizen and that he allegedly had the opportunity to surrender during the firefight?

I agree with bareboards2 here in vehemently rejecting the whole special status of American citizens versus any other unlucky schmuck.

The whole 'confusion' is that the Whitehouse refuses to even acknowledge the assassination question, not even to deny it. Meanwhile the reporter assumes it as part of his questioning. The confusion is utterly intentional and deliberate on behalf of both parties. Politics are stupid, even when discussing vitally important matters.

What I want to compare these kind of events to is serving arrest warrants for criminals that refuse to be taken alive. Both Bin Laden and Awlaki would have been arrested the second they set foot on American soil. Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

Oh man. I'm all for blazing but seriously. As crazy as it sounds the first time I smoked pot was in 4th grade... but I didn't actually get stoned until 6th grade (in a car outside of the junior high across from my elementary school). Because that junior high was so fucked my parents sent me to a private school where there were like 20 kids in each class as opposed to one thousand. That's when I became a big stoner and ultimately started having panic attacks from shitty weed (laced or sprayed with something) alongside the stress a school that's whole goal was to get kids into really good colleges. The school was too small all of the faculty had their eyes on every single kid & knew what was up - it tripped me out.

Ultimately, three years later it led me to go back to public school in a different district so if I got so crazily stoned no one would realize; I'd be just another number in the police state.

It's all gravy now, I could smoke a bowl, drop E, some acid and a fifth of jack daniels and be smooth (not that I'd actually want to do that) but seriously, weed has the potential to fuck up a youngins mind or at least lead them astray. Not that I think it led me astray but I think the possibility is there. Now that my stoner years (wake & bake - go to art school) are behind me I smoke maybe a hit every once in a while, if I smoke much more I get panicy. I'm down to one hit as opposed to five bowlfuls... if it weren't for being a stoner at one point I probably wouldn't drink at least 3-5 to 15 beverages a day haha! It began a brutal cycle. Either mixing, or smoking a lot of weed, or drinking a lot of alcohol. They say everything with moderation, yeah sure, but addictions are more difficult to moderate!

Who even knows what effect pot could have on a baby's mind!! Sheesh!

1. Hangover 2
2. Empire Strikes Back
3. Fight Club
4. Scarface
5. Dazed & Confused
6. American Beauty
7. Superbad
8. The Godfather
9. Are We There Yet?
10. There Will Be Blood
11. Road to Perdition
12. Coming To America
13. Airplane
14. Borat
15. Pee Wee's Big Adventure
16. American Pie
17. Ghost
18. The Graduate
19. The Karate Kid
20. Hangover
21. Death To Smoochy
22. Wedding Crashers
23. Half Baked
24. Fatal Attraction
25. Jerry Maguire
26. Little Shop of Horror
27. Tron
28. A Christmas Story
30. The Last Starfighter
31. The Dark Knight
32. Anchorman
33. E.T.
33. Along Came Polly
34. Wanye's World
35. Devils Advocate
36. 40 Year Old Virgin
37. Jaws
38. GoldFinger
39. Delirious
40. Full Metal Jacket
41. The Cooler
42. Ferris Bullers Day Off
43. Men In Tights
44. Men In Black
45. Blazing Saddles
46. Cable Guy
47. My Girl
48. Napolean Dynamite

I never claimed those to be facts. >> ^BoneRemake:

Thats fine, as far as I know you are not a member of the force there so what you say is just second or third hand knowledge.
In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

Thats fine, as far as I know you are not a member of the force there so what you say is just second or third hand knowledge.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

I completely disagree. These charges are in no way violence related. You can EASILY serve an arrest warrant without drawing a gun. Put your hand on it if it makes you happy. Now, were they serving a warrant for murder, then sure, blaze in there with guns drawn.
>> ^BoneRemake:

Do SOME of you not understand that they draw their guns for a reason ? its called training and its protocol. Just because a swat team may be involved with bringing down Popeye's spinach vegan factory doesnt mean they will walk in there with Guns on their backs and friendly waves of "hello " hands and the warrant in hand. Wake up, they have protocol to follow.
As well I am pretty sure what skeeve said was that its for others protection not just the people who want to drink milk, sure they get sick ( fuck'em in my opinion, its their choice) but it is communicable to others, the general population, WHICH government does give a shit about ( or so I heard once)

>> ^Lumm:

Hey! She skipped the "Bim brings Ben's broom, Ben brings Bim's broom" section.
Cheating!

Check 1:15 onwards. She must have read it so fast you missed it.

I think Jenna is cute in a way. I mean she kind of looks like a rodent; but if that stands true - she's a blazing hot rodent.

Now here is an interesting idea. This device is mounted to the handlebars of a bike and projects a bright green image onto the roadway in front of the bike. It's designed to warn autos of the oncoming bike.

http://www.gizmag.com/blaze-bicycle-laser-safety-device/18886/