Well, Obama lied too...Remember his "closing Gitmo" campaign rhetoric? Or his Patriot Act warrantless wiretapping rhetoric. So I agree with your premise. You just seem to dismiss your own merit based premise and your advice to read War is a Racket and the list of historical lies, and you've yet to comment on the selfless sacrifice of 58K men in Vietnam sold on a lie. You also seem to be able to decipher between when Obama lies and is telling the truth.
Again, you post about a subject that you know very little about. I would advise anyone who plans to join the military to read War is a Racket. It's ONE SIDE OF AN ISSUE, but certainly not the entire issue.
Cic has a problem with our military... on almost every occasion he denigrates their service to this country.
Look at it this way Cic... If a fireman goes into a burning building to rescue a child, and dies in the process, his act is just as heroic whether he succeeds or not. His mission was honorable even if it later turns out that the child had already been rescued. You constantly confuse the war with the warrior. You've even blamed the warrior for the war. We all have different views and opinions, but you're the only one that I know of who blames the war on those who fought it.
Join up and put in a few years doing something for your country... maybe you'll learn something.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Isn't it against international law to assist in the execution of a person? Can Mexico deploy forces in the U.S. and can the U.S. provide intel to assist in the execution of one of Mexico's citizens?
Of course! The USA has often assisted in the apprehension of criminals or terrorists in other countries, and we accept their aid in the capture or killing of terrorists.
You seem to have a warped view of the word 'execution' and use it as if it applies to all killing.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Of course! The USA has often assisted in the apprehension of criminals or terrorists in other countries, and we accept their aid in the capture or killing of terrorists.
You seem to have a warped view of the word 'execution' and use it as if it applies to all killing.
We have? We targeted a foreign national on American soil for foreign government so they could assassinate them on American soil? When?
Again, you post about a subject that you know very little about. I would advise anyone who plans to join the military to read War is a Racket. It's ONE SIDE OF AN ISSUE, but certainly not the entire issue.
Cic has a problem with our military... on almost every occasion he denigrates their service to this country.
We are not even talking about the soldiers following their orders...We are talking about the leaders that give the order. You are coming out of left field with this one. I've denigrated the leaders that issue the illegal and unconstitutional war orders plenty of times. I've also questioned the soldiers that carry out the orders, and asked when do they become morally obligated to use their personal moral judgement to stop following the orders. There is historical evidence of what happens when individuals set aside their personal God fearing morals for the collective nationalist interest of a party. Look no further than 1939 Germany.
Look at it this way Cic... If a fireman goes into a burning building to rescue a child, and dies in the process, his act is just as heroic whether he succeeds or not. His mission was honorable even if it later turns out that the child had already been rescued. You constantly confuse the war with the warrior. You've even blamed the warrior for the war. We all have different views and opinions, but you're the only one that I know of who blames the war on those who fought it.
First of all, it's comparing apples to oranges, but I'll try to square your analogy.
Let's say the mayor of the city has been paying the fire chief who is a professional arsonist, to burn down property in the city that the mayor owned and the wealthy friends of the mayor owns...The Mayor and his friends plan to collect the insurance money on the property. The mayor goes on for years burning house after house after house after house...Each time, causing the alarm to go off at the city fire department. As more and more building catch fire in the city, the mayor makes a plea to the citizens to buy more and more fire trucks and fire equipment to protect our brave fire fighter and keep the citizens safe. BTW, It just so happens that one of his friends is also the manufacturer of the fire equipment is also a large campaign contributor to the mayor. When the mayors two terms in office are up, the wealthy friends of the mayor make friends with the new mayor by helping him get elected. And guess what? This new mayor continues the same policy of burning down the city buildings owned by his wealth friends. Why? So they can collect the insurance money, and he can get help during the next election.
So, over the years of responding to these fires, the fire fighters have been trained to send a person into the burning building to see if there is anybody inside. Naturally, in doing so, fire fighters have fallen to the life threatening conditions inside these burning buildings. Like all good mayors, every time a fire fighter falls, the city closes down the streets and holds a grand parade and gives a moving speech honoring the courage of the fallen fire fighter.
After years of these city fires, a few of the newer fire fighters start to connect the dots of all the fires in the city over the years. And they realize all the property was owned by the same handful of people and that those same handful of people made a lot of money collecting insurance money. They even realize the manufacturer of their equipment owns some of the property and is close friends with the mayor. They look back over the years and see all their brothers that have died over the years fighting fires started by their boss and his rich friends. So these young fire fighters mapped out all the property in the city, and identified all the buildings that were owned by the mayor and friends of the mayor.
One night the city fire siren sounded and they were given the address to a property owned by the mayor. They show up to a house in flames. Knowing that the building was the mayors and likely started for insurance money...Do they risk their lives entering the building or do they let it burn to the ground?
Cic posts about women having abortions so that they can gold plate the fetus for a profit through their neighborhood Planned Parenthood... and he says that I'm "coming out of left field with this one."
Every post is more Bizarro than the last one!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cic posts about women having abortions so that they can gold plate the fetus for a profit through their neighborhood Planned Parenthood... and he says that I'm "coming out of left field with this one."
Every post is more Bizarro than the last one!
Now you decide to get back on topic? I guess you would go into the mayors burning building.
So, what do you think...Is it a women's right to sell their aborted fetuses to rich Taiwanese for roasting?
So, what do you think...Is it a women's right to sell their aborted fetuses to rich Taiwanese for roasting?
Your question alone should point to a unstable individual who'd ask such a thing. It's obsession to the extreme.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Your question alone should point to a unstable individual who'd ask such a thing. It's obsession to the extreme.
It's not an obsession, this actually happened. It happened in Britain. Go to post number 1. This is something that apparently is being done in other parts of the world. Just asking your opinion on the matter if you would prevent a poor women the opportunity to sell their fetus to a Taiwanese witch doctor for a few thousand dollars.
It's not an obsession, this actually happened. It happened in Britain. Go to post number 1. This is something that apparently is being done in other parts of the world. Just asking your opinion on the matter if you would prevent a poor women the opportunity to sell their fetus to a Taiwanese witch doctor for a few thousand dollars.
Cicero. You make all these assumptions, then assume your position is the correct one.
Where did these gold creatures come from? From miscarages. You don't know. From a medical training facility? Possibly. From abortions? Not if they are over 2 to 7 months old. From still births. That Would be my guess. Murdered babies? Who knows? But you assume?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero. You make all these assumptions, then assume your position is the correct one.
Where did these gold creatures come from? From miscarages. You don't know. From a medical training facility? Possibly. From abortions? Not if they are over 2 to 7 months old. From still births. That Would be my guess. Murdered babies? Who knows? But you assume?
It doesn't matter where the ones in Britain came from. If they are worth tens of thousands of dollars to Taiwanese men, the question is, should women have the RIGHT to sell their fetuses? You know, like selling your hair to make wigs, or selling sperm to the sperm bank. If the logical argument is it is a women's RIGHT to choose to do what she wants with her body, then that includes the rights to the aborted fetus.
It doesn't matter where the ones in Britain came from. If they are worth tens of thousands of dollars to Taiwanese men, the question is, should women have the RIGHT to sell their fetuses? You know, like selling your hair to make wigs, or selling sperm to the sperm bank. If the logical argument is it is a women's RIGHT to choose to do what she wants with her body, then that includes the rights to the aborted fetus.
Cicero is finally doing something worthwhile... he's going into the fetus selling business, and is checking out the supply line.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero is finally doing something worthwhile... he's going into the fetus selling business, and is checking out the supply line.
Ahhh...Nevermind...It least you're smart enough not to engage in the argument that makes the women's right to choose argument not so much a right anymore. Just admit Box, and say, OF COURSE A WOMEN CANNOT SELL HER ABORTED FETUS TO TAIWANESE MEN THAT BELIEVE IN BLACK MAGIC.
Logged
