(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-01-2025 10:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Wow. Who'd a thought in a war against Narco-Terrorists some Narco-Terrorists would be killed? Kill em all, let God sort em.

No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

I posted this in another related thread.... Below is Abridged version....

How do we know there are drugs on these boats and that these people are bad?

Use your f-ing brain. Trump starts blowing them up, yet they continue to come .... Nobody with good intentions are risking their life to take an overnight boat ride from there to here....

Stop being obtuse. Those people suck, they are taking part in killing American's.... you reap what you sow.

(12-04-2025 07:47 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I posted this in another related thread.... Below is Abridged version....

Who do we know there are drugs on these boats and that these people are bad?

Use your f-ing brain. Trump starts blowing them up, yet they continue to come .... Nobody with good intentions are risking their life to take an overnight boat ride from there to here....

Stop being obtuse. Those people suck, they are taking part in killing American's.... you reap what you sow.

Every argument the left makes is so easy to shoot full of holes.

Never thought I'd see the day where one side is wanting to protect human traffickers, drug dealers, and terrorists... Yet here we are.

(12-04-2025 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never thought I'd see the day where one side is wanting to protect human traffickers, drug dealers, and terrorists... Yet here we are.

You left out 20M illegal aliens, including tens of thousands of criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.)

(12-04-2025 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never thought I'd see the day where one side is wanting to protect human traffickers, drug dealers, and terrorists... Yet here we are.

I always wonder how many of them are like this when they have to make crazy arguments other liberals are making.

(12-04-2025 07:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never thought I'd see the day where one side is wanting to protect human traffickers, drug dealers, and terrorists... Yet here we are.

You left out 20M illegal aliens, including tens of thousands of criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.)

I was just starting with the Maryland dad, these narco terrorists, and the Afghani that shot the NG.

(12-04-2025 08:06 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never thought I'd see the day where one side is wanting to protect human traffickers, drug dealers, and terrorists... Yet here we are.

I always wonder how many of them are like this when they have to make crazy arguments other liberals are making.

I doubt it. It appears many take it hook, line, and sinker.

(12-04-2025 07:47 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I posted this in another related thread.... Below is Abridged version....

Who do we know there are drugs on these boats and that these people are bad?

Use your f-ing brain. Trump starts blowing them up, yet they continue to come .... Nobody with good intentions are risking their life to take an overnight boat ride from there to here....

Stop being obtuse. Those people suck, they are taking part in killing American's.... you reap what you sow.

Democrats by nature are just stupid people. They claim these are fishing boats. Of course, they also can’t define what a woman is, think men can give birth, said Biden was mentally sharp and riots are just peaceful protests. Ignorant morons. All of them

Fishing boats!

Take a $2,000 boat, put 4 $70,000 outboards on the back of it, put a bunch of cargo in the nose to act as ballast....Fishing. Lulz. Those boats are only designed to haul "square grouper" and "white lobster" at high speeds. The haul is normally to a much larger boat passing by out to sea.

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-01-2025 10:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Wow. Who'd a thought in a war against Narco-Terrorists some Narco-Terrorists would be killed? Kill em all, let God sort em.

No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

lol, Obama can take out a wedding party that included children via a drone strike and not a word, current admin takes out drug smugglers and apparently needs to be brought up on war crimes. We really can't make this stuff up.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...es-3-were/

"In a May 23, 2013, speech at the National Defense University, Obama said he had authorized the attack on Anwar al-Awlaki: "I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot, but we couldn’t. And as president, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out."

What about the strikes that Holder said killed U.S. citizens unintentionally?

News accounts indicate Obama likely approved those attacks as well. The New York Times reported in a May 29, 2012, news story that cited current and former presidential advisers, "Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top-secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture."

And I supported going after these people jsut as I support going after the cartel.

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-01-2025 10:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Wow. Who'd a thought in a war against Narco-Terrorists some Narco-Terrorists would be killed? Kill em all, let God sort em.

No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this in an earlier thread on this topic. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF, so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways. Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism. Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

Never thought I'd see the day when the Republican party totally abandoned all critical thinking skill in subservience of an orange tin-pot wannabe dictator, yet here we are.

(12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(12-01-2025 10:29 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Wow. Who'd a thought in a war against Narco-Terrorists some Narco-Terrorists would be killed? Kill em all, let God sort em.

No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this earlier in this thread. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF, so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways. Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism. Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

You painted yourself into a box. If the attack of the boat was as you say totally legal in our "war" on drugs, the killing of the survivors with a second bomb IS a war crime. Sorry about that.

(12-04-2025 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 10:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2025 07:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(12-02-2025 10:41 AM)Roxie Wrote:  No official war has been declared dumb***.

Exactly what war did Obama declare when he killed about 6000 people with drones, including 400 collateral damage, dumb***? And some were American citizens.

Were you here then complaining about that? We must have missed you somehow.

Try the AUMF. Numbnuts.

Didn’t complain because there was an actual underlying authorization for the use of force. That is A, U, and F for above.

Now the schtick is “WHADDABOUT <something Obama>”. At least the comment has moved for once away from Biden. Still the same tired schtick. And better yet, rife with an apparent crucial lack of understanding that AUMF was in effect.

I addressed this earlier in this thread. The AUMF was for al-Qaeda. Not ISIS or al-Shabaab, or JNIM, or whatever other terrorist org you want to lump in that we've attacked over the years. The arguments that an AUMF were needed for AQ and CT actions was predicated on the belief that the President needed Congressional approval for long term, extended military action against combatants.

Obama absolutely used similar strikes against designated entities not included in the AUMF, so if you're going to rest your laurels on the AUMF then this isn't something you can have both ways. Therefore its relevant to establish a pattern of fact moreso than whataboutism. Moreover, Trump like Obama with the expansion of his targeted operations relied on Article II of the Constitution (which defines the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief) as a standalone authority for limited military actions, particularly when those actions were intended to defend U.S. national interests and were considered to be "short of traditional war."

This is not a winnable argument to suggest that the current President doesn't have the authority to conduct targeted special operations such as this when every other President has used it to some degree without an AUMF or a Declaration of War.

You painted yourself into a box. If the attack of the boat was as you say totally legal in our "war" on drugs, the killing of the survivors with a second bomb IS a war crime. Sorry about that.

The fact that the most liberal rag in the land debunked this but you still hold onto it is ironically indicative of the exact post you made just before this one. It's the left's go to. Accuse of the same thing you do then Gaslight.

You'd think these prog filth posters would give up arguing with TIBL. He owns them every time they do. I'm embarrassed for them.

The Left thinks when the word "war" is used it is literal. Lame. Our government is on a "mission" to kill foreigners in the Narcotics trade that has killed exponentially more Americans than the Terrorists could only dream of. That is why they are called Narco-"Terrorists". Is that better? The US hasn't declared "War" since WWII, but we have been killing our "enemies" and other country's enemies since then, and will continue when the next Democrat POTUS is in office.