One of the great things about our country (supposedly) is that we protect minority rights. Just because someone is in the majority does not mean they should get what they want, especially if they break laws to get it. Thank God we do not have a Democracy, because if we did, then if 51% of people wanted to lynch homosexuals it would be law. I do not trust my fellow man with a Democracy.
Word it however you want. Obama won twice because most of the people wanted peace ...and healthcare changed.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
One of the great things about our country (supposedly) is that we protect minority rights. Just because someone is in the majority does not mean they should get what they want, especially if they break laws to get it. Thank God we do not have a Democracy, because if we did, then if 51% of people wanted to lynch homosexuals it would be law. I do not trust my fellow man with a Democracy.
Word it however you want. Obama won twice because most of the people wanted peace ...and healthcare changed.
Luck Obama has Obamacare he might have needed it...after returning from Palm City ,Florida, were he was playing golf with a trio of big money oil and private equity moguls... he slipped..while doing his little hippity hop off the plane ..carrying his arms in his trademark praying mantis position...
Note : like a typical democrat Obama signed up for coverage only for himself and not for the rest of the first family........
0
Luck Obama has Obamacare he might have needed it...after returning from Palm City ,Florida, were he was playing golf with a trio of big money oil and private equity moguls... he slipped..while doing his little hippity hop off the plane ..carrying his arms in his trademark praying mantis position...
Or maybe you missed our engagements in Africa and the middle east since Obama expanded the war on terror. A vote for Obama was a vote for more war. Any other suggestion is ridiculous.
Or maybe you missed our engagements in Africa and the middle east since Obama expanded the war on terror. A vote for Obama was a vote for more war. Any other suggestion is ridiculous.
I wasn't old enough to vote for Bush I and didn't vote for W.
Dude, you are a cheerleader, and that is fine. You can be one, just don't blow smoke that he is some sort of Peace loving peacenik, he has a kill list and has bragged about being "good at killing people". He is the first president to kill an American Citizen via drone, and targeted children in Libya. there was no tactical advantage to killing Ghaddafi's grandchildren, or Al Alaki's 16 year old son.
0
I wasn't old enough to vote for Bush I and didn't vote for W.
Dude, you are a cheerleader, and that is fine. You can be one, just don't blow smoke that he is some sort of Peace loving peacenik, he has a kill list and has bragged about being "good at killing people". He is the first president to kill an American Citizen via drone, and targeted children in Libya. there was no tactical advantage to killing Ghaddafi's grandchildren, or Al Alaki's 16 year old son.
Rico,, Are you saying we should not kill the leaders attacking us ?
Are you saying Ronald Reagan should not have bomb Ghaddafi's house ? When he did ?
You, of all people, a gun lovers, and assault weapons lover. Would you rather send soldiers when we can just take out the leaders, then they would have to start over again . I think not.
If you knew your history, you'd know that during WW11 we had a choice of either sending 200,000 soldiers into Japan, because they would NOT surrender even after we took all the islands.
Our leaders knew that 100,000 U.S. soldiers would die if we did., so Truman dropped two bombs on them. It killed a lot of civilians too, BUT, 100,000 US soldiers were spared and they surrendered. He could have bombed Toyko, but wanted take out factories also, while minimizing casualties .
Sometimes in war there are innocent lives lost. The point is to minimum that loss, like Obama is doing.
0
Rico,, Are you saying we should not kill the leaders attacking us ?
Are you saying Ronald Reagan should not have bomb Ghaddafi's house ? When he did ?
You, of all people, a gun lovers, and assault weapons lover. Would you rather send soldiers when we can just take out the leaders, then they would have to start over again . I think not.
If you knew your history, you'd know that during WW11 we had a choice of either sending 200,000 soldiers into Japan, because they would NOT surrender even after we took all the islands.
Our leaders knew that 100,000 U.S. soldiers would die if we did., so Truman dropped two bombs on them. It killed a lot of civilians too, BUT, 100,000 US soldiers were spared and they surrendered. He could have bombed Toyko, but wanted take out factories also, while minimizing casualties .
Sometimes in war there are innocent lives lost. The point is to minimum that loss, like Obama is doing.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.