HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Asshole keeps explicitly granting himself the right to fuck with US citizens, but then follows it up with empty statements on how he would never actually fuck with American citizens.
I really hate this fucktard and anyone who can't see right through him.
b/w
Props to Rand Paul for his 13 hour filibuster addressing the drone issue head on. Blocked the appointment of a new CIA director as well. 2 THUMBS UP!!!
Props to Rand Paul for his 13 hour filibuster addressing the drone issue head on. Blocked the appointment of a new CIA director as well. 2 THUMBS UP!!!
I actually thought about you when I saw that on the news. Keeping the filibuster 100...that was a classy move.
Let's be honest.....any Republican that is against the use of drones is taking that stance simply because Obama is in office and they will use any opportunity to attack him.
(I can hear the left leaning people on this site agreeing with this from here)
And any of you left leaning people who are sitting by quietly and not attacking Obama and his Administration for their support of using drones to kill people are only doing so because you will support Obama and anything he does, which is way more dangerous than what the Republicans are doing. Anyone who says that if this was going on and Bush was President there wouldn't be 10 page threads here condemning these actions and Bush for supporting them are either ignorant or liars.
Regardless of my opinion on this issue, whenever partisan politics supercedes right and wrong, we all suffer.
Poorly written article, designed to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion (which unfortunately is not uncommon in journalism). Also ignores the fact that Presidents have had these powers for a very long time. The fact that many of us are just finding out about it now is not an excuse to paint it as if Obama just suddenly made it happen.
That said, the way we use our military has gotten way, way out of hand over the last 10+ years.
Also pretty much cosign with what Rockadelic wrote above, and would even add that the Rand Paul filibuster wouldn't have happened if a Republican were sitting in the big chair. The only thing I give Paul credit for is that unlike most recent filibusters, he actually used it the way it was designed to be used.
I think the thing that bothers me most is that it's becoming clear that none of our high officials are really against drones, torture, unlawful detainment, etc. in principle... They just pretend to be when it's politically expedient for them to do so.
How many US citizens have been killed by drones without justification so far?
How many US citizens have been killed by police officers without justification so far?
Rockadelic is 100% right. if it were a republican president in charge there would be mass hysteria 'round these here parts. left would be batshit about him sitting idly by while it happens let alone sponsoring it.
it's almost paradoxical the way your bipartisan system plays out. while i might not agree with some of your political ideals Rock, you are right in this circumstance completely. you are outnumbered HERE though, and both sides off the fence can easily recognize that.
Rockadelic is 100% right. if it were a republican president in charge there would be mass hysteria 'round these here parts. left would be batshit about him sitting idly by while it happens let alone sponsoring it.
it's almost paradoxical the way your bipartisan system plays out. while i might not agree with some of your political ideals Rock, you are right in this circumstance completely. you are outnumbered HERE though, and both sides off the fence can easily recognize that.
Being outnumbered based on allegiance > Being outnumbered based on ignorance
Let's be honest.....any Republican that is against the use of drones is taking that stance simply because Obama is in office and they will use any opportunity to attack him.
(I can hear the left leaning people on this site agreeing with this from here)
And any of you left leaning people who are sitting by quietly and not attacking Obama and his Administration for their support of using drones to kill people are only doing so because you will support Obama and anything he does, which is way more dangerous than what the Republicans are doing. Anyone who says that if this was going on and Bush was President there wouldn't be 10 page threads here condemning these actions and Bush for supporting them are either ignorant or liars.
Regardless of my opinion on this issue, whenever partisan politics supercedes right and wrong, we all suffer.
It is a serious question. The tone of your statement suggests you dont have any issue with ppl being killed by drones without any sort of trial but you do have a problem if they are US citizens. If its okay for the US govt to executed someone on foriegn soil using drones based on the belief they are a threat/terrorist/enemy of the state then why cant they do it on US soil?
You cant be half pregnant. Either using drones to kill suspects is wrong or all accounts or you have to accept it at home too. Or are you saying the life of a human being that happens to be born in the US is worth more than a human born somewhere else? Or to flip it with a right wing slant a terrorist with a US passport deserves more mercy than one doesnt?
It is a serious question. The tone of your statement suggests you dont have any issue with ppl being killed by drones without any sort of trial but you do have a problem if they are US citizens.
"due process" in the context of this particular debate refers to a guarantee specific to the US constitution.
blasting US citizens abroad without due process and blasting non-US citizens abroad without due process may both be fucked up.
but only one of them raises any serious constitutional issues for the US gov't.
Blocked the appointment of a new CIA director as well.
No he didn't, nor was he attempting to.
Don't get me wrong, his filibuster was one of the best things anybody in congress has done for a while, but it will have no impact whatsoever on Brennan's appointment.
We should do this with the compassion and fair treatment our enemies deserve.
Give them a choice between being killed by an unmanned drone or being captured and have water poured on their face while listening to Beach Boys music at deafening volumes 24/7 and let them choose which is the most desirable.
The drone question reminds me of an exchange that occured between Gloria and Archie on All in the family...Gloria was arguing with Archie about gun deaths (40 years ago...Norman Lear was ahead of his time) when Gloria gives some stats about shootings, Archie responds with..."would it make you happier if those people were pushed out of windows instead?" granted, he misses the point but inadvertently brings up another...would the anti-drone crowd prefer if these people were killed with boots-on-the ground? The CIA and our military have been killing folks and innocent bystandards for decades...why now is the means by which it happens the big concern? I understand that most people against drones don't want any killing at all, but some find objection just with the means....why?
"No one will ever forget Jane Fonda swiveling around in North Vietnamese armored guns, and it was despicable. And it's one thing if you're going to try her for treason, but are you just going to drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?" - Rand "Pants Load" Paul
The junior senator from Kentucky seems a little unclear on the meaning of the term "enemy combatant."
really not understanding anyone getting a libertarian hard-on for rand paul this week.
1. it was a purely political move. if you think paul is doing this because he's a good dude who cares about americans lives, and not doing it to get a head start on some election 2016 love, you are delusional.
2. the man is a piece of shit, why is that washed away because he says "hey the president shouldnt kill US citizens!!". wow, way to go out on a limb there guy. maybe you should vote against more 'violence against women' acts, talk some more about how you are against minimum wage, or figure out some more ways to cut rich peoples taxes.
3. if Rand Paul was the president, HE WOULD USE DRONE STRIKES ALL ACROSS THE WORLD. INCLUDING ON SUSPECTED TERRORISTS THAT ARE U.S. NATIONALS. period.
The CIA and our military have been killing folks and innocent bystandards for decades...why now is the means by which it happens the big concern? I understand that most people against drones don't want any killing at all, but some find objection just with the means....why?
This reminded me of some bits from George Orwell, writing about the German rockets towards the end of WW2:
"I Notice that apart from the widespread complaint that the German pilotless planes 'seem so unnatural' (a bomb dropped by a live airman is quite natural, apparently), some journalists are denouncing them as barbarous, inhumane, and 'an indiscriminate attack on civilians'.
After what we have been doing to the Germans over the past two years, this seems a bit thick, but it is the normal human response to every new weapon. Poison gas, the machine-gun, the submarine, gunpowder, and even the crossbow were similarly denounced in their day. Every weapon seems unfair until you have adopted it yourself. But I would not deny that the pilotless plane, flying bomb, or whatever its correct name may be, is an exceptionally unpleasant thing, because, unlike most other projectiles, it gives you time to think. What is your first reaction when you hear that droning, zooming noise? Inevitably, it is a hope that the noise won't stop. You want to hear the bomb pass safely overhead and die away into the distance before the engine cuts out. In other words, you are hoping that it will fall on somebody else. So also when you dodge a shell or an ordinary bomb ??? but in that case you have only about five seconds to take cover and no time to speculate on the bottomless selfishness of the human being..."
"V2 (I am told that you can now mention it in print so long as you just call it V2 and don't describe it too minutely) supplies another instance of the contrariness of human nature. People are complaining of the sudden unexpected wallop with which these things go off. 'It wouldn't be so bad if you got a bit of warning' is the usual formula. There is even a tendency to talk nostalgically of the days of the V1. The good old doodlebug did at least give you time to get under the table, etc. etc. Whereas, in fact, when the doodlebugs were actually dropping, the usual subject of complaint was the uncomfortable waiting period before they went off. Some people are never satisfied. Personally, I am no lover of the V2, especially at this moment when the house still seems to be rocking from a recent explosion*, but what depresses me about these things is the way they set people talking about the next war. Every time one goes off I hear gloomy references to 'next time', and the reflection: 'I suppose they'll be able to shoot them across the Atlantic by that time.' But if you ask who will be fighting whom when this universally expected war breaks out, you get no clear answer. It is just war in the abstract ??? the notion that human beings could ever behave sanely having apparently faded out of many people???s memories..."
really not understanding anyone getting a libertarian hard-on for rand paul this week.
1. it was a purely political move. if you think paul is doing this because he's a good dude who cares about americans lives, and not doing it to get a head start on some election 2016 love, you are delusional.
2. the man is a piece of shit, why is that washed away because he says "hey the president shouldnt kill US citizens!!". wow, way to go out on a limb there guy. maybe you should vote against more 'violence against women' acts, talk some more about how you are against minimum wage, or figure out some more ways to cut rich peoples taxes.
3. if Rand Paul was the president, HE WOULD U
SE DRONE STRIKES ALL ACROSS THE WORLD. INCLUDING ON SUSPECTED TERRORISTS THAT ARE U.S. NATIONALS. period.
Yeah, he is so concerned with American citizens' safety and liberty that he voted against the violence against women act. Sure, doing a fillibuster, properly , is admirable but a broken clock is right twice a day. Nothing to get ga ga over.
yeah brah rand paul voted against the violence against women act because he hates women and not because it's unconstituional
i'm sure as a result of passing this law everyone will feel great and a woman will never get assaulted again
great shit about naming bills stuff like that is you can talk shit to anyone who is against it
omg ur for violence against women????
omg you aren't a patriot?
omg u want our children 2 b left behind??????????
Ok, what was unconstitutional about it? Most everyone opposed to it was opposed to it because they didn't want it to include lesbian and transgender folks and native Americans. So explain it to me, I want to know these "unconstitutional concerns"
Supplement: [P. 1514, add to text following n.42:]
Reversing this trend, the Court in 1995 in United States v. Lopez 1 struck down a statute prohibiting possession of a gun at or near a school, rejecting an argument that possession of firearms in school zones can be punished under the Commerce Clause because it impairs the functioning of the national economy. Acceptance of this rationale, the Court said, would eliminate ???a[ny] distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local,??? would convert Congress??? commerce power into ???a general police power of the sort retained by the States,??? and would undermine the ???first principle??? that the Federal Government is one of enumerated and limited powers.2 Application of the same principle led five years later to the Court???s decision in United States v. Morrison 3 invalidating a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that created a federal cause of action for victims of gender???motivated violence. Congress may not regulate ???non??? economic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct???s aggregate effect on interstate commerce,??? the Court concluded. ???[W]e can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.??? 4
and i'm sure a bunch of people are bit worrisome of pre-trial detention based on a mere accusation of anything. with as much cop paranoia posted on this site, i really wouldn't think people would be for giving police additional authority to detain anyone for an extended period of time without cause. i'm against granting any additional authority to the government and instead would rather people do their job and not let people walk after beating up women.
we have laws against violence already and they're clearly not being upheld or serve to prevent violence against anyone. i don't think anyone who is unhinged enough to assault someone is going to go "well congress just passed a new law, guess i'm going to stop beating my wife." if we either enforced existing laws by locking up people who assault others and did not make things such as violating restraining orders a petty offense, that would go a much longer way than anything that exists in this law.
i'm all for native women being able to chose tribal justice if they want though. that's a no brainer imo
Brian
7,618 Posts
Comments
I really hate this fucktard and anyone who can't see right through him.
b/w
Props to Rand Paul for his 13 hour filibuster addressing the drone issue head on. Blocked the appointment of a new CIA director as well. 2 THUMBS UP!!!
I actually thought about you when I saw that on the news. Keeping the filibuster 100...that was a classy move.
but yeah, fuck killing US nationals without due process -- wherever they are.
shit is beyond foul.
(I can hear the left leaning people on this site agreeing with this from here)
And any of you left leaning people who are sitting by quietly and not attacking Obama and his Administration for their support of using drones to kill people are only doing so because you will support Obama and anything he does, which is way more dangerous than what the Republicans are doing. Anyone who says that if this was going on and Bush was President there wouldn't be 10 page threads here condemning these actions and Bush for supporting them are either ignorant or liars.
Regardless of my opinion on this issue, whenever partisan politics supercedes right and wrong, we all suffer.
What about using drones to kill non-US people without due process?
Is that acceptable, and if so whats the distinction?
That said, the way we use our military has gotten way, way out of hand over the last 10+ years.
Also pretty much cosign with what Rockadelic wrote above, and would even add that the Rand Paul filibuster wouldn't have happened if a Republican were sitting in the big chair. The only thing I give Paul credit for is that unlike most recent filibusters, he actually used it the way it was designed to be used.
I think the thing that bothers me most is that it's becoming clear that none of our high officials are really against drones, torture, unlawful detainment, etc. in principle... They just pretend to be when it's politically expedient for them to do so.
How many US citizens have been killed by police officers without justification so far?
it's almost paradoxical the way your bipartisan system plays out. while i might not agree with some of your political ideals Rock, you are right in this circumstance completely. you are outnumbered HERE though, and both sides off the fence can easily recognize that.
Being outnumbered based on allegiance > Being outnumbered based on ignorance
pretty much.
is that a serious question?
for starters, one is unconstitutional.
You cant be half pregnant. Either using drones to kill suspects is wrong or all accounts or you have to accept it at home too. Or are you saying the life of a human being that happens to be born in the US is worth more than a human born somewhere else? Or to flip it with a right wing slant a terrorist with a US passport deserves more mercy than one doesnt?
"due process" in the context of this particular debate refers to a guarantee specific to the US constitution.
blasting US citizens abroad without due process and blasting non-US citizens abroad without due process may both be fucked up.
but only one of them raises any serious constitutional issues for the US gov't.
No he didn't, nor was he attempting to.
Don't get me wrong, his filibuster was one of the best things anybody in congress has done for a while, but it will have no impact whatsoever on Brennan's appointment.
Give them a choice between being killed by an unmanned drone or being captured and have water poured on their face while listening to Beach Boys music at deafening volumes 24/7 and let them choose which is the most desirable.
The junior senator from Kentucky seems a little unclear on the meaning of the term "enemy combatant."
1. it was a purely political move. if you think paul is doing this because he's a good dude who cares about americans lives, and not doing it to get a head start on some election 2016 love, you are delusional.
2. the man is a piece of shit, why is that washed away because he says "hey the president shouldnt kill US citizens!!". wow, way to go out on a limb there guy. maybe you should vote against more 'violence against women' acts, talk some more about how you are against minimum wage, or figure out some more ways to cut rich peoples taxes.
3. if Rand Paul was the president, HE WOULD USE DRONE STRIKES ALL ACROSS THE WORLD. INCLUDING ON SUSPECTED TERRORISTS THAT ARE U.S. NATIONALS. period.
your best post on this forum to date. shockingly salient and non-hysterical.
Yeah, he is so concerned with American citizens' safety and liberty that he voted against the violence against women act. Sure, doing a fillibuster, properly , is admirable but a broken clock is right twice a day. Nothing to get ga ga over.
i'm sure as a result of passing this law everyone will feel great and a woman will never get assaulted again
omg ur for violence against women????
omg you aren't a patriot?
omg u want our children 2 b left behind??????????
and i'm sure a bunch of people are bit worrisome of pre-trial detention based on a mere accusation of anything. with as much cop paranoia posted on this site, i really wouldn't think people would be for giving police additional authority to detain anyone for an extended period of time without cause. i'm against granting any additional authority to the government and instead would rather people do their job and not let people walk after beating up women.
we have laws against violence already and they're clearly not being upheld or serve to prevent violence against anyone. i don't think anyone who is unhinged enough to assault someone is going to go "well congress just passed a new law, guess i'm going to stop beating my wife." if we either enforced existing laws by locking up people who assault others and did not make things such as violating restraining orders a petty offense, that would go a much longer way than anything that exists in this law.
i'm all for native women being able to chose tribal justice if they want though. that's a no brainer imo