| Author |
Message |
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul  Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:35 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: 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? Wait... since when is this about killing a citizen without due process? It's not ok for the government to just start shooting citizens with any other forms... why would you suddenly think right now that it's not defined with drones? Americans are scared of drones, they assume since we use drones in Pakistan and Yemen to shoot terrorists that means that every single drone will be used exactly like that over here. Rand Paul saw an opportunity and took it. Obnoxious.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
peachesenregalia
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:38 pm |
|
| * NET Starfish * |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
Posts: 8791
Location: Vaes Dothrak
|
SonicHawk wrote: Seahawk Sailor wrote: 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? Wait... since when is this about killing a citizen without due process? It's not ok for the government to just start shooting citizens with any other forms... why would you suddenly think right now that it's not defined with drones? Americans are scared of drones, they assume since we use drones in Pakistan and Yemen to shoot terrorists that means that every single drone will be used exactly like that over here. Rand Paul saw an opportunity and took it. Obnoxious. Good god, you're stupid. I mean really really stupid. the issue at hand here is that someone said they could envision scenarios where the government could use a drone attack on an American Citizen within the US. that's not gonna fly, same applies to any government-authorized hit on an american citizen within it's borders without due process. You're making it a partisan issue. I mean, if Razor-fucking-150 is in favor of this and YOU aren't? Something's quite amiss.
_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:44 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
peachesenregalia wrote: SonicHawk wrote:
Wait... since when is this about killing a citizen without due process?
It's not ok for the government to just start shooting citizens with any other forms... why would you suddenly think right now that it's not defined with drones?
Americans are scared of drones, they assume since we use drones in Pakistan and Yemen to shoot terrorists that means that every single drone will be used exactly like that over here. Rand Paul saw an opportunity and took it. Obnoxious.
Good god, you're stupid. I mean really really stupid. the issue at hand here is that someone said they could envision scenarios where the government could use a drone attack on an American Citizen within the US. that's not gonna fly, same applies to any government-authorized hit on an american citizen within it's borders without due process. You're making it a partisan issue. I mean, if Razor-fucking-150 is in favor of this and YOU aren't? Something's quite amiss. It's not a partisan issue because there isn't an issue. You can't kill American citizens inside our borders without due process... why would you need to specifically say anything about Drones doing it or not? It's already covered. You want to talk about drones flying over our heads taking pictures? Ok. No problem. And I'm the stupid one, moron.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:49 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16310
Location: Bothell
|
|
Taking out a person with a preemptive drone strike is taking away their due process. And wait... because a Democrat is in the White House, suddenly invasion of privacy is no longer an issue with progressives?
I'm confused as hell.
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:10 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
What the fuck are you talking about?
A preemptive drone strike wouldn't be allowed now! There's no new law that needs to be made. That's like saying the police can go into your house and just shoot you.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:13 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1713
|
|
In the back of my mind, my brain is telling me this filibuster is a planned PR stunt to launch a Rand Paul 2016 campaign, and give Republicans a new face.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:15 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
12evanf wrote: In the back of my mind, my brain is telling me this filibuster is a planned PR stunt to launch a Rand Paul 2016 campaign, and give Republicans a new face. No shit. Americans are scared of drones. Rand Paul can say he's against them in a very public fashion. BAM. Early points for the idiot son of an idiot.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maelstrom787
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:21 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 1254
Location: Delaware
|
|
So the legislative branch checking the executive powers is bad?
All they're asking for is a straight response which hasn't been given. The executive branch damn well better acknowledge their Constitutional limits, and they won't. What gives?
The filibuster was brought on by Holder's absolutely insane tip-toeing around answering whether US drones will be used against US citizens. No other answer will do, other than an unequivocal "NO."
It is that simple.
Fun fact, #StandWithRand has been top trending on twitter for a looong time.
_________________ 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:24 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
Drones will be used and they will be used against US citizens.
What you think of drones (the ones with the bunker busters and missiles)... no, those won't be used.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zebulon Dak
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:25 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 10042
Location: King In The North
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: And wait... because a Democrat is in the White House, suddenly invasion of privacy is no longer an issue with progressives?
I'm confused as hell. It works both ways, and it's really not confusing at all. That guy might have an election to win. But I'm kind of with Sonic on this, if I'm reading it correctly. We shouldn't have to create a "not allowed to kill with this one" law every time a new type of weapon is introduced, should we? _________________   Tanzania¹²
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1713
|
Maelstrom787 wrote: So the legislative branch checking the executive powers is bad?
All they're asking for is a straight response which hasn't been given. The executive branch damn well better acknowledge their Constitutional limits, and they won't. What gives?
The filibuster was brought on by Holder's absolutely insane tip-toeing around answering whether US drones will be used against US citizens. No other answer will do, other than an unequivocal "NO."
It is that simple.
Fun fact, #StandWithRand has been top trending on twitter for a looong time. I agree there needs to be a discussion about drones, and that Obama's policy on curtailing our rights in the name of safety is a mirror image of lil' Bush. There was talk last election when Ron Paul joined Mitt Romney that it was due to the Republican Party pushing him to do so for his son's sake. That is if Rand Paul had any hopes of running for higher office, Ron Paul better step in line. Fast forward today and Rand Paul is filibustering the issue that both Democrats and Republicans dislike, and its one of Obama's major weak spots. Rand Paul gets national recognition, makes the opposing party president look bad, and garners new followers on his across the aisle stand. Its all too good to be true. It was planned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:34 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16310
Location: Bothell
|
|
They're not trying to create another "not allowed to kill with this one" law. They're asking that the executive branch acknowledge where the Constitutional limits are on this regarding American citizens, and so far the Obama administration has essentially said, "no, we retain the prerogative to use drones against Americans on American soil."
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SilNWest
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:35 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:51 am
Posts: 607
Location: Auburn, Wa
|
SonicHawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: In the back of my mind, my brain is telling me this filibuster is a planned PR stunt to launch a Rand Paul 2016 campaign, and give Republicans a new face. No shit. Americans are scared of drones. Rand Paul can say he's against them in a very public fashion. BAM. Early points for the idiot son of an idiot. I kinda agree that Rand is using this as a political stepping stone move, but sonic you really need to educate yourself further if you think that the presidency doesn't have the ability to drone strike on american soil. Attorney General Holder's comment on the issue. Quote: The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-hol ... z2MpD685cEAnother article on Holder's comments. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -soil.htmlArticle on Obama's kill list, which he oversee's himself. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world ... d=all&_r=0Quote: Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation. and finally how Obama's team justified the killing of a 16 year old American because "He had a bad father" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... an/264028/Quote: Again, note that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities would get to the bottom of this. Those are just a couple, unfortunately there are plenty more. Not all are about a drone strike on American soil, but it shows a clear escalation of what these politicians think they have the power to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:36 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16310
Location: Bothell
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: They're not trying to create another "not allowed to kill with this one" law. They're asking that the executive branch acknowledge where the Constitutional limits are on this regarding American citizens, and so far the Obama administration has essentially said, "no, we retain the prerogative to use drones against Americans on American soil." This is what Democrats are refusing to sign. If this were the previous administration, there would be riots in the streets over the unconstitutionality of it.  _________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:41 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1713
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: Seahawk Sailor wrote: They're not trying to create another "not allowed to kill with this one" law. They're asking that the executive branch acknowledge where the Constitutional limits are on this regarding American citizens, and so far the Obama administration has essentially said, "no, we retain the prerogative to use drones against Americans on American soil." This is what Democrats are refusing to sign. If this were the previous administration, there would be riots in the streets over the unconstitutionality of it. Why can't they just arrest us, send us to Egypt and THEN blow us up with drones. Is extraordinary rendition really that much of a hassle?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:42 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
They refuse to sign the one I made up where it says "I will not rape everyone"
And no, there wouldn't be riots in the street because that never happened. Us liberals watched the Daily Show and felt bad for ourselves.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:43 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1167
|
Maelstrom787 wrote: Fun fact, #StandWithRand has been top trending on twitter for a looong time. Way to jynx it! Now it's not trending anymore  Well, at least "Rand Paul" is still trending.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:44 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
The Outfield wrote: Maelstrom787 wrote: Fun fact, #StandWithRand has been top trending on twitter for a looong time. Way to jynx it! Now it's not trending anymore Well, at least "Rand Paul" is still trending. To be fair so is #WhitePeopleActivities
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Outfield
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:46 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 1167
|
Never mind, #StandWithRand is back 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SonicHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:59 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Posts: 2365
|
|
Dick Durbin has done a good job with responding and asking questions.
_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
