Rochard

And you have a problem with this: "The activities of customer due diligence that financial institutions and other regulated companies must perform to identify their clients and ascertain relevant information pertinent to doing financial business with them".

In other words, if a bank is laundering money for terrorists, they could be held accountable. Sounds fucking reasonable to me.

Awesome.

The Constitution states we have the right to free speech, and that "Congress can make no laws" limiting this. But that's never been true, has it? You can't protest on my front lawn at 3am; Your trespassing and disturbing the peace. In some cases, you also need a permit for a large group of people.

Frankly, when there are security issues involved, there are and must be limitations on protesting and freedom of speech. If ten thousand people suddenly storm my home town "protesting" and breaking windows and setting fire to cars, yeah, there needs to be some limitations.

I'm okay with this, but mostly because I don't want people protesting on my front lawn at 3am.

Your calling it an "undeclared war of aggression". I'm calling it a police action.

My father died in a "military police action" when I was nine months old.

We do not need to declare war in order to engage our military. And this is rather obvious; The President of the United States does not need to declare war on a foreign nation so he can order the US Navy to take out a small boat of pirates off the coast of Africa. Past presidents of the United States has ordered the US Armed Forces into military action hundreds of times...

You can't compare this to "rape" by saying "yeah rape happens big deal". The difference is rape is illegal, the President ordering the US military into combat without a formal declaration of war is perfectly legal.

Obama hasn't made it a police to hit a target, wait for "hospital and rescue workers", and then intentionally strikes again. It's not like Obama has his finger on the trigger or is even ordering anyone to shoot. Maybe he signed off on an order saying "If you can get this guy, nail him" and then a month later they got the chance and went for it.

More than likely they shot at the target and decided quickly on a follow up strike to ensure they hit the target AND killed him. Use some common sense here - They might be smart bombs and what not, but they are messy.

And when bombs start dropping out of the sky, I'm not running towards the area hit, but away from it. It's just common sense. If they launched one missile at at target, chances are there is more incoming.

Read this very carefully... I don't give a shit.

What country did Pakistan invade for us to be bombing them? Your kidding, right? I'll give you one name that gives the US carte blanche to do whatever we want in Pakistan. We trusted the government of Pakistan so much we didn't even tell him we knew where he was, no less did we tell them we were violating their air space to launch a military attack on their land - right next to a fucking military base of all places.

You bitch about illegal wars of aggression; We violated intentional law by launching a military strike into a "friendly" nation. Obama signed the order and watched it all go down. Pakistan is welcome to file any fucking complaints it wants.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION