Posted on 10/07/2011 9:02:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing
You are aware that France -- our ally -- was actually occupied by an enemy power? Or were you not aware of that?
You are aware that German soldiers were uniformed combatants, who therefore under the US code could not qualify as US citizens, even if they had once been; I'll venture a guess that you were not actually aware of that fact, because you also seem to be unaware that...
... the President of the United States did not order US air strikes to kill particular Germans in France from a list.
You also seem to be unaware that you still haven't posted a serious reply. Here's a clue your content-free post doesn't entitle you to, but I'm a charitable person: Impugning someone's capacity may be considered a serious response among gamers, but it generally isn't on FR.
Now, do as you were instructed, and come back when you actually have a point to make.
Look, you posted "He was killed in a country we are not at war with, so the President's war making power has dubious applicability", implying that the presidents war making power does not apply to killing an enemy if he is "in a country we are not at war with". I posted "So I guess it was wrong for us to kill Germans in France?" where we killed enemies "in a country we are not at war with". See, it's simple. Either the Presidents war making power does extend to enemies "in a country we are not at war with" in which case attacking Germans in France was OK, or, as you stated, the presidents war making power does not extend to killing enemies "in a country we are not at war with", in which case it was not OK for us to kill Germans in France.
That is logic. You then went into a tirade about your father, FDR and other things that were not part of your statement about the presidents war making powers in a country we are not at war with.
That is not logic.
We’ve got an amateur in the White House now...why would I want another one?
LOL. That's funny. I understand it's the only way for you to possibly assert that the GOP field isn't weak. It's just a funny thing to see. It's so...ridiculous.
In the whitehouse right now is a machine politician with no experience in the real world.
We need neither of those....
With Cain you have extreme knowledge in leadership and business skills and a well versed individual in the art of gettin your point across.
He is everything but an amateur...!
Cain said in an interview last week that he would not be a VP to Perry but he would to socilaist Romney.
The supporters of him need to realize that although they are angry at Perry for many good reasons, Cain presents serious problems more along the lines of Romney.
I think the covering is starting to come off of him. When he said what he said about the VP thing...instead of his supporters being horrified of him saying Romney...they were thrilled he was slapping Perry. I mean how dumb is that?
Conservatives need to stop the mindless adoration idiocy and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. None are perfect. All are international elitists. Except for Michelle and she’s lost what she had going.
I can imagine what the Left will do with Cain - a man who served on the Federal Reserve. He’ll be tagged a bankster. A CEO - a rich guy. Every Democrat who ever worked for him will be paraded out to slander him as an uncaring, evil, rich corporate guy.
Conservatives need to weigh this decision with an open and focused mind. American voters need to swear off the habit and mentality that resulted in Palin worship and Obama worship. These fools running for our vote deserve to be treated like snake oil salesmen -not the Messiah.
It sounds to me that Cain has fallen for the “you can’t force your values on me” lie of the left, where what is morally good is declared a mere value, and what is often repugnant is declared a right.
Abortion cannot be a right because it involves the taking of life, and the Constitution was written for ourselves and our posterity - this includes people in the womb.
Gay marriage cannot be a right, because it means a changing of religion by law. What one wants to do cannot be a right when it is at the expense of others. Cain needs to learn this truth, or at least be able to articulate it better.
France, an ally of the United States, was occupied by Germany, an enemy of the United States. Killing uniformed, anonymous Germans in a declared war in that circumstance has NO ANALOGY to killing a specific American citizen in a country allied with the United States that is not under occupation by our enemies. Examine this carefully. There is actually NOT one point of common intersection between those two circumstances. Your pathetic attempt at an "analogy," lacks any kind of "logical" construction whatsoever.
There was no "tirade" about FDR or anyone else. I can report on good authority, because my father was there, that the President of the US did not issue orders to kill specific Germans who were US citizens, by name, in France at any time during WWII. Again, for those who genuinely understand syllogism, this sets the circumstances of your analogy, and establishes why it is false. For those who don't, but think they're "logical:" does the word "DUH" mean anything to you?
Logic: Please don't try it at home if you don't understand it.
Be comforted then, for no mind reading is required. Perry's exact words are: "... I don't think you have a heart." This does not differ in any meaningful way from the sentence: "... I think you are heartless." "-less" is a common English suffix, the meaning of which is "lacking, or not possessing." If you were unfamiliar with this suffix, I apologize; many people in Texas apparently do not speak English as their native language.
Your ire is misdirected. It should be directed at a supposed Republican who reduced himself to spouting a Democrat talking point. This isn't about compassion or the lack of it. It's about not giving illegals any more incentive to stay here than they already have, and not name calling those who disagree with those who do.
Oh well, if your father didn't know about any such orders than they must not have existed.
You are a nut!
You are correct in observing, however, that your own post demolishes your laughable thesis that Perry didn't call anyone heartless.
I merely took the time to point that out to you, and you're apparently intelligent enough to recognize that you managed to refute yourself; I am encouraged.
As for Perry, he's finished.
A person is heartless IF AND ONLY IF he has no heart. The two are identical in every English usage of the words. You appear to want to excuse this with some inane piffle about how Perry never used THE EXACT WORD "heartless." OK... he used three words, which MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. So, in fact, he not ONLY DID call detractors of his policy "heartless," but in addition, he managed to do so with the same lack of word-economy for which Texas politicians have become famous on the national stage.
Congratulations. At least Bush sent out one of his (more articulate) flunkies to call conservatives bigots when they disagreed with his immigration policy.
Go away little associate. You’re rehashing something settled between others days ago. Either show me where Perry said the word “heartless” or don’t put quotes around it. That was and consistently has been my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.