235 replies to this topic

[Tiggs]

spartan max2, on 07 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Listen to rand actually speak. He agrees with the exceptional case. The problem is the president will not give a straight forward answer to the question and that there are no guidlines to dictate what an "exceptional" case is.

No-one fifteen years ago would have imagined that an exceptional case would be flying civilian aircraft into buildings. Exceptional, by definition, is something that is not currently legislated for.

Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means.

[Tiggs]

acidhead, on 07 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Drone strike usually kill multiple individuals.

You think that an F-15 taking out a civilian airliner doesn't?

No-one in their right mind would ever order either, if there were any other available options.

[pallidin]

Tiggs, on 07 March 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means.

Very much correct, in my opinion.

[Rocketgirl]

I wonder how long it will be before our government starts killing it's citizens for sport. I can't believe that we live in a world like this where governments go after their own people just because it feels like it. It's not right and I'm tried of it. Something needs to change.

[acidhead]

Rocketgirl, on 07 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

I wonder how long it will be before our government starts killing it's citizens for sport. I can't believe that we live in a world like this where governments go after their own people just because it feels like it. It's not right and I'm tried of it. Something needs to change.

The more things change the more they stay the same.  The current people who idolize Odrama don't seem to get it yet.  He's one of them.  He's a Bush 2.0

[acidhead]

Politics is pro-wrestling for people who think they're smart. Democrats now invoke 911 to justify the president's action. Same
old good guy/bad guy flip-flop roles.  Might as well put Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage in there.  --Cameron Day

[Yamato]

acidhead, on 07 March 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

The more things change the more they stay the same.  The current people who idolize Odrama don't seem to get it yet.  He's one of them.  He's a Bush 2.0

Yeah it's a function that can be mathematically modeled by the sine function.  Temporary peaks and troughs that always return to the same value in time.

Two parties wearing different costumes that are permanently either complacent or complaining depending on who's in charge, all the while the bipartisanship that defines them both is believed to be the wise consensus in the middle.  

I used to think they differed in spending priorities, but the more I see how horrible our policymakers really are, the more I see it's just a matter of moving their snouts to the side so another pig can stick his maw into the trough.

[Babe Ruth]

More and more as time goes on, I'm growing more and more respect for Rand Paul.  In all the good ways, he's in the same mold as his father.

[Jeremiah65]

I watched several hours on and off.  It’s hard to put the huge importance of the basic question into perspective.  

Considering that at this point, an executive assassination order can be called on anyone “suspected” of being a threat…and the list of definitions on who or what can be a threat…is down right scary.  Stockpiling food?  Stockpiling weapons and ammo?  Missing a finger?  You might be a threat according to this administration.

But the basic question is a very simple and extraordinarily deep one…

Does this administration think it has the authority to use deadly force against American citizens on American soil without a trial?

Regardless what Rand may have done in the past, this is a very important question and we deserve to know the Executive office's thoughts on this issue.

I was not happy when Rand endorsed Romney btw…but that has nothing to do with my support for what he did yesterday.

If you have not done so, I would ask all that appreciated what Rand did for us to go to his .gov website and send him a thank you email showing your support for what he did.

Rand Paul's Senate webpage

We the People… need to show our support and gratitude when these rare kinds of things happen and maybe they won't be so rare anymore.

[Yamato]

Does this administration think it has have the authority to use deadly force against American citizens on American soil without a trial?

If people think the answer to this question is yes, what don't they think the government has the authority to do to us?  What the hell's left?

[Clyde the Glyde]

acidhead, on 07 March 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

The more things change the more they stay the same.  The current people who idolize Odrama don't seem to get it yet.  He's one of them.  He's a Bush 2.0

That is what makes me so mad about our political system. The only reason that Democrats are not up in arms over drone strikes is because Rand is a Republican and their party  ( Obama & Holder ) are Democrats saying it's okay. Flip the rolls and they would be on the other side of the issue. ( IMO anyway )   Prime examples are The Patriot Act and Gitmo.

I'm not just pointing fingers at Democrats. Republicans have been equally guilty of this.

Instead of  being on the side of Right over Wrong,  it's siding with which party is for it and which is against it.

[Yamato]

Does either party really represent so many people so accurately?  Where are the individuals?   I don't understand how the parties get the support they do.  There probably isn't one person on this entire website that's an admittedly enthusiastic party lover either republican or democrat, and yet every election we have continues to prove we have no more than two choices on the ballot - paper or plastic.  

And I don't want to accidentally imply that paper means it's paid for and plastic means it's not.  I just mean the choice we have is between two different types of bags to carry around the exact same crap inside of either way.

Partisans judge the book by its cover because it's the only thing that changes in the story.

[Jeremiah65]

Yamato, on 07 March 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Does this administration think it has have the authority to use deadly force against American citizens on American soil without a trial?

If people think the answer to this question is yes, what don't they think the government has the authority to do to us?  What the hell's left?

I like your strike through.  I said "think it has" because though I am not a Constitutional Scholar...the Constitution is very clear on this...No...they do not have the authority regardless what they might "think".  The Bill of rights is not something you can arbitrarily cast aside for your convenience.  It applies to all American Citizens, all the time (well, when they are on American soil anyway)..."off of American soil" is a topic that I also think deserves serious study, review and debate.

But that can come after we clearly establish the fact that the Executive Branch cannot assassinate American citizens on American Soil without a formal charge and a trial.

Edited by Jeremiah65, 07 March 2013 - 04:45 PM.

[Clyde the Glyde]

Yamato, on 07 March 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Does either party really represent so many people so accurately?  Where are the individuals?   I don't understand how the parties get the support they do.  There probably isn't one person on this entire website that's an admittedly enthusiastic party lover either republican or democrat, and yet every election we have continues to prove we have no more than two choices on the ballot - paper or plastic.  

And I don't want to accidentally imply that paper means it's paid for and plastic means it's not.  I just mean the choice we have is between two different types of bags to carry around the exact same crap inside of either way.

Partisans judge the book by its cover because it's the only thing that changes in the story.

I think those individuals are fewer than we think. I know people myself who walk into the ballot booth and pull the lever for every Republican. Doesn't matter who they are or what they've done. Straight ticket top to bottom. And I know many Libs who defend every single decision Obama has made. Heck, the man could kick a dog and they'd find a way to defend his actions ( or blame Bush )

That's why Rand ( and his dad ) are a breath of fresh air.   And I gave credit to Dennis Kucinich too. He often said what he thought, regardless of his party's view.

And even though many people ( especially the Republican elite ) don't like the Tea Party, they're probably the only group responsible for us not having major taxes already breaking our backs. I have no doubt that the main-stream Republican party would have caved long ago.

[F3SS]

Holy smokes! Van Jones says Rand is the man for his filibuster. He tweeted that at #hatetoadmitit, lol. http://www.theblaze....ously-you-wont/
Now, have any democrat leaders stepped forward in support yet? I seen D- Dick Durban on the floor last night. He used the 9/11 fighter jet taking down the passenger planes scenario to see if he could pull a gotcha moment even though if he'd have paid any attention all day he'd have known that was talked about several times already. Well everyone was in agreeance with that scenario which satisfied Dick who conceded to agree with Rands filibuster and said that he is correct in his demand for particular written answers as to the constitutionality of the drone situation. So I was happy to hear that.
Anyone pick up that the only time AG Holder uttered the word 'constitutional' was when Barracks limited authority was questioned (admittedly i forget the content of the question) but couldn't utter the words yes/no/constitutional when asked about the legality of drone strikes. Just a lot of pussyfooting around with no direct answer. As Rand kept saying, it shouldn't be that hard and take that long for the President of the United States of America to confirm wether something is or isn't constitutional. Yea I know that's the M.O. Of this administration but they really have to come forth with specifics. If they don't, then what? We have an official dictatorship? Seems like it.