If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   ♫In the middle of the night, Rand Paul filibustered in his sleep. From the podium of faith, to the rivers so derp, He must've been looking for something. Something sacred we lost. Till the drones came to him. In...the middle of the night♫   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 291
    More: Followup, GOP, deaths, human beings, Majority Leader Harry Reid, senate majority whip, D-IL, Strom Thurmond, American soil  
•       •       •

1497 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 07:48:45 AM  
I now have that song stuck in my head

/damn you Billy Joel
 
2013-03-07 08:06:33 AM  
bwa ha ha hah...

\not subby
 
2013-03-07 08:14:07 AM  
Hate the song, but love the headline, subby.
 
2013-03-07 08:16:02 AM  

silo123j: bwa ha ha hah...

\not subby


dickfreckle: Hate the song, but love the headline, subby.


Thank you kindly. I honestly have no idea why when I think Rand Paul's filibuster, I think Billy Joel
 
2013-03-07 08:18:04 AM  
Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target
 
2013-03-07 08:21:40 AM  

BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target


What about us Obama supporters who agree with Paul? That there needs to be legislation that prevents such things from ever being things? Its a job for congress to make sure Obama and whoever succeeds him to never use drones in this manner.
 
2013-03-07 08:31:25 AM  

BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target


The Authorization for Use of Military Force allows enemies classified as enemy combatants that pose a risk against the US gives the executive branch WIDE authority in authorizing force against those targets.

Honestly this shiat is tiring, you want someone to blame? Tell your congress critter to fix that farking law and narrow its scope. The Executive branch only operates within the laws given to it by Congress.

Government separation of powers, how does it farking work?
 
2013-03-07 08:33:16 AM  

somedude210: BillCo: Dear Angry Fantasy in My Head,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't understand how rational, complex thinking works

What about us Obama supporters who agree with Paul? That there needs to be legislation that prevents such things from ever being things? Its a job for congress to make sure Obama and whoever succeeds him to never use drones or Billy Joel in this manner.


I like Billy Joel, and I vote.

/Don't care for drones or presidential omnipotence, no matter who's in office.
 
2013-03-07 08:33:27 AM  
Wow, I'm sure he meant all those things he said, the same way libertarians (translation: "Republicans")  assured KY voters that Rand was all about legalization, man, 'cos why should the gubmint get in the way of your freedoms? Say, how many pro-legalization bills has Rand Paul supported? Oh, right, one fewer than the total of days he spent on the "BENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZIBENGHAZI" bullshiat trip; one fewer than the number of "fetuses-are-people-too" bills he's co-sponsored. But, despite his never before caring about this issue, NOW he really really really really really really cares about this issue!

Now, if you could just indicate at the bottom here how much you'll be donating to the Paul in '16 campaign...
 
2013-03-07 08:34:12 AM  
Law enforcement does it all the time, for legal and justifiable reasons (for example someone who is actively shooting at people)

If you are talking about using drones as they are used abroad, then yes there is an issue.
If you are talking about using them as a SWAT sniper or other tool of last resort might be used, then there isn't an issue.

Currently we have an ambiguous statement that everyone is spinning based on their current feelings about "The Government."
 
2013-03-07 08:34:13 AM  

somedude210: What about us Obama supporters who agree with Paul? That there needs to be legislation that prevents such things from ever being things?


Wtf legislation? For this there the Constitution. Even Holder admitted it (after being asked SIX times by the  Senate Judiciary Committee)!
 
2013-03-07 08:34:50 AM  
 
2013-03-07 08:36:01 AM  

BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target


Please provide evidence that this has ever happened or is planned to happen. Otherwise you are asking people to defend a fiction.
 
2013-03-07 08:36:44 AM  
I suppose it was entertaining, but I still find the man to be full of shiat and simply fishing for attention.
 
2013-03-07 08:37:42 AM  
If the government can use the Patriot Act against citizens of the United States, then drones are just that one step down the exact same slippery slope.

Taking someone's liberty against due process is similar to taking one's life without the same due process.

Knee jerk idiots pushed through the Patriot Act under a different president, and the opposition squealed because of the potential to be used against otherwise law abiding Americans, particularly those with a viewpoint against the current ruling party.

Now that there's a gun in the sky attached to the Patriot Act, shiat got real.
 
2013-03-07 08:38:11 AM  

BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target


I'm an Obama supporter, and considered myself to be liberal, I don't care for Rand Paul much but after listening to what he said yesterday I think he is right.  We need a bright line when any president can and can not use deadly force.
 
2013-03-07 08:38:53 AM  

poorcku: somedude210: What about us Obama supporters who agree with Paul? That there needs to be legislation that prevents such things from ever being things?

Wtf legislation? For this there the Constitution. Even Holder admitted it (after being asked SIX times by the  Senate Judiciary Committee)!


As pointed out earlier, the executive branch has a great deal of power when authorizing the use of military force. You have a problem with that, have congress restrict them. You have a problem with anything the president does, then you have Congress write a law and pass it that forbids the president from doing such things
 
2013-03-07 08:39:18 AM  
At least he actually filibustered...

He's still a hypocritical, neo-confederate loon.
 
2013-03-07 08:39:21 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: The Authorization for Use of Military Force allows enemies classified as enemy combatants that pose a risk against the US gives the executive branch WIDE authority in authorizing force against those targets.


Yeah, let's not let the Constitution get in the way.  If Obama says it's OK, then it's OK.  Shut up and obey citizen.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:29 AM  
The AUMF gives wide latitude to the executive branch with regards to killing "enemies".  Rand Paul thinks that that is bullshiat, and wants specific answers from the executive branch as to what exactly they believe they can do.  The executive branch gives vague answers, and says nothing about repealing or altering the AUMF.  If the executive branch truly cared about limiting these powers, they would have been more forceful with opposition when they were coded into law.  Obama issued a signing statement saying he disagreed with the powers, but he could have taken a stand.  It seems rather clear that the executive branch, along with a large majority of congress, has no issues with these powers being with the executive branch.  If they did not, we would have seen a bigger outburst after the AUMF update passed, and a bigger outburst currently.

I feel the argument is this:  congress gave the executive these powers, so the executive branch has no obligation to fight back or clarify these powers.  Which is complete bullshiat.  Obama could have vetoed the bill.  Obama could have #stoodwithrood and agreed, saying we need a national conversation about these issues and explicit definitions of when they can and cannot be used.  Instead, Obama has said nothing, and it is telling.  To act like Obama has no power to act on these issues is simply partisan bullshiat.
 
2013-03-07 08:41:34 AM  
Did he go that whole time without peeing, did he pee his pants or just hold it?
 
2013-03-07 08:41:35 AM  

BillCo: If Obama says it's OK, then it's OK. Shut up and obey citizen.


He didn't say it's okay. In fact the WH has stated that they don't intend to ever use it on US citizens on US soil. That said, I agree with you that no president should have this power, but it's given to him and we've violated the right to due process with laws since 2001. So you want to prevent this repeal or rewrite the laws, otherwise, it's still legal
 
2013-03-07 08:43:22 AM  

somedude210: As pointed out earlier, the executive branch has a great deal of power when authorizing the use of military force. You have a problem with that, have congress restrict them. You have a problem with anything the president does, then you have Congress write a law and pass it that forbids the president from doing such things


Is it too much to also want Obama to say something like "I agree, these powers are too much, and we need to have a national conversation about them, and craft a bill explicitly explaining where and when they can be used."?  Or was it too much to have Obama veto the bill in the first place?  Or do you just prefer him passing the bill and then staying silent on the issue.
 
2013-03-07 08:43:43 AM  

somedude210: In fact the WH has stated that they don't intend to ever use it on US citizens on US soil.


the road to hell, and all that.
 
2013-03-07 08:44:51 AM  

somedude210: He didn't say it's okay. In fact the WH has stated that they don't intend to ever use it on US citizens on US soil.


Well, I'm convinced.  In fact, lets get rid of all of our Constitutional protections - as long as we have Obama's word on the matter, what do we have to fear?
 
2013-03-07 08:45:03 AM  

SpectroBoy: BillCo: Dear Obama Supporters,

Please defend the President's position that he can kill U.S. citizens inside our borders without due process.

Sincerely,
The Target

Please provide evidence that this has ever happened or is planned to happen. Otherwise you are asking people to defend a fiction.


"[Barack Obama] has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil," Eric Holder.
 
2013-03-07 08:45:25 AM  

somedude210: As pointed out earlier, the executive branch has a great deal of power when authorizing the use of military force. You have a problem with that, have congress restrict them. You have a problem with anything the president does, then you have Congress write a law and pass it that forbids the president from doing such things


Wut?  We're not allowed to hold the president accountable for things he does?  Is the president responsible for ANYTHING?  You sound like GAT00, you know...
 
2013-03-07 08:45:38 AM  

MattStafford: The AUMF gives wide latitude to the executive branch with regards to killing "enemies".  Rand Paul thinks that that is bullshiat, and wants specific answers from the executive branch as to what exactly they believe they can do.  The executive branch gives vague answers, and says nothing about repealing or altering the AUMF.  If the executive branch truly cared about limiting these powers, they would have been more forceful with opposition when they were coded into law.  Obama issued a signing statement saying he disagreed with the powers, but he could have taken a stand.  It seems rather clear that the executive branch, along with a large majority of congress, has no issues with these powers being with the executive branch.  If they did not, we would have seen a bigger outburst after the AUMF update passed, and a bigger outburst currently.

I feel the argument is this:  congress gave the executive these powers, so the executive branch has no obligation to fight back or clarify these powers.  Which is complete bullshiat.  Obama could have vetoed the bill.  Obama could have #stoodwithrood and agreed, saying we need a national conversation about these issues and explicit definitions of when they can and cannot be used.  Instead, Obama has said nothing, and it is telling.  To act like Obama has no power to act on these issues is simply partisan bullshiat.


Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat
 
2013-03-07 08:46:38 AM  

MattStafford: Well, I'm convinced. In fact, lets get rid of all of our Constitutional protections - as long as we have Obama's word on the matter, what do we have to fear?


your blame should be focused on the prior administration who put these laws in affect. Or does past memories just all get forgotten once the new manager takes over?
 
2013-03-07 08:48:14 AM  
So is this the new talking point from Obama supporters?  That it's <i>Congress's</i> fault that he's using drones like a whack-a-mole game?  Really guys?

/Congress'?
//Congresses's?
///Congressi's?
 
2013-03-07 08:48:42 AM  
This outrage is ridiculous from both sides of the argument. The president has had the power to kill american citizens on american soil since the start of the Civil War 150 years ago. Use of drones or other humans to do it is arbitrary.
 
2013-03-07 08:49:00 AM  
And when criminals start using drones against our cops, teachers and firefighters? What then?

The '94 RepRev was born from this type of grandstanding. Maybe Priebus can ask some hispanics and african-americans to tune in.

Hee hee... low information voters
 
2013-03-07 08:49:44 AM  

poorcku: and ... .link to that:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-protracted-questioning-holder- ad mits-its-unconstitutional-govt-kill-us-citizen


hypothetically speaking, of course
 
2013-03-07 08:49:57 AM  

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Wut? We're not allowed to hold the president accountable for things he does? Is the president responsible for ANYTHING?


Considering that if you want something to last beyond Obama, you need a law, and Congress is the only branch allowed to pass a law, then yes, we need to have Congress write and pass a law, then you can hold the president accountable legally. As it stands right now, the executive branch has sweeping powers and would not be held accountable according to the law, this is something that needs to be fixed but the way we go about it is through the legislative branch of government.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: You sound like GAT00, you know...


Thanks. That's quite the compliment! You're too kind!

/GAT_00, you're still Josh
 
2013-03-07 08:51:28 AM  

CPennypacker: Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat


Partisan bullshiat is giving Obama a pass on not fighting that law.  Obama was elected as a civil liberties supporter (to a certain extent).  Congress passes a bill severely limiting civil liberties.  Obama doesn't veto the bill, and says "I don't like it but I won't use those aspects of the law (trust me!)" and then doesn't bring this up in a major way politically, and then remains silent when a Senator spends 12 hours railing about losing those civil liberties on the Senate floor, and does not have his justice department state explicitly where and when they feel these powers can be used, but leaves it as more of a "I'll know it when I see it - and I don't have to tell you when I see it" thing.

But no, this is all Congress's fault, and there is absolutely nothing to fault Obama on here.  I mean, they passed the law!
 
2013-03-07 08:52:17 AM  

somedude210: your blame should be focused on the prior administration who put these laws in affect. Or does past memories just all get forgotten once the new manager takes over?


I do blame the past administration as well, but the vague expansion of the AUMF that would allow these increased and dangerous powers was passed under Obama, not Bush.
 
2013-03-07 08:53:26 AM  

CPennypacker: MattStafford: The AUMF gives wide latitude to the executive branch with regards to killing "enemies".  Rand Paul thinks that that is bullshiat, and wants specific answers from the executive branch as to what exactly they believe they can do.  The executive branch gives vague answers, and says nothing about repealing or altering the AUMF.  If the executive branch truly cared about limiting these powers, they would have been more forceful with opposition when they were coded into law.  Obama issued a signing statement saying he disagreed with the powers, but he could have taken a stand.  It seems rather clear that the executive branch, along with a large majority of congress, has no issues with these powers being with the executive branch.  If they did not, we would have seen a bigger outburst after the AUMF update passed, and a bigger outburst currently.

I feel the argument is this:  congress gave the executive these powers, so the executive branch has no obligation to fight back or clarify these powers.  Which is complete bullshiat.  Obama could have vetoed the bill.  Obama could have #stoodwithrood and agreed, saying we need a national conversation about these issues and explicit definitions of when they can and cannot be used.  Instead, Obama has said nothing, and it is telling.  To act like Obama has no power to act on these issues is simply partisan bullshiat.

Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat


You mean like being mad at Bush for the war in Iraq even though multiple Democrats like Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry and others voted to do so in Congress! Yeah it does stink of that shiat!
 
2013-03-07 08:54:10 AM  
I generally only stay in economics threads, because it is really the only political subject I disagree with the Fark collective about, but geeze - the fact that there are people defending the administration and trashing Paul with regards to drones and the filibuster is crazy.
 
2013-03-07 08:54:36 AM  

Cozret: Law enforcement does it all the time, for legal and justifiable reasons (for example someone who is actively shooting at people)

If you are talking about using drones as they are used abroad, then yes there is an issue.
If you are talking about using them as a SWAT sniper or other tool of last resort might be used, then there isn't an issue.

Currently we have an ambiguous statement that everyone is spinning based on their current feelings about "The Government."


so in a way, your gun policy has led to the requirement of DRONES for protection.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:11 AM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat

Partisan bullshiat is giving Obama a pass on not fighting that law.  Obama was elected as a civil liberties supporter (to a certain extent).  Congress passes a bill severely limiting civil liberties.  Obama doesn't veto the bill, and says "I don't like it but I won't use those aspects of the law (trust me!)" and then doesn't bring this up in a major way politically, and then remains silent when a Senator spends 12 hours railing about losing those civil liberties on the Senate floor, and does not have his justice department state explicitly where and when they feel these powers can be used, but leaves it as more of a "I'll know it when I see it - and I don't have to tell you when I see it" thing.

But no, this is all Congress's fault, and there is absolutely nothing to fault Obama on here.  I mean, they passed the law!


if you remember correctly, said law also had money to the troops tied to it (Their pay) and congress wasn't willing to have a standalone bill that paid the troops, so either pass it or get hit with "HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS!!!!" attacks. Double edged sword and most people would've thought that the disliking of troops was worse than the potential for drone strikes in america.

politics, this is how it works

/two things you never want to see being made: Laws and sausages
 
2013-03-07 08:55:59 AM  

MattStafford: CPennypacker: Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat

Partisan bullshiat is giving Obama a pass on not fighting that law.  Obama was elected as a civil liberties supporter (to a certain extent).  Congress passes a bill severely limiting civil liberties.  Obama doesn't veto the bill, and says "I don't like it but I won't use those aspects of the law (trust me!)" and then doesn't bring this up in a major way politically, and then remains silent when a Senator spends 12 hours railing about losing those civil liberties on the Senate floor, and does not have his justice department state explicitly where and when they feel these powers can be used, but leaves it as more of a "I'll know it when I see it - and I don't have to tell you when I see it" thing.

But no, this is all Congress's fault, and there is absolutely nothing to fault Obama on here.  I mean, they passed the law!


Its all partisan bullshiat buddy. Congress is who put that lovely little clause about US citizens being possibly subject to martial law in the 2012 NDAA. Obama signed it. He said he didn't like it. If congress hates it so much, why is it in there, and why don't they take it out now that they realize how unpopular it is? I doubt Obama would veto that. Do you?

What a farking tyrant.
 
2013-03-07 08:56:54 AM  

BillCo: Yeah, let's not let the Constitution get in the way. If Obama says it's OK, then it's OK. Shut up and obey citizen.


Again, see the AUMF law. Don't like it, then sue to see if it stands its constitutionality.

Until then, tell your congress person to change that farking horrid law.

MattStafford: I feel the argument is this: congress gave the executive these powers, so the executive branch has no obligation to fight back or clarify these powers. Which is complete bullshiat. Obama could have vetoed the bill. Obama could have #stoodwithrood and agreed, saying we need a national conversation about these issues and explicit definitions of when they can and cannot be used. Instead, Obama has said nothing, and it is telling. To act like Obama has no power to act on these issues is simply partisan bullshiat.


Please tell you realize that the AUMF was passed just after 9/11, you know when Obama wasn't even on the radar for politics.

In any event the AUMF is a shiatty laws, passed at a time when NONE of us had our farking heads screwed on straight, and like a broken clock this is the one time of day that Rand Paul is actually right here.
 
2013-03-07 08:57:02 AM  

praymantis: CPennypacker: MattStafford: The AUMF gives wide latitude to the executive branch with regards to killing "enemies".  Rand Paul thinks that that is bullshiat, and wants specific answers from the executive branch as to what exactly they believe they can do.  The executive branch gives vague answers, and says nothing about repealing or altering the AUMF.  If the executive branch truly cared about limiting these powers, they would have been more forceful with opposition when they were coded into law.  Obama issued a signing statement saying he disagreed with the powers, but he could have taken a stand.  It seems rather clear that the executive branch, along with a large majority of congress, has no issues with these powers being with the executive branch.  If they did not, we would have seen a bigger outburst after the AUMF update passed, and a bigger outburst currently.

I feel the argument is this:  congress gave the executive these powers, so the executive branch has no obligation to fight back or clarify these powers.  Which is complete bullshiat.  Obama could have vetoed the bill.  Obama could have #stoodwithrood and agreed, saying we need a national conversation about these issues and explicit definitions of when they can and cannot be used.  Instead, Obama has said nothing, and it is telling.  To act like Obama has no power to act on these issues is simply partisan bullshiat.

Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat

You mean like being mad at Bush for the war in Iraq even though multiple Democrats like Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry and others voted to do so in Congress! Yeah it does stink of that shiat!


Yes, because the administration sold the war on patriotic jingoism and faulty intelligence? And you don't see how that is somehow different than this?
 
2013-03-07 08:57:08 AM  
We always focus on the inexplicable miracle of January of 2009, when everybody who had learned from Reagan that deficits don't matter magically transformed into a deficit hawk.

But, what often is overlooked is that on that same magical day, those who had previously viewed warrantless wiretapping, "random" searches at airports and bus/train terminals, and torture as issues of "Well, if you don't have anything to hide there won't be a problem" were magically transmogrified into the most vigilant of civil libertarians.

There's no reason to question the sincerity of these conversions. Clearly there's NOTHING possibly disingenuous or politically convenient about them.
 
2013-03-07 08:57:28 AM  

MattStafford: I generally only stay in economics threads, because it is really the only political subject I disagree with the Fark collective about, but geeze - the fact that there are people defending the administration and trashing Paul with regards to drones and the filibuster is crazy.


actually most of us agree with Paul and welcome actual filibustering. But to argue that Obama didn't have his hands tied by the bill that authorized this is silly. Congress gave him the powers and tied this hands by passing it during an election year and tacking on the pay for soldiers into the bill.

but please, tell me how I'm defending Obama by agreeing that he shouldn't have this power, or any president for that matter
 
2013-03-07 08:58:10 AM  

somedude210: MattStafford: Well, I'm convinced. In fact, lets get rid of all of our Constitutional protections - as long as we have Obama's word on the matter, what do we have to fear?

your blame should be focused on the prior administration who put these laws in affect. Or does past memories just all get forgotten once the new manager takes over?


Sweet. The ol' BBBut Bush argument. At what point will you ever hold this administration responsible for anything?
 
2013-03-07 08:58:15 AM  
More amazing to me is that I've only seen a couple fark liberals take Obama and the Democratic party to task on this issue.  The rest of the liberal drones are defending them.

The Democrats are supposed to be the ones FIGHTING this type of crap...we already know the GOP likes blowing up stuff and restricting the rights of citizens.
 
2013-03-07 08:59:25 AM  

CPennypacker: praymantis: CPennypacker: MattStafford: The AUMF gives wide latitude to the executive branch with regards to killing "enemies".  Rand Paul thinks that that is bullshiat, and wants specific answers from the executive branch as to what exactly they believe they can do.  The executive branch gives vague answers, and says nothing about repealing or altering the AUMF.  If the executive branch truly cared about limiting these powers, they would have been more forceful with opposition when they were coded into law.  Obama issued a signing statement saying he disagreed with the powers, but he could have taken a stand.  It seems rather clear that the executive branch, along with a large majority of congress, has no issues with these powers being with the executive branch.  If they did not, we would have seen a bigger outburst after the AUMF update passed, and a bigger outburst currently.

I feel the argument is this:  congress gave the executive these powers, so the executive branch has no obligation to fight back or clarify these powers.  Which is complete bullshiat.  Obama could have vetoed the bill.  Obama could have #stoodwithrood and agreed, saying we need a national conversation about these issues and explicit definitions of when they can and cannot be used.  Instead, Obama has said nothing, and it is telling.  To act like Obama has no power to act on these issues is simply partisan bullshiat.

Partisan bullshiat like being mad at Obama for a law congress passed?

The whole thing stinks of shiat

You mean like being mad at Bush for the war in Iraq even though multiple Democrats like Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry and others voted to do so in Congress! Yeah it does stink of that shiat!

Yes, because the administration sold the war on patriotic jingoism and faulty intelligence? And you don't see how that is somehow different than this?


It is politics it is all the same, both parties do whatever it takes to get their way.
 
2013-03-07 08:59:32 AM  

slayer199: More amazing to me is that I've only seen a couple fark liberals take Obama and the Democratic party to task on this issue.  The rest of the liberal drones are defending them.

The Democrats are supposed to be the ones FIGHTING this type of crap...we already know the GOP likes blowing up stuff and restricting the rights of citizens.


Why is that amazing to you? Congress passed the bill and Obama signed it. Why should Obama and teh librulz be taken to task? The government should be taken to task.
 
2013-03-07 08:59:52 AM  

slayer199: The Democrats are supposed to be the ones FIGHTING this type of crap...we already know the GOP likes blowing up stuff and restricting the rights of citizens.


I've been pretty taken aback by that as well. Hell even over at the great orange satan on Kos there is a contingent of folks defending this program.

At the very least, and I mean at the very least this drone program needs moved out of the CIA and placed under the DOD where it would at least have some oversight and transparency.
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report