How I got my Republican father to come out against the Al-Alwaki assassination

[Cutlerzzz]

I had talked to him the day of the assassination, and he was a strong supporter. Today I called him, and asked him "What do you think about Mexico"? He asked "What about Mexico"? I then told him "Mexico sent some kind of outdated drone into the middle of Arizona and killed a suspected drug leader without any warning". Naturally, he was outraged. I then let him know that I made up the story about Mexico sending a drone into US soil, and asked him to differentiate the scenario I made up, with the real life scenario where the US killed a bad guy in Yemen without warning. After thinking about it for a minute, he realized that it would be wrong to assassinate someone in a foreign country without any warning.

Then I talked to him more in depth about the implications of the President being able to assassinate an American citizen without warning or congressional approval, anywhere around the world at any time, if he is deemed a "threat" by the President.

He is now completely against assassinations in foreign countries, without a declaration of war.

[acptulsa]

Good job. IOU rep.

[jmdrake]

Good job. IOU rep.

I got you covered! Seriously folks, this is how we win, one voter at a time. We won't win by "hoping" that Ron won't be Ron. We've got to embrace who he is (that's why we love him) and engage people on the right and the left who don't yet see the world as it really is.

[bunklocoempire]

Cutlerzzz you sneak!! Nice one!

And congratulations.:)



Bunkloco

[Cutlerzzz]

I got you covered! Seriously folks, this is how we win, one voter at a time. We won't win by "hoping" that Ron won't be Ron. We've got to embrace who he is (that's why we love him) and engage people on the right and the left who don't yet see the world as it really is.Agreed. Talk to whoever is willing to listen, one at a time. Of course, if you get the option to talk to many people at once, that works too.

[bluesc]

It was that easy huh :)? Good job man. Educating one at a time. This is encouraging for the debates when he is asked about it.

+rep

[wannaberocker]

Nice way of explaining it.

I guess im lucky in a sense that my whole family just believes what i tell um. They dont listen to the 24/7 news, they just ask me whats going on. WHen it comes time to vote, i tell um who to vote for and they vote for that person lol. My family trusts me with the right choice.

[John F Kennedy III]

Nice way of explaining it.

I guess im lucky in a sense that my whole family just believes what i tell um. They dont listen to the 24/7 news, they just ask me whats going on. WHen it comes time to vote, i tell um who to vote for and they vote for that person lol. My family trusts me with the right choice.

Good thing you support Dr. Paul :p

[hillertexas]

Today I called him, and asked him "What do you think about Mexico"? He asked "What about Mexico"? I then told him "Mexico sent some kind of outdated drone into the middle of Arizona and killed a suspected drug leader without any warning". Naturally, he was outraged. I then let him know that I made up the story about Mexico sending a drone into US soil, and asked him to differentiate the scenario I made up, with the real life scenario where the US killed a bad guy in Yemen without warning.

brilliant

[TonySutton]

Imagine! Any video makers out there willing to make an imagine video about this?

Imagine the missile missed, hitting a house and killing the Americans inside? Imagine Mexico stating that collateral damage happens and that the deaths are worth the chance of killing the drug lord...

Please someone make a video!

[Bruno]

great job, and + rep to you!

As an added zinger, we could all share a similar story with our friends, and include, "Three innocent people in the area were killed, including two children, and seven more injured while attending a baptism. They said it was an unfortunate casualty of the War on Drugs, but that it would not prevent future drone attacks of known drug dealers operating on American soil."

[wannaberocker]

Good thing you support Dr. Paul :p

Well i shouldnt make my family sound like total ignorant boobs. They of course understand the basic and agree with me on the baisic. They just dont have time to deal with to much details of whats going on everyday. So that is the part i fill them in on, when they ask.

[Cutlerzzz]

Imagine! Any video makers out there willing to make an imagine video about this?

Imagine the missile missed, hitting a house and killing the Americans inside? Imagine Mexico stating that collateral damage happens and that the deaths are worth the chance of killing the drug lord...

Please someone make a video!Somehow, Mark Levin would tell us that is different, and that we're anti-American for suggesting that it's similar.

[lucent]

A fake local news report with good acting and design could have a very large impact.

[Cutlerzzz]

I had talked to him the day of the assassination, and he was a strong supporter. Today I called him, and asked him "What do you think about Mexico"? He asked "What about Mexico"? I then told him "Mexico sent some kind of outdated drone into the middle of Arizona and killed a suspected drug leader without any warning". Naturally, he was outraged. I then let him know that I made up the story about Mexico sending a drone into US soil, and asked him to differentiate the scenario I made up, with the real life scenario where the US killed a bad guy in Yemen without warning. After thinking about it for a minute, he realized that it would be wrong to assassinate someone in a foreign country without any warning.

Then I talked to him more in depth about the implications of the President being able to assassinate an American citizen without warning or congressional approval, anywhere around the world at any time, if he is deemed a "threat" by the President.

He is now completely against assassinations in foreign countries, without a declaration of war.Maybe Paul should have tried using this in the debate? With Newt's "You can't compare Chinese dissidents to terrorist" comment.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe Paul should have tried using this in the debate? With Newt's "You can't compare Chinese dissidents to terrorist" comment.

He has tried things similar to that before.

[Cutlerzzz]

I had talked to him the day of the assassination, and he was a strong supporter. Today I called him, and asked him "What do you think about Mexico"? He asked "What about Mexico"? I then told him "Mexico sent some kind of outdated drone into the middle of Arizona and killed a suspected drug leader without any warning". Naturally, he was outraged. I then let him know that I made up the story about Mexico sending a drone into US soil, and asked him to differentiate the scenario I made up, with the real life scenario where the US killed a bad guy in Yemen without warning. After thinking about it for a minute, he realized that it would be wrong to assassinate someone in a foreign country without any warning.

Then I talked to him more in depth about the implications of the President being able to assassinate an American citizen without warning or congressional approval, anywhere around the world at any time, if he is deemed a "threat" by the President.

He is now completely against assassinations in foreign countries, without a declaration of war.Maybe Paul should have tried using this in the debate? With Newt's "You can't compare Chinese dissidents to terrorist" comment.

[Cutlerzzz]

How did I double post with a 14 minute interval? I have never seen that happen before.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you ignoring my comment?

EDIT: I guess you answered that. lol

[bunklocoempire]

Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz
I had talked to him the day of the assassination, and he was a strong supporter. Today I called him, and asked him "What do you think about Mexico"? He asked "What about Mexico"? I then told him "Mexico sent some kind of outdated drone into the middle of Arizona and killed a suspected drug leader without any warning". Naturally, he was outraged. I then let him know that I made up the story about Mexico sending a drone into US soil, and asked him to differentiate the scenario I made up, with the real life scenario where the US killed a bad guy in Yemen without warning. After thinking about it for a minute, he realized that it would be wrong to assassinate someone in a foreign country without any warning.

Then I talked to him more in depth about the implications of the President being able to assassinate an American citizen without warning or congressional approval, anywhere around the world at any time, if he is deemed a "threat" by the President.

He is now completely against assassinations in foreign countries, without a declaration of war.

Maybe Paul should have tried using this in the debate? With Newt's "You can't compare Chinese dissidents to terrorist" comment.

Perhaps.

But from what I've seen of Newt, that slimeball has an out or a twist for everything. That Chinese dissident example that Paul was using wasn't about a 'dissident' situation, it was about throwing international law out the window. Just like that other debate where Newt hoodwinked thousands with his Timothy McVeigh 'gotcha moment'. MSM and sheep see this as debating, it isn't debating as Newt plays, as Newt plays it it's lying and avoiding the real issue.

Hard to debate a liar in a forum/medium that doesn't promote honest debating. Newts premise is that certain scary situations call for ignoring all warnings of human nature, Paul's premise is that the warnings our founders gave us of human nature trump any 'scary' situations. Paul is correct.

Human nature doesn't change, yet 'scary situations' are a dime a dozen. Newt isn't likely to tell his audience that, neither is the MSM/TPTB.

Good job with your dad!!:)

[Cutlerzzz]

He has tried things similar to that before.

He has not used drug cartels though. Other than Mexico being too poor to have cruise missiles, what I wrote doesn't even sound that unrealistic, where as China is so far away that it seems hard to conceptualize a Chinese attack on the US. Not to mention, Newt defended the Chinese dissident but would be unable to do the same for the drug cartel (who is as bad as Al Qaeda).


Are you ignoring my comment?

EDIT: I guess you answered that. lol

Yes.


Perhaps.

But from what I've seen of Newt, that slimeball has an out or a twist for everything. That Chinese dissident example that Paul was using wasn't about a 'dissident' situation, it was about throwing international law out the window. Just like that other debate where Newt hoodwinked thousands with his Timothy McVeigh 'gotcha moment'. MSM and sheep see this as debating, it isn't debating as Newt plays, as Newt plays it it's lying and avoiding the real issue.

Hard to debate a liar in a forum/medium that doesn't promote honest debating. Newts premise is that certain scary situations call for ignoring all warnings of human nature, Paul's premise is that the warnings our founders gave us of human nature trump any 'scary' situations. Paul is correct.

Human nature doesn't change, yet 'scary situations' are a dime a dozen. Newt isn't likely to tell his audience that, neither is the MSM/TPTB.

Good job with your dad!!:)

Still, I think that a Mexican Drug Cartel leader would be an easier comparison to make than a random Chinese dissident.