Painfully Aware

Did you not read her post? What about being able to assassinate you without cause? Yeah he's smart alright. Smart enough to get around the law.

And so were the other presidents who were before him. Seriously, explain to me why people think this is just coming up? Why do they think this is all something new? Having the ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Surely most people posting here realize that. Everyone has the ability to go buy a hammer with the intention of using it to commit murder, for example, whether or not they do it is something entirely different. When you think in pieces you scare yourself more than anyone ever could.

I get your point Aida, but I ask you; did any of those others ADMIT in a PUBLIC way that they might have that right to do such a thing? It is in that context I am asking the question.

"If this were a Republican President he would be a hero." Yeah, because Bush's approval rating of 22% showed what a hero he was. Do you really think it would have gone up if he stated that he had the power to drone-bomb American citizens?

OH Taskr he was at the time though. Very few even bothered to question him. Sorry If you think my point is lame. I kind of think the point that Republicans continue want to do the same thing is lame. Even though they lost the election. Cut taxes and reduce spending. They have not learned anything else. WE all know that point of view.

I think there is a few ways this could go. I think your Bush point is fair but would it be the same point if Romney made this decision? Maybe we need arch rivals in the White House maybe it makes people see more clearly. Just saying I did not hear this over Iraq. Granted maybe we just learned our lessons. I am just going to leave it their though. No need to have a battle over past ramifications.

God help us all, cause it's obvious we down here don't have the solution.

"Both the Justice Department and the White House have said the President does not have that authority." They said that AFTER Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster informing the American public that Obama and his justice department refused to say they did not have that authority. Prior to that Eric Holder actually claimed they DID have that authority. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/holder-yep-obama-could-kill-americans-u-soil-213059085--politics.html "Nobody got excited when Bush used drones." There were people, like myself, who didn't like the way Bush used drones. Of course Bush wasn't using them to target and kill American citizens who were not charged with any crimes. Only Obama has done that. Of course Obama's spokesman said it's ok to kill a 16 year old American who was never charged with or accused of a crime because he should have chosen a more responsible father. His American citizen father had been killed weeks earlier by a separate drone strike. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/07/rand-paul/rand-paul-challenges-obama-spokesmans-comment-son-/ "Bush explicitly said that if he decided to do something, that made it legal." Really? Please link me to a video of him saying that. In absence of a video I would be happy to read an article by a reputable media outlet, no blogs, quoting him as saying that. Personally, I think you're just getting him mixed up with Nixon.

We have been made afraid, very afraid. And yes, both parties have been complacent in this fear mongering since 9/11. We're so afraid, we are actually making excuses for those who are putting in place laws, regulations and executive orders, a way to kill us... and we are accepting their authority to do so because we want to feel safe. We are being told it is for our own good, that they are only trying to protect us from the evil 'terrorist'. Meanwhile, our government sends money and arms to jihadist regimes. Meanwhile our government makes lists of 'dangerous' groups whom they have to control so we will be safe, that do not include ONE actual terrorist jihadist group. Lists full of names of those who are politically dangerous to their POWER. Lists that are full of conservative groups, and patriotic citizens who are raising alarm bells over government grabs at power, but NO JIHADISTS? Just who are the terrorists, is it American citizens who disagree with government or the guy who shoots 12 of his fellow soldiers while crying out ALLAH AKBAR? Ask yourself why a man who had personal contact with terrorists and then shoots up an army base killing soldiers is NOT being called a terrorist by the White House. Instead, list of those who disagree with current White House policy are placed on 'domestic terror' watch lists'? While we sit and bicker over who is more guilty of passing these laws, we are doing nothing to challenge their actual 'right' to make such laws no matter what PARTY they belong to. I don't personally CARE which party did it first, which president will actually do it in the future. I care about WHY they are making the laws, passing the regs and signing the executive orders.

Actually, the libertarian and conservative part of the right would have squawk on this. I do not see any of the left squawking.

If Bush had said this, then you'd have to switch your question around as someone would ask where the republicans were on this. Then again would that just be republicans showing their true colors? The left would have revolted if Bush said this. The right would have kept silent and vice versa. Both sides are just as corrupt on the others. No need to split hairs like the politicians do.

That should be "Both sides are just as corrupt as the other side." Didn't realize I accidentally deleted part of the sentence and kept typing. I have an over sensitive mouse pad on my laptop.

Lot of innuendo there, and some of it likely true. Some things which are plain is that government loves to grow in leaps and bounds.. Roosevelt, who added lots of initial branches, FHA, FICA, and like half a dozen more(?) was a republican but then the left adopted it all, beginning with Woodrow Wilson.. Nowadays, it seems the left wants to grow government in leaps and bounds, and the right will too but slightly more benign and not quite so malignantly (akA, overgrown to, imho, strangling stage)

Interesting the opposite view point on transparency at least on this one subject. You don't think if they would just make things clear all in shot, people's fears would be put at ease. I hear even the left wing media does not know the rules of this in totality. Maybe your second point already answered my question but just to make sure. Are you saying, "people can't handle the truth?"

@flowerchilde: They both want to grow the government. The question is how? It is just like people who think that one side wont spend as much as the other. No, it is just about what that side deems important enough to spend stuff on. I don't buy into the whole "right will too but slightly more benign and not quite so malignantly". I just think they will be less transparent in doing so in order for the people not to know. @crossbones: All the transparency does is make the people aware of the fact our government has been corrupt for a very very long time. Unfortunately, they are just now noticing it so..... it is this big shock to them. So you asked "Are you saying 'people can't handle the truth'?" That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Would there be this much outrage and such if they could? Every former democratic and republican president knew the people couldn't handle the truth and so I don't know what on earth Obama was thinking when he thought they could.