| Author |
Message |
|
SilNWest
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul  Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:03 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:51 am
Posts: 607
Location: Auburn, Wa
|
kidhawk wrote: SonicHawk wrote: The point is... they can't do that anyways. And a drone has absolutely nothing to do with this. A drone is just another weapon. It's funny you say that so easily, yet when asked, the people who actually make those kinds of decisions at the administration level can't or won't say that. Also, it's not all republicans either. I know I heard at least one democrat (from Oregon I believe) who spoke on the floor about how he was in agreement with "the gentleman from Kentucky" that the administration should be able to come right out and just say that they would never do that except in the extreme circumstance of another pearl harbor or other similar event of an attack on our country. Sonic, you do understand the difference between can't and not supposed to don't you? You always talk about how we need government to police corporations because we can't trust them to always do what they "can't do", why can't you understand that it's Congress' obligation to police the administration similarly? The executive branch couldn't declare war either... until it could. The legislative branch couldn't print money... until it empowered a new branch of non-government to do it. Our history is full of things that are explicitly forbidden to a certain branch of government, and yet they do it anyways and use stupid reasoning and "loop-holes" to do them.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:10 am |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16304
Location: Bothell
|
|
Wait, A drone is just another weapon, but guns kill people and should be outlawed or restricted?
Or is that just for the American public, as the government knows what's best for us?
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
razor150
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:45 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am
Posts: 1667
|
peachesenregalia wrote: 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. You've got a very twisted opinion of me if you think I support Democrats and their policies blindly. Just because I don't support some of the insanity some of the conservatives bring up on this forum, such a Seahawks Sailors and others take on Woodward and sequestration it doesn't mean I've turned off my brain. Which btw, I am quite aware of the Adminstrations hostility towards reporters, and I hate Obama's plan as well, just less than the Republicans. Just because I then reply to their threads in a semi-supportive way for Obama does not mean I am a drone for the administration or Democrats. Because nothing can be further from the truth. Quite honestly I think Obama is a shitty president, of the scale of George W. Bush bad since they are almost literally the same president when it comes to things I hate about our government. So please in the future try not to use me as some measuring stick of sheeple who support things just because there side does, I'd appreciate it. You've got a very limited window into what I believe and my opinions, just because I am not in the gun threads yelling "fuck gun control" or other conservative leaning topics doesn't mean I don't have sympathy or support for the position. I just choose not to reply to them.
Last edited by razor150 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OkieHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:52 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
Posts: 706
Location: Oklahoma City
|
|
_________________
2013 AAR: Chris Harper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
peachesenregalia
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:12 am |
|
| * NET Starfish * |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
Posts: 8791
Location: Vaes Dothrak
|
razor150 wrote: peachesenregalia wrote: 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. You've got a very twisted opinion of me if you think I support Democrats and their policies blindly. Just because I don't support some of the insanity some of the conservatives bring up on this forum, such a Seahawks Sailors and others take on Woodward and sequestration it doesn't mean I've turned off my brain. Which btw, I am quite aware of the Adminstrations hostility towards reporters, and I hate Obama's plan as well, just less than the Republicans. Just because I then reply to their threads in a semi-supportive way for Obama does not mean I am a drone for the administration or Democrats. Because nothing can be further from the truth. Quite honestly I think Obama is a shitty president, of the scale of George W. Bush bad since they are almost literally the same president when it comes to things I hate about our government. So please in the future try not to use me as some measuring stick of sheeple who support things just because there side does, I'd appreciate it. You've got a very limited window into what I believe and my opinions, just because I am not in the gun threads yelling "fuck gun control" or other conservative leaning topics doesn't mean I don't have sympathy or support for the position. I just choose not to reply to them. I liked your use of the word 'drone' in there. Nicely done.
_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sports Hernia
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:41 am |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 5423
|
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. BINGO! Randy Paul's dog and pony show reminded me of a long version of Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson's weekly pressers, a lot of political fluff just to keep his name in the news!
_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sutz
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:28 pm |
|
| USMC 1970-77 |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 7481
Location: Monroe, WA
|
Sports Hernia 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. BINGO! Randy Paul's dog and pony show reminded me of a long version of Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson's weekly pressers, a lot of political fluff just to keep his name in the news! Yep. Convenient, isn't it? BTW, he's right that the WH and DoJ needed to clarify their position, sure. But the fillibuster? Sorry, but Rand Paul is not "Mr Smith Goes to Washington." Nope. Not even close. 
_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
coach78
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:50 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:56 am
Posts: 169
|
I agree with Paul's stance (first time I've ever said that  ) on this matter. I don't think the uproar should be limited to citizens on US soil. All citizens should be granted due process, whether here or abroad. If we are not able to arrest them, I might be persuaded to agree to trial in absentia, but this infringement on rights should not be accepted. I think the tactic of the talking filibuster was successful in getting the point across. Wish they had to do this with all filibusters in order to not just block legislation/appointments as obstructionists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
coach78
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:29 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 7:56 am
Posts: 169
|
|
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'" Carney read. "The answer to that question is no."
Paul call this a "victory." Now I know this was a political stunt. The whole point of the program is to be able to target "combatants." He does not rule out the assassination of a combatant with this answer. If you were willing to spend 13 hours on the Senate floor - this should not be a satisfactory answer!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zebulon Dak
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:17 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 10042
Location: King In The North
|
|
Wait, so does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil or not?
_________________   Tanzania¹²
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:06 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16304
Location: Bothell
|
|
You could ask him if you have thirteen or so hours to spare.
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sports Hernia
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:20 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 5423
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: You could ask him if you have thirteen or so hours to spare. Someone how if Obama spent 13 hours doing as you said, your level of HATE for the man would be the same or more.
_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zebulon Dak
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:40 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm
Posts: 10042
Location: King In The North
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: You could ask him if you have thirteen or so hours to spare. Or I could not ask a stupid question that I already know the answer to. _________________ Tanzania¹²
|
|
| |
|
|
|
razor150
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:57 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am
Posts: 1667
|
coach78 wrote: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'" Carney read. "The answer to that question is no."
Paul call this a "victory." Now I know this was a political stunt. The whole point of the program is to be able to target "combatants." He does not rule out the assassination of a combatant with this answer. If you were willing to spend 13 hours on the Senate floor - this should not be a satisfactory answer! I was actually thinking the same thing. The term combatant has become overly broad of late. I really don't consider this much of a victory as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:59 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16304
Location: Bothell
|
Sports Hernia wrote: Seahawk Sailor wrote: You could ask him if you have thirteen or so hours to spare. Someone how if Obama spent 13 hours doing as you said, your level of HATE for the man would be the same or more. That was a tongue-in-cheek play on the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. It's being discussed here: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=66184_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
peachesenregalia
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:19 pm |
|
| * NET Starfish * |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:29 am
Posts: 8791
Location: Vaes Dothrak
|
Seahawk Sailor wrote: Sports Hernia wrote: Seahawk Sailor wrote: You could ask him if you have thirteen or so hours to spare. Someone how if Obama spent 13 hours doing as you said, your level of HATE for the man would be the same or more. That was a tongue-in-cheek play on the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. It's being discussed here: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=66184Stupid mod, you pasted the wrong link. That link leads to this very thread. So dumb.
_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
razor150
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:31 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:22 am
Posts: 1667
|
|
I think the most important thing to come out of this filibuster is, besides Holder answering Paul's question, is Harry Reid absolutely refusing to vote on a bill that said the President can not use a drone strike against non-combatant US citizens. If Paul's and other's fear about this was unfounded why not vote for this? Because they don't want a logged vote showing who would be against restricting the President from having this power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kidhawk
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:39 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Posts: 10271
Location: Anchorage, AK
|
razor150 wrote: I think the most important thing to come out of this filibuster is, besides Holder answering Paul's question, is Harry Reid absolutely refusing to vote on a bill that said the President can not use a drone strike against non-combatant US citizens. If Paul's and other's fear about this was unfounded why not vote for this? Because they don't want a logged vote showing who would be against restricting the President from having this power. And the most irritating thing about what you said, is if the administration was republican, it would likely be completely bass ackwards from this. You'd have mostly democrats with a few republicans supporting and the rest of the republicans refusing to take away power from their party. This is what's so messed up. I want politicians from both sides who vote their conscience no matter which party is in power at the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:42 pm |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
|
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16304
Location: Bothell
|
peachesenregalia wrote: Seahawk Sailor wrote: Sports Hernia wrote: Someone how if Obama spent 13 hours doing as you said, your level of HATE for the man would be the same or more. That was a tongue-in-cheek play on the 13-hour filibuster by Rand Paul. It's being discussed here: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=66184Stupid mod, you pasted the wrong link. That link leads to this very thread. So dumb. Why of course. This is where it's being discussed. kidhawk wrote: And the most irritating thing about what you said, is if the administration was republican, it would likely be completely bass ackwards from this. You'd have mostly democrats with a few republicans supporting and the rest of the republicans refusing to take away power from their party. This is what's so messed up. I want politicians from both sides who vote their conscience no matter which party is in power at the time. Bingo! _________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fenderbender123
|
Post subject: Re: Rand Paul Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:34 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm
Posts: 345
|
kidhawk wrote: razor150 wrote: I think the most important thing to come out of this filibuster is, besides Holder answering Paul's question, is Harry Reid absolutely refusing to vote on a bill that said the President can not use a drone strike against non-combatant US citizens. If Paul's and other's fear about this was unfounded why not vote for this? Because they don't want a logged vote showing who would be against restricting the President from having this power. And the most irritating thing about what you said, is if the administration was republican, it would likely be completely bass ackwards from this. You'd have mostly democrats with a few republicans supporting and the rest of the republicans refusing to take away power from their party. This is what's so messed up. I want politicians from both sides who vote their conscience no matter which party is in power at the time. This. This keeps going back and forth. Bush gets in office and most of the dems and a few reps called foul. Obama gets in office and does the same shit and now many reps and a few dems are calling foul. The republicans argue "Hey how come all you lefties who were bitching during the Bush admin aren't bitching at Obama?" And then the dems argue "Hey Bush did it while he was in office and none of you guys complained so why are you now?" And then in the end...nothing gets done. The presidents continue to strip away our individual liberties and rights.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: Throwdown and 21 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
|
|
