Sorry, but if you want to BE a good guy, you have to ACT like a good guy. The best leaders lead by example.
He and Dubya would have gotten along just fine!
But seriously it's about time we had someone in office who is honest about having indulged in the MJ a bit.
Only joking on that one. I don't have a problem with anyone smoking the ganja.
Giving Constitutional rights to non-citizens I do have beef with. I don't see how that is leading by example.
Because by seeing that we abide by limited government and rule of law they may pick up the habit.
I would not hold my breath on that.
Because by seeing that we abide by limited government...
That may be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said Mac.
Something wrong with living up to our ideals?
Not at all. Only problem is it is not realistic. Especially with a Democratic majority. Name one area of your life in which the government is not involved.
I don't feel that it is unrealistic though. By demonstrating to the Afghan people that we have laws protecting even those that we are fighting, they will begin to see the benefits of the Western way of thinking and abandon the idea that might should make right. Conversely, when we throw our weight around and deliberately, and often indiscriminately, squish people we not only alienate those who's hearts and minds we seek to gain, but we demonstrate that we aren't any better than those we fight. That's ultimately why we lost Vietnam, we just couldn't convince the general populace that we were the better alternative.
I think zekej3 is pointing out that none of that is equivalent to the limited government we are supposed to have. That's what makes your comment amusing.
But remember when they talked about limited government, they were specifically talking about things like search and seizure, housing of soldiers in people's homes, habeas corpus and court rights. These are the kind of things that Miranda dealt with, requiring all arrestees to be informed of and then requiring the authorities respecting the person's rights vs. the governments power to search, seize and imprison.
No, that is actually not correct, not even in the slightest. The Constitution of the United States explicitly restricts the government of the United States from doing anything outside of the powers granted to it by the Constitution (its the "all other rights are granted to the States and people" line). Ousting CEOs of corporations, business bailouts, limiting CEO salaries, and nationwide health care, are all examples of the government doing things it is explicitly disallowed from doing. Those rights you listed were written a second time because both the states and the people felt that a government should have a second reminder that they shouldn't interfere in the common man's life (and its a damn good thing they did, considering the attacks on free speech and the right to bear arms). That's why your comment about limited government is amusing. Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution to find out these things before making wild claims like the one you just did.
1. Obama LAUGHED during the campaign when he opponents sa1id he would do this. Of course, we are getting used to the idea that everything he said during the campaign was a lie.
2. Treating terrorism as if it were a legal problem was what allowed 911. This decision makes another 911 more likely -- and it will be Obama's fault.
3. Obama did NOT tell Congress about this new policy. Bush did keep Congress informed about such things. For this, Obama should be impeached.
catghy
What can you add to this idiotic policy. Obama is clueless.