| Author |
Message |
|
HawkGA
|
Post subject: Rand Paul  Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:41 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm
Posts: 1564
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Jiggy
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:07 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:03 am
Posts: 1774
|
 Them damn JUST SAY NO Republicans only looking out for the uber rich 
_________________
Member formally known as AC59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maelstrom787
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:32 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 1252
Location: Delaware
|
#FILIBLIZZARD I'm loving this.    The purpose of this filibuster isn't to block Obama's right to appoint who he pleases, just because. Any man who will not answer the question(s) "Do you have the Constitutional right/power to kill a non-combatant American citizen on American soil with a drone strike, and will you use that right/power? Will you abide by the 6th amendment fully and wholly?" deserves to be filibustered. It's not realistic that it'd happen, but the fact that you can't get a straight answer to that is scary and sickening. I'm thrilled with this. Edit: I'm sorry, Attorney General Eric Holder gave the answer (or absence thereof) to the question. This filibuster's purpose is clarification from Holder or President Obama and, by the looks of it, will not end until an unequivocal, definitive "No, we will never use the drone program on a non-combatant on American soil" is given by one of those two. _________________ 
Last edited by Maelstrom787 on Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jiggy
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:45 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:03 am
Posts: 1774
|
Maelstrom787 wrote: #FILIBLIZZARD I'm loving this. The purpose of this filibuster isn't to block Obama's right to appoint who he pleases, just because. Any man who will not answer the question(s) "Do you have the Constitutional right/power to kill a non-combatant American citizen on American soil with a drone strike, and will you use that right/power? Will you abide by the 6th amendment fully and wholly?" deserves to be filibustered. It's not realistic that it'd happen, but the fact that you can't get a straight answer to that is scary and sickening. I'm thrilled with this. Edit: I'm sorry, Attorney General Eric Holder gave the answer (or absence thereof) to the question. This filibuster's purpose is clarification from Holder or President Obama and, by the looks of it, will not end until there an unequivocal, definitive "No, we will never use the drone program on a non-combatant on American soil" is given by one of those two. I totally agree with what your saying. Given that, even if Obama AND Holder gave the correct answer to this question. I wouldn't trust them anyways. Biggest con's to ever sit in office.
_________________
Member formally known as AC59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1160
|
|
True patriot. Standing up there and speaking for 6+ hours straight to defend our Constitution and our rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:07 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16257
Location: Bothell
|
The Outfield wrote: True patriot. Standing up there and speaking for 6+ hours straight to defend our Constitution and our rights. Word. And to all those progressives who do not like him: he is standing up for your right not to be killed without cause. Note what is happening here, folks: Democrats are objecting to a vote on a resolution declaring it illegal to kill Americans on American soil without due process. _________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:20 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1160
|
|
Seriously, his legs HAVE to be killing him. Probably his gut too (I saw him eat a candy bar or two). Not to mention, I'm sure it's mentally exhausting.
This is definitely a nonpartisan issue in my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:25 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16257
Location: Bothell
|
The Outfield wrote: This is definitely a nonpartisan issue in my opinion. Yes, it should be, which really gives us a clear snapshot just how fucked up things are in our government. The same guys that were appalled Bush's administration would water-board known terrorists are cool with having the power to liquidate American citizens without due process. _________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
razor150
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:14 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am
Posts: 1662
|
|
Don't love Rand Paul, and think he is an idiot most of the time. That said I fully support what he is doing and think Brennan, who is responsible for much of the legalese behind the rationalization of the drone war, was a terrible choice for the CIA. Holder's statement on drone strikes in America was scary as hell.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:21 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16257
Location: Bothell
|
razor150 wrote: Don't love Rand Paul, and think he is an idiot most of the time. That said I fully support what he is doing and think Brennan, who is responsible for much of the legalese behind the rationalization of the drone war, was a terrible choice for the CIA. Holder's statement on drone strikes in America was scary as hell. Except for Rand Paul (mostly), we're in total agreement here. _________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maelstrom787
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:28 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 1252
Location: Delaware
|
|
Was a big RonPaulbot for a while, now I'm quite disheartened with his recent legal antics. Rand has always been a bit less Libertarian than Ron. That said, I probably agree with him on around 80% of issues and I'd probably vote for him. He's pulling off some hero stuff today.
_________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:29 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1701
|
razor150 wrote: Don't love Rand Paul, and think he is an idiot most of the time. That said I fully support what he is doing and think Brennan, who is responsible for much of the legalese behind the rationalization of the drone war, was a terrible choice for the CIA. Holder's statement on drone strikes in America was scary as hell. Agree. If there's a non-partisan issue to stand up to, its this one. Props to Rand Paul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:36 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
Drone strikes against US civilians would be devastating to the political stability of our country. How stupid do you think the higher ups are? Do you think that all of a sudden drones will be bombing internal targets?
If it happened once I would expect the citizens to take to the streets.
I'm 100% for the usage of unarmed drones inside the US borders. Drones are technology just like video cameras and automobiles. I'm almost positive we're only a few short decades away from unmanned craft roaming our streets an airways in place of patrolling policemen.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maelstrom787
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:59 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 1252
Location: Delaware
|
SonicHawk wrote: Drone strikes against US civilians would be devastating to the political stability of our country. How stupid do you think the higher ups are? Do you think that all of a sudden drones will be bombing internal targets?
If it happened once I would expect the citizens to take to the streets.
I'm 100% for the usage of unarmed drones inside the US borders. Drones are technology just like video cameras and automobiles. I'm almost positive we're only a few short decades away from unmanned craft roaming our streets an airways in place of patrolling policemen. No one's saying it would happen. Ever. The fact that a straight answer can not be had from the attorney general is unsettling and an answer is rightfully being demanded. _________________
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:30 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1160
|
SonicHawk wrote: Drone strikes against US civilians would be devastating to the political stability of our country. How stupid do you think the higher ups are? Do you think that all of a sudden drones will be bombing internal targets?
If it happened once I would expect the citizens to take to the streets.
I'm 100% for the usage of unarmed drones inside the US borders. Drones are technology just like video cameras and automobiles. I'm almost positive we're only a few short decades away from unmanned craft roaming our streets an airways in place of patrolling policemen. Once is too much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
The Outfield wrote: SonicHawk wrote: Drone strikes against US civilians would be devastating to the political stability of our country. How stupid do you think the higher ups are? Do you think that all of a sudden drones will be bombing internal targets?
If it happened once I would expect the citizens to take to the streets.
I'm 100% for the usage of unarmed drones inside the US borders. Drones are technology just like video cameras and automobiles. I'm almost positive we're only a few short decades away from unmanned craft roaming our streets an airways in place of patrolling policemen. Once is too much. How can you defend gun ownership but the instant we have drones you suddenly think "once is too much"? Once what? That one time when there's an emergency and we send a drone out to get there 10 minutes before vehicles can? Drones are more effective than anything else we have.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:47 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1160
|
SonicHawk wrote: The Outfield wrote: SonicHawk wrote: Drone strikes against US civilians would be devastating to the political stability of our country. How stupid do you think the higher ups are? Do you think that all of a sudden drones will be bombing internal targets?
If it happened once I would expect the citizens to take to the streets.
I'm 100% for the usage of unarmed drones inside the US borders. Drones are technology just like video cameras and automobiles. I'm almost positive we're only a few short decades away from unmanned craft roaming our streets an airways in place of patrolling policemen. Once is too much. How can you defend gun ownership but the instant we have drones you suddenly think "once is too much"? Once what? That one time when there's an emergency and we send a drone out to get there 10 minutes before vehicles can? Drones are more effective than anything else we have. One drone strike by the government on a citizen that is a noncombatant and has not had a trial is too much. It's as simple as that. The government does not and should not have the right to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:51 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
The Outfield wrote:
One drone strike by the government on a citizen that is a noncombatant and has not had a trial is too much. It's as simple as that. The government does not and should not have the right to do it.
What makes you think anyone is trying to do this?
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:00 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16257
Location: Bothell
|
SonicHawk wrote: How can you defend gun ownership but the instant we have drones you suddenly think "once is too much"? Wait, is this a comparison between the right to own a gun for one's own protection and the government's ability to kill its citizens without due process? _________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:02 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1160
|
SonicHawk wrote: The Outfield wrote:
One drone strike by the government on a citizen that is a noncombatant and has not had a trial is too much. It's as simple as that. The government does not and should not have the right to do it.
What makes you think anyone is trying to do this? It's not about whether or not anyone is trying to do this, it's about getting confirmation that it won't be done. The President and Attorney General have not clearly stated their positions on this issue. The technology is advancing and we need to have the discussions about the constitutional and unconstitutional uses of the technology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
