Tearing it up on Huff Post again. This time defending Ron Paul to a Neo-Con who only 'mostly' disagrees with Obomber

milford2011 wrote:
"even though i disagree with OBAMA on most of his policies i must say by all rights that i support OBAMA for the call to go after BIN LADEN as well as this other TERRORIST,­i made this promise when He was elected & i kept it to the best of my abilities that THE GOOD LORD gave me. my question is - how many people within the DEMOCRATIC PARTY would have supported BUSH if he gave these orders to have these SPINELESS COCKROACHE­S killed, i think this deserves an honest answer."

I responded with:
"I disagree with Obummer on this issue. The terrorist was a U.S. citizen and should have first been tried, en absentia, for treason and revoked of citizenship. Then killed this cockroach with a drone attack. Ron Paul never disagreed that Anwar was a terrorist, and in all likelihood he was, Ron Paul disagreed with the way it was conducted. This was an assassination, plain and simple. He should had his citizenship taken away at the very least or have been more transparent as Gary Johnson said. As much as the liberals condemn 'King George' for abusing his powers, it really confuses me that they allow the same, if not worse abuses from 'the messiah.' Liberals today are akin to the cards from Alice in Wonderland when the Queen of Hearts yells out "Off with his head!" Liberals are supposed to be against wars, right?... But it's okay if our guy does it."