TMF

K, then why bring up that the SCOTUS has ruled on it when someone says its unconstitutional? Seems like any normal person would interpret that as an argument you're making in favor of the SCOTUS and against us below average folk who interpret the Constitution literally rather than figuratively.

  It's like an orgy of stupid. 

  Iran has already shown their committment by sending a brigade sized element to support Assad.  Russia doesn't need to do much in the way of further support; they already provide them with all the weapons they need to keep it going.   Some real irony here is the Chinese.  Many of the equalizing weapons the Syrian opposition have been using were sold to the Saudis from China and are being supplied to the "rebels" from Saudiya.  Most notable are the guided anti-tank missle systems which have crippled Assad's armor capability.  Also wreaking havoc are those Chinese .50 cal sniper systems. 

So it looks like the excuse the libs are using on this is that by not intervening when chemical weapons are used it opens up the door to them being used with impunity by other rogue regimes in the future.  Of course the answer to that is, "so what?"   Not to be callous, but seriously, why do we need to enforce international law?  I don't understand why we would be the world's police on this one, especially when no other country is willing to get involved other than us, and WE aren't even willing to get involved; just the merry band of libtards who worship their lord and savior Obama.    I was watching All In with that little smarmy ultra liberal who looks like a more lesbian version of Rachel Madcow and couldn't believe what I was hearing.  The same libtard who accused Bush of an illegal war (which it wasn't) and being a war criminal is beating the drums claiming that Obama is right for military action.  WTF?  I'm convinced that Obama could execute an infant and these idiots would still support him.  I actually found myself agreeing with a Democrat on Chris Matthews when he said that international law can not be enforced on an individual nation by another individual nation.  It must be a multinational response.  We don't have that.    I continue to be amazed at my own naivity when it comes to Obama.  I always say "there's no way Obama will do that" and he proves me wrong every time.  It's looking like military intervention, to include ground troops is going to happen.  Hold on to your hats.  Unlike Iraq, the vast majority of Americans know this is not worth it before it even begins.    Here is some opining by Rand Paul on how and why he is going to vote:   http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/

  I don't see how it's semantics.  There is a big difference between a private entity enforcing their standards so that you may access a private service.  Yes, airports are the ones providing the security, but the airport should be nothing but a coop for the airlines; each paying their rent for terminal gates and providing appropriate security.  I don't even have an issue with there being an industry standard or the private security agency cooperating with the gov in terms of intelligence sharing for the sake of force protection.  The disconnect comes where Constitution comes in to play.  The gov is not supposed to be the gate keepers for going from one place to another.  That is some communist crap.

Negative. I don't think the gov should have any right to search me before going on an airplane. I had no problem when airport security was private, as airlines are private. If a private entity wants to search me before entering their establishment that is their call to make. The government doing it is called a violation of my rights.

I'm not debating that at all. A license isn't a right, so the fact they can revoke it because you wouldn't submit to a breathalyzer when suspected of being under the influence is not a problem for me whatsoever. My argument revolves around the theory that it is constitutional to stop someone to investigate a crime that has not been committed or suspected of being committed, all under the excuse of driving not being a right. I see the problem between that and the 4th Amendment. If an officer suspects me of committing a crime, such as DUI then he has PC, right? But if I'm just driving home and have not committed any moving violation, nor have I been so much SUSPECTED of committing a moving violation, how on God's green Earth is it okay for the government to demand answers? Why can't I just ignore the officers and be on my way? I haven't committed a crime, nor been suspected of committing a crime, nor has my vehicle been identified to officers as exhibiting drunken driving indicators..... so what justified reason does any officer have for detaining me for an investigation? I shouldn't be required to say anything. I should just be able to ask why I'm being detained. I'm not defending the YouTube warriors here. I'm not gonna give a cop a hard time while he's doing his job and working within what he had been taught are the rules, but I will never accept that compulsory interaction with officers when I am in no way involved with a crime (neither a participant or witness to) is constitutional. It ain't, end of story.

Maybe, but I don't see that being enforced. Strapping an AR across your chest and walking into a movie theater is going to be interpreted much different than someone with a secured and holstered weapon.

Well, we did decimate al Qaeda in Afghanistan; they are no longer using it as a base of operations and their relationship with the Taliban is non-existent to any significant degree. The problem is we decided to "nation build" and get involved in the war with the Taliban. That is the reason we can't get out, because you can't polish a turd and we can't definitively destroy an idea; especially since we can't go into Waziristan. It's never just the tip.

They'll probably have it thrown out whether they had a good lawyer or a crappy one. But why go through all the hassle? For what? This doesn't advance any rights, it doesn't educate the public; it only scares soccer moms as they walk their two kids into a Starbucks. They have every reason to be concerned/frightened since there is no legitimate reason to be carrying around a long gun; the first instinct is to believe them active shooters. At least there is an argument for OC and the firearm is secure in a holster.

You say that, yet you counter arguments of folks who say they are not constitutional by saying the SCOTUS already ruled on it, suggesting that the benchmark for what is or isn't constitutional is the SCOTUS opinion.

And if weren't for the irresponsibility of people who live unhealthy lives but won't carry health insurance....

I don't think it was as simplistic as that at all. Unwise? Yes. Evil? No, I don't think so at all. On paper is was a great idea which didn't take into account many existing fractures and was executed poorly based on directives from the State Dept.

Dogs don't know what cars are. Dogs left to roam the streets and get hit by cars have abusive care takers.

My wife just picked up the 10th dog this year that was just left to run around on its own. Running down a busy road, to collar and covered with fleas. One would think these dogs are abandoned, but we usually find the owner after we go through all the work to track them down. People who don't take care of their pets are some of the worst people out there. Almost as bad as people who don't take care of their kids. They depend on you for crying out loud! So now if anyone wants a Pomeranian/Pekingese mix in Clarksville this one is free. We ain't looking for the irresponsible owners. I'm tired of this sh**.

We should stop complaining about unconstitutional gun legislation too.

Haha, this is exactly what came to mind!

Bet he thought he was quite the tough guy up until that night.  What a puss.

  How is that apples and oranges?  If you're saying that it's apples and oranges because they are both fruits, sold similarly yet representing different sources of nutrition I guess I could see that.  You're saying that small slights against the Constitution are "okay" because of the irresponsible actions of the few.  Why would that only apply to the 4th Amendment and not the 2nd Amendment?   I'll argue that both Amendments have been attacked for that very purpose, yet you support one and not the other.... because one strikes more emotion with you than the other?  I dunno, could you explain that better?  I don't think there is a single person reading through your logic who agrees with you.

  I was gonna finally drink the Kool Aid but there was none left.  It looks like someone drank it all.

There were boots on the ground in Afghanistan within a couple of days after 9/11.

At some point we all have committed to defending our family's life with deadly force if the need arises. I'm not afraid to say that; it's the truth. In fact, there are even laws which support it. I'd be worried about it if I lived in New York. Once again, not too concerned with a home invasion anyway. My neighborhood has yet to have one, they'd have a 135 db alarm screaming at them as soon as they breached with the knowledge that CPD will be there soon. Add on to that they would have an attack dog attempting or succeeding in ripping an arm off. There are many layers of security.

That is a very accurate assessment. The emotional spectrum of Arab culture does not allow them to rationalize alliances for the advancement of a cause. The reason is because it requires compromising small bits of their agenda in order to meet their goals, such as the removal of Assad. Arabs aren't capable of compromise. It's their way or Allah snackbar. This is why I believe this will go on for the next decade or more. On the bright side, there is an over abundance of single Syrian ladies flooding southern Turkey and N. Jordan. Ya just got to house break them and you're GTG.

Sure did. Always saw myself marrying a nice redneck girl; even had one picked out and everything. Turns out they ain't all that nice. There's something about the sweet innocence of a liberal Yankee that sees the world through rose colored glasses. Don't ever want her to lose that.

[quote name="MacGyver" post="1026338" timestamp="1378234804"] As was put forth by an Arab ambassador last week, "There has to be some additional motivation for the Obama administration to act now. I mean, excuse me, but where the f*** was your outrage over the last year as more than 100,000 people were killed? Why the outrage now over an additional 1,000? He must have some other strategic objective."[/quote] I would like to believe so because if there was a massive conspiracy going on here I might actually respect him more. The real reason he's doing this is much more sickening; his ego. He can't let go of his "red line" threat. He has to do something to save face. If he hadn't had made that comment prior to the gas attack he'd probably not be pushing for a strike. He's trying to make it look like he means what he says. He'll go so far as to drag us into a conflict just because he doesn't want to look bad. Can you think of a more shallow reason to start a war? Hell, if this was about money or oil at least I could understand that.