Trump dispenses with trials, orders military strike on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking boat (Now up to 2)

[rjs330]

That's a "no" then.

Everyone knows these eleven individuals were engaging in narcoterrorism, so no need for evidence, identification, interdiction, trial or such liberal nonsense!

If they made it unhindered to American soil they would have come under the Constituion as it applies to America. But they we discovered on the high seas where the military can act to a threat on Americans under governmental policy. Thankfully they were discovered enroute with their poison and were blown up.

 

[rambot]

Did you actually believe the God given rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution applies to those who reject them and wish to live under a different system? Perhaps the US ought to invade Great Britain and strip its government of their power and instill a US Constitutional one. After all the Declaration of Independence gives us that right. Canada should really be first since its so close.

Did you really believe thats what they meant?

Given what the 2nd Ammendment has been twisted into why not?

 

[rjs330]

11 people were killed.

Despite Hegseth claiming “We knew exactly who was in that boat,” the U.S. government has not released the name of all 11 individuals on that boat.

Do they need to? Let's say a boat load of jihadists were coming with a bunch of bombs to blow up Americans and we caught them on the high seas, do you think we have to know their names before blowing them up?

 

[RDKirk]

Not sure how you define "irrelevant" but I'd say no.

I define "irrelevant" as "feckless."

 

[rambot]

If they made it unhindered to American soil they would have come under the Constituion as it applies to America. But they we discovered on the high seas where the military can act to a threat on Americans under governmental policy. Thankfully they were discovered enroute with their poison and were blown up.

1) They were in the southern Carribean, what was the evidence they were going to the US? Or at least, WHERE is that evidence?
2) It kind of looks like there are bags of things in the boat. No way to tell what it is. But tell you what, go fish it out from the bottom of the ocean. Then you'd get TOWARD me accepting this kind of action.

 

[RDKirk]

Which is, of course EXACTLY what the left was saying was going to happen.

I'll be curious to see how the number of voters may change.

It's exactly what the people who voted for Trump wanted to happen, so that was a feckless warning.

Make no mistake: The United States has gotten precisely the government that the majority in the US wanted.

 

[rambot]

I define "irrelevant" as "feckless."

I'd disagree in your description then. Not sure if you've noticed that people have things to say about this. And quite a few people did, in fact, NOT vote for this.

And the margin of victory was so small that to constantly harp about some kind of "nature of government" changing mandate, seems like a laughably desperate attempt to shut down debate (not to say you're making that one here though).

 

[rjs330]

Certainly you remember that it's not what goes INTO our body that is a sin but it is what comes OUT.

You could certainly argue they are unhealthy and bad for us....but "evil" ain't it.

Whats coming out of them is their actions to deliberately poison millions of Americans. The heart of man is exceedingly wicked.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

The government is protecting us from that evil. Doing their Gid given duty to bring wrath upon the evil doer.

 

[rambot]

It's exactly what the people who voted for Trump wanted to happen, so that was a feckless warning.

Make no mistake: The United States has gotten precisely the government that the majority in the US wanted.

Incorrect.
What "the majority of voters voted" for.

I am NOT convinced (and given Trump's approval rating, i'd wager it's correct) that "the majority in the US" necessarily wanted this.

There's been quite a few leopard's eating faces stories coming out. So certainly quite a few immigrant families weren't interested. Also doesn't appear he (or his policies) are SUPER popular with independents. Though maybe i'm missing other data.

 

[rjs330]

Given what the 2nd Ammendment has been twisted into why not?

L et us know when you want us to enforce the Constitution on your soil. You had your chance to be our next state and you rejected it. Therefore the Constituion of the United States doesn't apply to you in Canada.

 

[rjs330]

It's exactly what the people who voted for Trump wanted to happen, so that was a feckless warning.

Make no mistake: The United States has gotten precisely the government that the majority in the US wanted.

And we are glad we did at this point.

 

[rambot]

Whats coming out of them is their actions to deliberately poison millions of Americans. The heart of man is exceedingly wicked.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

The government is protecting us from that evil. Doing their Gid given duty to bring wrath upon the evil doer.

The "government" doesn't protect anyone from evil. They protect you from "harm".

Stop equating this (or ANY) administration with a saviour complex.

Doing their Gid given duty to bring wrath upon the evil doer.

I....I just can't with this one.

 

[rjs330]

Of course it won’t.

It’s obvious that some folks don’t want/need to consider the larger implications of our leaders using the power of our nation-state to commit homicides on the high-seas.

Nobody committed homicide.

 

[rambot]

And we are glad we did at this point.

Yup...that smaller percentage is digging in DEEEEP.

 

[rambot]

Nobody committed homicide.

THAT is more homicide than an abortion.

 

[rjs330]

The "government" doesn't protect anyone from evil. They protect you from "harm".

Stop equating this (or ANY) administration with a saviour complex.

Yes they do. Or at least they should try. They can't protect us from all harm. Harm is is way to broad of a concept and is not easily defined. Yes the government should attemp to protect us from those who would harm us.

Government is NOT our savior.stop thinking thats what we are saying. But it is supposed to be a protector of its people from evil doers.

 

[rjs330]

THAT is more homicide than an abortion.

No its not. Abortion is taking an innocent life that has done no wrong. Killing evil narco terrorists id defending people from the poison and death they are visiting upon the people.

 

[rjs330]

It seems most people are of the opinion that drug traffickers are killing Americans.

Well, private health insurance companies are also killing and maiming Americans. And they are doing so WITHOUT the consent of the person who is dying.

What is the appetite for extra-judicial killings of Insurance company employees?

We're all Luigi fans here I assume?

Many Democrats are.

 

[rambot]

Many Democrats are.

And so you look upon it with derision?

Why? Those executive are killing INNOCENT Americans.

Drug addicts CHOOSE to put that nonsense in their veins. You seem to suggest that the killing of "innocents" is an important factor on taking action.

I mean, you aren't using a known definition for homicide either though when you chose to defend that position.

 

[rambot]

Or at least they should try. They can't protect us from all harm.

OF course they can't. I don't think anyone expected that.

Harm is is way to broad of a concept and is not easily defined.

And yet it's a decent word that is practical. Not like "evil".

Yes the government should attemp to protect us from those who would harm us.

And that is not the same as protecting you from evil.

Government is NOT our savior.stop thinking thats what we are saying.

I would love to. I'm just kinda waiting for you guys to say the same thing.


Does a government prevent you from drinking? Cheating on your wife? Slandering fellow Christians? Those are evils.


No, of course not.