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
 
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.
 
2013-03-07 09:00:10 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!


Hey don't let facts get in the way of a good derp.
 
2013-03-07 09:00:40 AM

praymantis: 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.


This congress knew what was in that bill.  They farking put it there, and it wasn't based on any bandwagoning or lies. Its different.

Horseshiat all around.
 
2013-03-07 09:01:07 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.


It's almost like a hypothetical scenario was used as a grandstanding event by Republicans not invited to dinner with the President.  A scenario that, if came to pass, would be legal if the drones were given to the FBI or martial law was declared.  What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block.
 
2013-03-07 09:01:10 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.

Why not, it worked when Bush wanted a war.
 
2013-03-07 09:02:11 AM
As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up
 
2013-03-07 09:03:18 AM

The Troof hurts: The ol' BBBut Bush argument. At what point will you ever hold this administration responsible for anything?


I'm sorry, but who signed the Patriot Act into law? Who took away our civil liberties because they failed to care about imminent terrorist attacks? You know how you can trace most political strife back to the Treaty of Versailles? You can trace most of our domestic strife back to the damn Bush administration, so when you acknowledge that the blue prints for all this shiat originated in the previous administration then I will...well I don't know what since I already acknowledge that Obama should've done more to prevent this and he should fight this more but he can't actually write laws

Christ, which is it that you guys want? A powerless Obama or a dictator? because you seem to keep asking for both as solutions to whatever problem you guys have

/Bush: the Treaty of Versailles for the modern world
 
2013-03-07 09:03:40 AM

WTF Indeed: It's almost like a hypothetical scenario was used as a grandstanding event by Republicans not invited to dinner with the President. A scenario that, if came to pass, would be legal if the drones were given to the FBI or martial law was declared. What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block unquenchable thirst for attention.


Glad to know so many Fark Independents rally 'round Paul's argument of "We can't trust this president with that kind of power because...well, just look at him!"
 
2013-03-07 09:06:03 AM

EyeballKid: 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.



It's amusing, isn't it?
 
2013-03-07 09:06:30 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?


Here's what happens inside an idiot's brain:
From 2000 to 2008, the US was managed by [File Not Found].
From 2009 to present, the US was managed by ###@*$!(0&^%@&^^$# [CRC Error]
From 2009 to present, the US was managed by $%^#@!(0($$^^%#$#0 [Warning--Bad Sector]
From 2009 to present, the US was managed by 0(#&%*@*#$(%)!*##& [CRC Error]
[Brain has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.  Libs drool, GOP rule!]

It seems to be a hardware issue - probably best to replace the unit.
 
2013-03-07 09:07:05 AM

somedude210: 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


So that justifies everything else in that paragraph?  Even still - grow some balls and make a farking stand.  Withholding pay for the troops for two weeks to bring such an important civil liberties question to the forefront of the national scene would be exactly what I want a "civil liberties" president to do in that situation.
 
2013-03-07 09:07:38 AM
OK, so the party that authorized torture and extraordinary rendition, and presumably held up John Brennan's statements supporting them, is now filibustering John Brennan's confirmation on civil liberties grounds.

Good to know.

/I kinda want to search the Farkives for torture threads with Fark Independents™ talking about how awesome Brennan is
//But I also kind of want to get something useful done with my day, like masturbating.
 
2013-03-07 09:09:04 AM

CPennypacker: 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.


Uh, last I checked the Senate was controlled by the Democrats and the President is a Democrat.  I expect this sort of crap out of the GOP, NOT the Democrats...so yes, I'm going to take the Democrats to task on this since they're supposed to be the party that supports civil liberties...but I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party is to civil liberties as the GOP is to fiscal responsibility and smaller government.
 
2013-03-07 09:09:43 AM

CPennypacker: 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.


The fact that Obama's administration won't come out and explicitly state how they use those clauses doesn't trouble you?  The fact that the administration (supposedly pro civil liberties) has not brought those clauses to the forefront of the political scene and asked congress to repeal them doesn't trouble you?  The fact that they have simply ignored this filibuster, when one would expect, if they truly disagreed with those provisions, they would #stoodwithrood?

Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.
 
2013-03-07 09:10:52 AM

slayer199: I'm going to take the Democrats to task on this since they're supposed to be the party that supports civil liberties...but I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party is to civil liberties as the GOP is to fiscal responsibility and smaller government.


The difference being that Democrats don't run and get elected on civil liberties platforms. Republicans, on the other hand, run solely on fiscal responsibility and smaller government and then throw those principles out the window once elected.
 
2013-03-07 09:11:09 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.


Please tell me you know that the expansion of the AUMF that contains these provisions was passed under Obama, you know, when Obama was president and could have vetoed the bill.
 
2013-03-07 09:11:49 AM

MattStafford: Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.


Says the apologist for the "libertarian" who supported Mitt Romney and co-sponsored a "fetuses-are-people-too" bill.
 
2013-03-07 09:12:14 AM
The funny thing is that Rand Paul is totally OK with the extrajudicial killing of Al-Awlaki because "he was a traitor", yet he is super concerned that P. Fart is going to launch a Hellfire missile into a Tea Party Patriots meeting at the corner Starbucks.
 
2013-03-07 09:12:35 AM

MattStafford: MyKingdomForYourHorse: 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.

Please tell me you know that the expansion of the AUMF that contains these provisions was passed under Obama, you know, when Obama was president and could have vetoed the bill.


What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.
 
2013-03-07 09:12:56 AM
Are some farkers actually saying the President should be able to order targeted killings on US soil with drones? I don't want Obama to have that power and i sure as hell don't want whoever is elected after him to have it either.
 
2013-03-07 09:13:33 AM

somedude210: 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.


And his silence on the matter since has been hunky dory with you?  His refusal to explicitly state what he believes the powers he has because of those provisions?

Congress passes law.  Obama says I don't like the law, but signs it anyway.  Doesn't bring up the law again, or ask congress to repeal the troubling provisions.  When asked about how he would use the law, refuses to give explicit answers.  Doesn't speak up when a Senator is filibustering, and speaking directly about these provisions.

Take off your farking blinders man.
 
2013-03-07 09:14:18 AM
GOP, do you remember all those times when people were telling you "Hey, tone it down.  Dial it back a bit.  Don't be so derpy all the time, or people are going to start tuning you out."

Well, you didn't listen.  And the people have tuned you out.  And now, when we have a legitimate reason to be angry at the President, you can't even muster the anger and worry and doubt that's out there for you to use.

People have decidedly ignored you and your rantings and given up on you ever actually being angry over something legitimately outrageous.

Had you decided to be the sane party of opposition, you would be in a prime position to hold his feet to the fire and get results, but no, you had to be the party of arugula and mustard and 'hip-hop in the wh' and herp and derp and now no one takes you seriously other than some old scared white people.

You've done this to yourselves.
 
2013-03-07 09:14:45 AM

Carth: Are some farkers actually saying the President should be able to order targeted killings on US soil with drones? I don't want Obama to have that power and i sure as hell don't want whoever is elected after him to have it either.


Any President can do that. It's called martial law.
 
2013-03-07 09:14:53 AM

Carth: Are some farkers actually saying the President should be able to order targeted killings on US soil with drones?


yeah IS anyone saying this? I mean you are just asking questions here right
 
2013-03-07 09:14:59 AM
i885.photobucket.com


 No one lives any nearer than town. No one will come any nearer than that. In the night. In the dark.
 
2013-03-07 09:15:25 AM

WTF Indeed: What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block.


Wtf indeed.
 
2013-03-07 09:15:29 AM

MattStafford: Please tell me you know that the expansion of the AUMF that contains these provisions was passed under Obama, you know, when Obama was president and could have vetoed the bill.


The ability was already there, it was no 'expansion'. The law was tied to funding so it was either pass it and fund the military, sure its crappy but really it was already there to begin with. Or he could have veto the entire thing, shut down the military and killed his party's chance at ever holding a seat for anything for the next decade.

I ain't defending the guy, he could have stood on principle. But really when have we EVER seen a politician stand on principle?
 
2013-03-07 09:15:30 AM

BillCo: 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.



Wow, Billy.  Usually you at least read an entire post before you go all cray-cray.  Let's take a look at MKFYH's entire post to find out where he said anything about obeying B-rock "The Islamic Shock" Obama:

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.

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?


Oh, that's right.  He never said anything to that fact.  In fact, he actually suggested that Congress do more than filibuster and specifically outline the scope of the Executive's power.

I agree with Paul's stance, and Holder said it'd be unconstitutional to pewpew Real 'Muricans.  It seems like we're all on the same page in this thread, but you still want to be all trolly.  Can't we all just get along?
 
2013-03-07 09:15:53 AM

MattStafford: Withholding pay for the troops for two weeks to bring such an important civil liberties question to the forefront of the national scene would be exactly what I want a "civil liberties" president to do in that situation.


hahaha, please. The derp storm about him not caring about the troops wouldn't even peak by that point, it'd never come up for a vote for another 4 months, by then the election would be over and we'd have President Rmoney. A fate worse than death.

His only other option was to use a line-item veto of it, which was an option, but if he had done that, then the House, in their infinite hypocrisy, would file impeachment charges instantly because the line-item veto is unconstitutional, despite his predecessor being quite the authority on how to use it.
 
2013-03-07 09:16:49 AM

slayer199: but I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party is to civil liberties as the GOP is to fiscal responsibility and smaller government.


As is it turns out, both parties are pretty similar, and "claim" to have this massive differences to split the country up.
 
2013-03-07 09:16:54 AM

Jackson Herring: The funny thing is that Rand Paul is totally OK with the extrajudicial killing of Al-Awlaki because "he was a traitor", yet he is super concerned that P. Fart is going to launch a Hellfire missile into a Tea Party Patriots meeting at the corner Starbucks.


He likely will, I mean...just look at him!
 
2013-03-07 09:17:14 AM

WTF Indeed: Carth: Are some farkers actually saying the President should be able to order targeted killings on US soil with drones? I don't want Obama to have that power and i sure as hell don't want whoever is elected after him to have it either.

Any President can do that. It's called martial law.


Oh ok. I didn't realize the administration said they would only use drones in the US if martial law was declared. There are a few thousand comments in the various threads and I didn't feel like reading though all of them.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:27 AM

Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up


If you're talking about the FBI or other federal law enforcement agency, that would be they'd have the power to issue warrants, conduct searches and arrest the subject via due process of law.  If he resisted arrest by force, then they could act.  What the use of drones does is eliminates due process and transparency.  Currently there's no transparency on what evidence the government needs to drop a drone on someone outside the U.S. and now Holder has justified doing it internally.

This is a slippery slope where the government can determine what constitutes a terrorist threat without providing any evidence.  Say the GOP wins the next election and they decide that drug dealers are a terrorist threat.  There's nothing to prevent them from using a drone against an American citizen in their home soil and without due process of law.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:45 AM

Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up


compliancecampaign.files.wordpress.com

Given the record that government forces have in targeting guys driving trucks, I would feel safer if we could at least order the police on the ground to arrest such a potential terrorist, rather than obliterating him with a missile.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:47 AM

MattStafford: slayer199: but I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party is to civil liberties as the GOP is to fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

As is it turns out, both parties are pretty similar, and "claim" to have this massive differences to split the country up.


Well, that's obviously untrue.  The Democrats are sane.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:48 AM

Carth: Are some farkers actually saying the President should be able to order targeted killings on US soil with drones? I don't want Obama to have that power and i sure as hell don't want whoever is elected after him to have it either.


NO ONE IS SAYING THIS. CHRIST, READ BEFORE DERPING
 
2013-03-07 09:17:52 AM

EyeballKid: Says the apologist for the "libertarian" who supported Mitt Romney and co-sponsored a "fetuses-are-people-too" bill.


NEWSFLASH:  You can support people on some issues, but not agree with them on all issues.
 
2013-03-07 09:17:55 AM

Carth: Are some farkers actually saying the President should be able to order targeted killings on US soil with drones? I don't want Obama to have that power and i sure as hell don't want whoever is elected after him to have it either.


Yes he can and yes future ones will. Unless congress decides to take that power away anyway.
 
2013-03-07 09:18:08 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: 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.

The fact that Obama's administration won't come out and explicitly state how they use those clauses doesn't trouble you?  The fact that the administration (supposedly pro civil liberties) has not brought those clauses to the forefront of the political scene and asked congress to repeal them doesn't trouble you?  The fact that they have simply ignored this filibuster, when one would expect, if they truly disagreed with those provisions, they would #stoodwithrood?

Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.


I like how republicans get a pass on this shiat by other republicans because they are always against civil liberties, but the dirty libs are supposed to protect our civil liberties so this is egregious. You're attacking one side when clearly they are all at fault. I say they are all at fault and I am "slobbering the knob." THis is why nobody takes you seriously. You're a hack.
 
2013-03-07 09:18:31 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


You know, I was actually about to comment that this is an interesting use of the filibuster and, at least at face value, elevates my opinion of Rand.  He appears to have used Brennan's nomination as an opportunity to speak, specifically, about this issue.  It doesn't seem to be intended to score political points.  It was semi-relevant to the nomination under discussion.

Thumbs up.

McConnell on the other hand

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the senior Senator from Kentucky, also joined in the filibuster.  McConnell offered no hints as to his view on the administration's policy on targeted killing as it relates to United States soil, but he added that he will oppose cloture should it be invoked.

"I don't have opinions, but I don't like letting things happen."

Could he at least PRETEND to have principles?
 
2013-03-07 09:19:49 AM

qorkfiend: What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.


He could have vetoed it.  He could have brought a ton more attention to it.  He could have asked Congress to remove those provisions.  He could have agreed with Rand on these issues.  He could explicitly state what he believes those provisions give him power to do.

The fact that he has done none of those things, are indeed, his fault.
 
2013-03-07 09:20:27 AM

MattStafford: NEWSFLASH: You can support people on some issues, but not agree with them on all issues.


NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.
 
2013-03-07 09:20:41 AM

MattStafford: As is it turns out, both parties are pretty similar, and "claim" to have this massive differences to split the country up.


Which is why I hate both with a passion.
 
2013-03-07 09:21:50 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: The ability was already there, it was no 'expansion'.


That is factually incorrect.  The expanded AUMF includes anyone providing support to terrorist organizations, whereas the original AUMF only went after the actors directly responsible for 9/11.
 
2013-03-07 09:21:55 AM

slayer199: MattStafford: As is it turns out, both parties are pretty similar, and "claim" to have this massive differences to split the country up.

Which is why I hate both with a passion.


What's important here is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.
 
2013-03-07 09:22:22 AM
Obama hasn't ruled out carpet bombing trailer parks. Someone should filibuster until we get a straight answer on that.
 
2013-03-07 09:23:09 AM

CPennypacker: I like how republicans get a pass on this shiat by other republicans because they are always against civil liberties, but the dirty libs are supposed to protect our civil liberties so this is egregious. You're attacking one side when clearly they are all at fault. I say they are all at fault and I am "slobbering the knob." THis is why nobody takes you seriously. You're a hack.


bbbbbbbut Bush?  Christ man, take your party to task when they deserve it.
 
2013-03-07 09:23:50 AM

OrangeSnapper: Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up

[compliancecampaign.files.wordpress.com image 620x412]

Given the record that government forces have in targeting guys driving trucks, I would feel safer if we could at least order the police on the ground to arrest such a potential terrorist, rather than obliterating him with a missile.


Good thing this is about the military - who have to go far away to do 3 months of rigorous training, plus several months afterward (depending on MOS) - and not your local police, who can get in with a good interview and a GED.

// I trust the military as a unit far more than I trust any police jurisdiction
// and slayer199, I said I'd like to see some kind of trial/evidentiary hearing before any action is taken
// I'd be shocked if this power is ever used (though once it is, it'll happen at least once a year) - "ticking time bomb" scenarios only seem to exist in movies and Republican fever-dreams
 
2013-03-07 09:24:49 AM

MattStafford: He could have vetoed it. He could have brought a ton more attention to it. He could have asked Congress to remove those provisions. He could have agreed with Rand on these issues. He could explicitly state what he believes those provisions give him power to do.


is he not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing such things? and what more attention is needed when every goddamn news place in the country was talking about it? You want us to put up the Bat Signal? And he did ask Congress to remove, he did many times, he threatened to veto it, they threatened to drag him through the ringer with the "OMG HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS", he could've line-itemed veto and contemplated it but then they would've impeached him in a goddamn election year. You really want to re-elect a president facing impeachment? No? Well why would you risk your re-election and entire presidency because you can't do something the previous guy could do with ease because you're gonna get farking impeached?
 
2013-03-07 09:25:54 AM

somedude210: 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


WTF, I got called out in a thread I wasn't even in.  And for all things, being too loyal to Obama and not criticizing him, which makes absolutely no sense.
 
2013-03-07 09:26:16 AM

MattStafford: qorkfiend: What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.

He could have vetoed it.  He could have brought a ton more attention to it.  He could have asked Congress to remove those provisions.  He could have agreed with Rand on these issues.  He could explicitly state what he believes those provisions give him power to do.

The fact that he has done none of those things, are indeed, his fault.


No, he couldn't do that politically.  That was never a realistic option because Congress the provision was directly linked to military funding.  You veto the bill and you defund the troops, during an election year.  Though this has been told to you a thousand times anyway so why am I bothering...  Hell, the administration even asked to remove the provision BEFORE the House and Senate passed the flipping thing and they passed it anyway.  Would I like to have seen more done by the administration besides a signing statement pink swearing they will be good?  Most certainly.  But up until the GOP decided to make this a scandal they were dead silent on the matter as well.

The one with blinders refusing to see reality is you.  No one should be happy about any administration having the power to send a drone to anyone on the world on a whim, in that Rand is correct.  But that's where it ends.  Congress gets the lion share of the blame for me because they wrote it into the funding bill AGAINST  the wishes of the admin to begin with.  Its not like some super secret cabal of representative snuck it in there.
 
2013-03-07 09:26:21 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I like how republicans get a pass on this shiat by other republicans because they are always against civil liberties, but the dirty libs are supposed to protect our civil liberties so this is egregious. You're attacking one side when clearly they are all at fault. I say they are all at fault and I am "slobbering the knob." THis is why nobody takes you seriously. You're a hack.

bbbbbbbut Bush?  Christ man, take your party to task when they deserve it.


That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:07 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: 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.

The fact that Obama's administration won't come out and explicitly state how they use those clauses doesn't trouble you?  The fact that the administration (supposedly pro civil liberties) has not brought those clauses to the forefront of the political scene and asked congress to repeal them doesn't trouble you?  The fact that they have simply ignored this filibuster, when one would expect, if they truly disagreed with those provisions, they would #stoodwithrood?

Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.


I think Obama went on record right and the beginning saying that his administration would not use the clauses but that he could not say how future administrations would use them.  He should have vetoed it anyways and made Congress override his veto.  Also he should not have extended the Patriot Act or kept GITMO open.  These items combined represent the biggest failure of his administration IMHO.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:21 AM

MattStafford: That is factually incorrect. The expanded AUMF includes anyone providing support to terrorist organizations, whereas the original AUMF only went after the actors directly responsible for 9/11.


The original AUMF was broad enough that the argument could already have been made for that expansion. Did the current define it, obviously but don't delude yourself into thinking that the original couldn't have already been stood on to authorize that.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:25 AM

WTF Indeed: Obama hasn't ruled out carpet bombing trailer parks. Someone should filibuster until we get a straight answer on that.


Let's not be rash here... There may be some merit to that idea. : )
 
2013-03-07 09:27:41 AM

SlothB77: Did he go that whole time without peeing, did he pee his pants or just hold it?


If he wants to pull a stunt like that again, maybe he should get his father to install a catheter with a bag inside his pant leg.
 
2013-03-07 09:27:42 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: I like how republicans get a pass on this shiat by other republicans because they are always against civil liberties, but the dirty libs are supposed to protect our civil liberties so this is egregious. You're attacking one side when clearly they are all at fault. I say they are all at fault and I am "slobbering the knob." THis is why nobody takes you seriously. You're a hack.

bbbbbbbut Bush?  Christ man, take your party to task when they deserve it.


Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.
 
2013-03-07 09:28:08 AM

EyeballKid: NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.


So is it fair to judge Obama for not speaking up about these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to repeal these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not explicitly stating how he can use these powers?  Is it fair to judge Obama to not agree with Rand Paul during his filibuster?

Can we judge Obama for these actions?  Or is that different?
 
2013-03-07 09:28:32 AM

GAT_00: WTF, I got called out in a thread I wasn't even in. And for all things, being too loyal to Obama and not criticizing him, which makes absolutely no sense.


Yeah, I know. I wasn't expecting it either. You got the GAT signal though
 
2013-03-07 09:29:04 AM

somedude210: Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.


Shhhhh don't let reality get in the way of his derp, this troll is actually fun to poke
 
2013-03-07 09:29:37 AM

MattStafford: EyeballKid: NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.

So is it fair to judge Obama for not speaking up about these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to repeal these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not explicitly stating how he can use these powers?  Is it fair to judge Obama to not agree with Rand Paul during his filibuster?

Can we judge Obama for these actions?  Or is that different?


Obama also did not breathe fire from atop a mountain. Is it fair to assume Obama is anti-dragon?
 
2013-03-07 09:30:35 AM

somedude210: GAT_00: WTF, I got called out in a thread I wasn't even in. And for all things, being too loyal to Obama and not criticizing him, which makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't expecting it either. You got the GAT signal though


Haha.  I wonder if there's a setting so you can get emails for threads where you get referenced when you haven't commented in them.

But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.
 
2013-03-07 09:30:38 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


Haha! Obama is wrong on drone strikes and therefore Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obamacare is overturned.
 
2013-03-07 09:31:29 AM

somedude210: is he not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing such things? and what more attention is needed when every goddamn news place in the country was talking about it? You want us to put up the Bat Signal? And he did ask Congress to remove, he did many times, he threatened to veto it, they threatened to drag him through the ringer with the "OMG HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS", he could've line-itemed veto and contemplated it but then they would've impeached him in a goddamn election year. You really want to re-elect a president facing impeachment? No? Well why would you risk your re-election and entire presidency because you can't do something the previous guy could do with ease because you're gonna get farking impeached?


First off - no, he is absolutely not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing these things.  Rand is saying that he shouldn't even be allowed to do these things, whereas Obama is saying he won't (trust me!) do these things.

Second - having the president make a statement on the issue brings a lot more attention than a junior Senator from Kentucky.  And he should make the statement to show that he agrees with Rand!  That is the important farking part!

Please, show me where he has asked congress to remove those provisions.  I'd like a source please.

And again, I don't give a fark.  He should have taken a stand then, or he should have made a big farking deal about it after.  He did neither.
 
2013-03-07 09:31:53 AM

GAT_00: But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.


It's a great day in the morning, people

/fetching all the muffins and bagels in all the land
//want your keg of glory now or later?
 
2013-03-07 09:31:54 AM
Infernalist:
....
Had you decided to be the sane party of opposition, .... and now no one takes you seriously other than some old scared white people.

You've done this to yourselves.


This is what I was thinking when Rand Paul was speaking.

/Republican
 
2013-03-07 09:32:52 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: MattStafford: qorkfiend: What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.

He could have vetoed it. He could have brought a ton more attention to it. He could have asked Congress to remove those provisions. He could have agreed with Rand on these issues. He could explicitly state what he believes those provisions give him power to do.

The fact that he has done none of those things, are indeed, his fault.

No, he couldn't do that politically. That was never a realistic option because Congress the provision was directly linked to military funding. You veto the bill and you defund the troops, during an election year. Though this has been told to you a thousand times anyway so why am I bothering... Hell, the administration even asked to remove the provision BEFORE the House and Senate passed the flipping thing and they passed it anyway. Would I like to have seen more done by the administration besides a signing statement pink swearing they will be good? Most certainly. But up until the GOP decided to make this a scandal they were dead silent on the matter as well.

The one with blinders refusing to see reality is you. No one should be happy about any administration having the power to send a drone to anyone on the world on a whim, in that Rand is correct. But that's where it ends. Congress gets the lion share of the blame for me because they wrote it into the funding bill AGAINST the wishes of the admin to begin with. Its not like some super secret cabal of representative snuck it in there.


Well - that was one sentence of that paragraph, so I'm sure Obama is free and clear from blame.
 
2013-03-07 09:33:12 AM

Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up




That's the way I heard Holder describe a possible in-country use of drones as well; there was a valid and immediate threat to the country, and no other solution was available. Suppose some group commandeered a number of transport planes and began flying them into buildings again (not passenger planes, think UPS planes). Do you not think the President is perfectly justified in using whatever asset he has (drones, planes, whatever) to stop those planes from reaching their targets whether there were Americans flying them or not?

Bush was willing to shoot down airliners full of Americans to stop them from hitting 9/11 targets. I don't see this as anything but further clarification of that decision.
 
2013-03-07 09:33:34 AM

CPennypacker: That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.


I'm sorry, are there a ton of left libertarians in office?  The people I support don't do this kind of shiat.
 
2013-03-07 09:34:04 AM

somedude210: want your keg of glory now or later?


That's for tomorrow evening.
 
2013-03-07 09:34:11 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: The original AUMF was broad enough that the argument could already have been made for that expansion. Did the current define it, obviously but don't delude yourself into thinking that the original couldn't have already been stood on to authorize that.


Then why change it?
 
2013-03-07 09:34:45 AM

MattStafford: First off - no, he is absolutely not agreeing with Rand when he says he has no intention of doing these things. Rand is saying that he shouldn't even be allowed to do these things, whereas Obama is saying he won't (trust me!) do these things.

Second - having the president make a statement on the issue brings a lot more attention than a junior Senator from Kentucky. And he should make the statement to show that he agrees with Rand! That is the important farking part!

Please, show me where he has asked congress to remove those provisions. I'd like a source please.

And again, I don't give a fark. He should have taken a stand then, or he should have made a big farking deal about it after. He did neither.


you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source
 
2013-03-07 09:35:18 AM

qorkfiend: What are you on about? The 2012 NDAA, passed with a veto-proof majority by both Houses of Congress, which expanded nothing about the original AUMF? Yeah, that's definitely all Obama's fault.


If only the President had a coconut...
 
2013-03-07 09:36:25 AM

somedude210: Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.


Yeah, Congress shouldn't have passed it either!  The reason I'm not bringing up the GOP is because it is a farking echo chamber in here.  Everyone already knows the GOP is a terrible, awful party.  The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?

The GOP forced Obama's hand, and they wrote the shiatty law.  Obama has done nothing to combat it.  He deserves blame, which you refuse to assign to him, presumably because he is on your team.
 
2013-03-07 09:36:59 AM

GAT_00: somedude210: want your keg of glory now or later?

That's for tomorrow evening.


noted. Btw, Toby's in your office

/when did I become Donna?
 
2013-03-07 09:37:23 AM

MattStafford: EyeballKid: NEWSFLASH: Judging people by what they do is often more accurate than judging people by what they say, even if they say it for twelve hours.

So is it fair to judge Obama for not speaking up about these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to repeal these provisions?  Is it fair to judge Obama for not explicitly stating how he can use these powers?  Is it fair to judge Obama to not agree with Rand Paul during his filibuster?

Can we judge Obama for these actions?  Or is that different?


1)  Obama did speak up against them, many times before they were passed.  He asked the House to remove them from the funding bill.  He threatened to Veto the funding bill if they didn't several times.  They passed it anyway as a tactic to attempt to get him to line-item the thing and start a shiat storm over the legality of the move.
2)  Its just as fair to judge Obama for not asking Congress to remove them as it is to judge the now super concerned Congress for not making moves to remove it on their own.  If its such an issue why did they wait until it was politically expedient to do so?
3)  ?  What do you want him to say aside from what the administration has already stated many times on public record past and present?

The only reason we are here is because it was put in a funding bill as a political mouse trap.  Well, it didn't work, but now both sides have to live with this unsightly bit of policy floating around.  No one did anything before about it because it wasn't politically expedient to do so in a highly charged election year fraught with danger; especially when there was little to no perceived gain from making such a move.

But guess what?  All of a sudden public perception has tweaked up so there is finally some political hay to be made. 
We got in this situation due to party gamesmanship and thats also the only reason why its an issue once more.  The idea that Rand got up out of some idealistic belief is a bloody great farce.
 
2013-03-07 09:37:24 AM

EyeballKid: Obama also did not breathe fire from atop a mountain. Is it fair to assume Obama is anti-dragon?


Nice answer.
 
2013-03-07 09:38:44 AM

somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source


That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?
 
2013-03-07 09:39:29 AM

MattStafford: The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?


what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate
 
2013-03-07 09:39:34 AM
DroneMasters,  My conscience has finally caught up with me.  Drone me!  Drone me!!
Goodbye World!
Jane Fonda
 
2013-03-07 09:40:55 AM

MattStafford: WTF Indeed: What this filibuster was really about was Rand Paul's protection of militia groups that make up a lot of his voting block.

Wtf indeed.


No, he's (at least partially) correct.  A lot of the local wannabe separatists and white power types are absolutely terrified of the whole notion of drones- whether armed or unarmed surveillance- and we have a lot of them around here.  And a fair majority of them are pseudo-libertarian Paul supporters.

Rand is, like his old man, a Fed-buster.  He's actually not too bad on civil liberties as a result, as long as you squint your eyes a little and only bother to look at the national level.  But don't think for a minute that he isn't also indulging in some choir-preaching with the high visibility of this little performance; a lot of his base is still furious with him over his yea vote on Hagel's confirmation, and he still has a fair amount of ass to cover.  His live filibuster will go a long way towards that.
 
2013-03-07 09:41:30 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: Says the man who refuses to acknowledge that the House GOP tied his hands with the NDAA by having veto-proof majority and chomping at the bit for a chance to impeach the first black democratic president.

Yeah, Congress shouldn't have passed it either!  The reason I'm not bringing up the GOP is because it is a farking echo chamber in here.  Everyone already knows the GOP is a terrible, awful party.  The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?

The GOP forced Obama's hand, and they wrote the shiatty law.  Obama has done nothing to combat it.  He deserves blame, which you refuse to assign to him, presumably because he is on your team.


Umm, no.  In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more.  Every other person has said the same thing.  The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.
 
2013-03-07 09:42:58 AM

somedude210: what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate


He could bring it up regularly to the American people and say "Hey - Congress passed a law that does X, Y, and Z.  I'm asking them to repeal it, but they are refusing.  I just wanted you to know".  Things like that.  Or he could say - "Hey - these provisions allow the president to kill a US Citizen on American soil under these, explicit conditions.  This is something we need to have a national conversation about".  He's the farking president, don't act like he has no power to bring this topic up and get some action done on it.

The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.
 
2013-03-07 09:43:03 AM

Bendal: Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up

That's the way I heard Holder describe a possible in-country use of drones as well; there was a valid and immediate threat to the country, and no other solution was available. Suppose some group commandeered a number of transport planes and began flying them into buildings again (not passenger planes, think UPS planes). Do you not think the President is perfectly justified in using whatever asset he has (drones, planes, whatever) to stop those planes from reaching their targets whether there were Americans flying them or not?

Bush was willing to shoot down airliners full of Americans to stop them from hitting 9/11 targets. I don't see this as anything but further clarification of that decision.


If the administration was going to limit the use of drones or military strikes to attacks already in progress I don't think many people would have a problem. If that is the case they should just have just come out and said that instead of leaving open the possibility for authorizing strikes on potential terrorists a few weeks before the attack takes place.
 
2013-03-07 09:44:30 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: That's pretty farking hypocritical right there.

I'm sorry, are there a ton of left libertarians in office?  The people I support don't do this kind of shiat.


There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.
 
2013-03-07 09:45:00 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Umm, no. In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more. Every other person has said the same thing. The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Bush did the same thing, you wouldn't be saying "I would have liked to see him do more" and call that enough criticism.

He needs a strong rebuke on this, and he needs it from his party.  Saying you would have liked to see him do more is barely even criticism.
 
2013-03-07 09:47:14 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate

He could bring it up regularly to the American people and say "Hey - Congress passed a law that does X, Y, and Z.  I'm asking them to repeal it, but they are refusing.  I just wanted you to know".  Things like that.  Or he could say - "Hey - these provisions allow the president to kill a US Citizen on American soil under these, explicit conditions.  This is something we need to have a national conversation about".  He's the farking president, don't act like he has no power to bring this topic up and get some action done on it.

The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.


Have yo ubeen living under a rock for the last four years?
 
2013-03-07 09:47:15 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: what can Obama do? legally. What is there that the president can do that will work? He can't get anything pass in the GOP controlled House, and he couldn't do a line-item veto of the provision because it'd mean he'd be impeached. He asked Congress to get rid of it, they didn't. He had to go through with it. What more can the man actually do aside from saying that he's not going to use drones on any of us?

The responsibility to fix this is solely on the shoulders of the House and Senate

He could bring it up regularly to the American people and say "Hey - Congress passed a law that does X, Y, and Z.  I'm asking them to repeal it, but they are refusing.  I just wanted you to know".  Things like that.  Or he could say - "Hey - these provisions allow the president to kill a US Citizen on American soil under these, explicit conditions.  This is something we need to have a national conversation about".  He's the farking president, don't act like he has no power to bring this topic up and get some action done on it.

The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.


Absence of activity does not denote a refusal.  Refusing to act is getting up, and saying "I will not accept any limitations to my current power."

Aside from wrong use of language, I can partially agree with you: I think Obama should have attempted more of a national conversation about the matter.

Of course, I would put this question to you: if the matter is of such dire import, why is it dependent upon the president to push congress to make the change?  If they truly cared about the matter, why have they not taken the lead on the matter themselves?
 
2013-03-07 09:48:30 AM

CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.


Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.
 
2013-03-07 09:49:08 AM

CPennypacker: The responsibility may be on Congress to change the law, but Obama is uniquely in a position to force their hand, and he refuses to do so.

Have yo ubeen living under a rock for the last four years?


Go on?
 
2013-03-07 09:51:55 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.

Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.


The only person saying Obama is innocent in all of this is the straw man you are arguing against. If you don't want to look like such a shill, don't ignore all of the Republican fark ups and then come into a thread where both parties colluded to do something terribad and try to blame one of them. Seems fair to me.
 
2013-03-07 09:52:38 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Aside from wrong use of language, I can partially agree with you: I think Obama should have attempted more of a national conversation about the matter.

Of course, I would put this question to you: if the matter is of such dire import, why is it dependent upon the president to push congress to make the change? If they truly cared about the matter, why have they not taken the lead on the matter themselves?


Because Congress is a bunch of farkwits with a few exceptions.  And here we have Rand Paul standing up trying to make this a national conversation, and a good deal of the Fark collective simply derides him and assigns ulterior motives to his actions.

The left elected Obama to change things.  He is not changing things, and many of the left refuse to see this and still support the president blindly.  Which bothers me to no end.  We all understand that Republicans are idiots and have no desire to create actual change, but for some reason the left can't see that that applies to the Democrats as well.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:28 AM

GAT_00: Haha. I wonder if there's a setting so you can get emails for threads where you get referenced when you haven't commented in them.

But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.


GAT, as much as you and I disagree on most things, you're one of the few liberals that have been vocally against the administration on this issue.  I have called you out on it in other threads.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:54 AM

MattStafford: Wicked Chinchilla: Umm, no. In every post of mine I have stated I would like him to have done more. Every other person has said the same thing. The only person not seeing reality (or reading the entirety of people's posts apparently) is you since you keep insisting its all Obama's fault, which is just ridiculous on its face given how bills are created and passed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if Bush did the same thing, you wouldn't be saying "I would have liked to see him do more" and call that enough criticism.

He needs a strong rebuke on this, and he needs it from his party.  Saying you would have liked to see him do more is barely even criticism.


Actually no.  I would biatch like hell about the previous administration doing this, but I wouldn't have expected anything different out of that administration.  It IS the one who passed the original with zero protestations as well as the Patriot Act after all.  Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but even a simple "well, we don't like it so we swear we won't use it" is miles ahead of the previous administrations active efforts to expand executive power.

That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible.  There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress.  But that's not our political reality.  The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed.  They held it for two weeks.  Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight.  Should he have done more?  Absolutely.  Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done?  Nope.  Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts?  Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more."  I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:55 AM

CPennypacker: The only person saying Obama is innocent in all of this is the straw man you are arguing against. If you don't want to look like such a shill, don't ignore all of the Republican fark ups and then come into a thread where both parties colluded to do something terribad and try to blame one of them. Seems fair to me.


It certainly seems like a lot of people are refusing to assign him blame in this thread.  I've counted multiple posters stating "this is congress' fault" or "what else could Obama do".
 
2013-03-07 09:55:29 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.

Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.


Well, I sent him an email a few months ago over the whole 'drone' thing.

I still voted for him in November, however.

We can disagree with some of the President's decisions and still vastly prefer him over anything the GOP has to offer.  Hell, at this point, I'd prefer a half a glass of rancid milk to anything the GOP has to offer.
 
2013-03-07 09:56:09 AM

MattStafford: CPennypacker: There aren't a whole lot of true liberals in office either, but I guess we support the closest party to our ideal right? So don't bullshiat me about "taking my party to task" and think you can sit there acting like an impartial third party observer when you're clearly carrying water for one side on the issue.

Whenever the Republicans fark up (which is often) we get massive threads with many intelligent people explaining why they're idiots and completely wrong.  If I added in, I would just be unnecessarily piling on.  When Obama farks up, we get a thread full of bbbbbut Bush and "not Obama - congresses fault!".  I feel it necessary to step in and say that you need to hold your elected officials accountable.


so you're an opportunist troll? Fascinating. Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?
 
2013-03-07 09:58:14 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible. There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress. But that's not our political reality. The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed. They held it for two weeks. Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done? Nope. Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts? Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more." I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.


Standing up and saying to the nation "Congress just authorized me to use these powers, and this is explicitly what I am allowed to do with these powers.  I entirely disagree with this, and would like to see Congress repeal these provisions.  Please contact your congress critters and have them repeal these provisions" would be too difficult?

The fact of the matter is this:  Rand Paul, a junior Senator from Kentucky, has just made these serious issues part of the national conversation.  Are you suggesting that Obama, the President of the United States, could not have done the very same thing at some point during the last year, to an even greater extent?
 
2013-03-07 09:59:22 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Actually no. I would biatch like hell about the previous administration doing this, but I wouldn't have expected anything different out of that administration. It IS the one who passed the original with zero protestations as well as the Patriot Act after all. Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but even a simple "well, we don't like it so we swear we won't use it" is miles ahead of the previous administrations active efforts to expand executive power.

That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible. There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress. But that's not our political reality. The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed. They held it for two weeks. Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done? Nope. Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts? Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more." I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.


Exactly, but I doubt he'll see it like that. Good job trying though. Suggestions for what I should farky MattStafford with?
 
2013-03-07 09:59:52 AM

MattStafford: 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.


How could President Obama veto a bill signed by Bush II?
 
2013-03-07 10:00:44 AM

somedude210: Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?


Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans.  I mean, he would totally do all of these great things we want him to do, but the Republicans currently control the House of Representatives (not the Senate, just the House).  The fact that Republicans control half of the legislative branch completely neutralizes Obama, and we should not blame him for standing down or ignoring all of these issues, because Republicans in the House.
 
2013-03-07 10:01:49 AM

dartben: How could President Obama veto a bill signed by Bush II?


The AUMF was renewed last year with expanded powers.  He could have vetoed it, but it would have also vetoed funding for the troops.
 
2013-03-07 10:02:21 AM

MattStafford: The fact of the matter is this: Rand Paul, a junior Senator from Kentucky, has just made these serious issues part of the national conversation. Are you suggesting that Obama, the President of the United States, could not have done the very same thing at some point during the last year, to an even greater extent?


greater extent? You're talking about a man who can't take a shiat without Republicans calling for his impeachment. He starts going on about this and suddenly he'll be "weak on terror, weak on defense, weak on AMERICA"

Between this and the economic threads we've had, you seem like you have the ability to be a very smart man, but you lack any cognitive ability to understand reality and how things actually work in this world.
 
2013-03-07 10:04:03 AM

MattStafford: Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans.


Obama has and continues to do so. Hell, he's asking for entitlement cuts, which goes against his own party but the people want, the republicans want, and gosh darn it, the republicans still hate him for not giving in 100% of the time.
 
2013-03-07 10:04:41 AM

MattStafford: The AUMF was renewed last year with expanded powers. He could have vetoed it, but it would have also vetoed funding for the troops.


so you admit to this now? You gotta keep your stories straight, you're tripping over your own storylines
 
2013-03-07 10:08:07 AM
How can a president that is facing heavy congressional opposition to anything he does start a national conversation? By demonstrating what congress gave him and watching them fall over themselves to change it. He started a national dialogue.

Why didn't he veto a bill passed with a poison pill and a veto proof majority? You're complaining that the president is doing something clearly within the powers of the executive as granted by the executive instead of preventing it with methods that are clearly outside the executive branch?

Every time a swat team sniper kills someone it is a denial of that person's due process. This whole thing is about granting to the CIA a technological upgrade that is with similar restrictions to those it already had with snipers.

There are a lot of things to get upset about here, but placing this on Obama is quite idiotic unless you also take republicans to task for setting this ball in motion.
 
2013-03-07 10:08:21 AM
It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.
 
2013-03-07 10:08:48 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?

Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans.  I mean, he would totally do all of these great things we want him to do, but the Republicans currently control the House of Representatives (not the Senate, just the House).  The fact that Republicans control half of the legislative branch completely neutralizes Obama, and we should not blame him for standing down or ignoring all of these issues, because Republicans in the House.


He wasn't about to veto a Defense spending bill a few months before the general election, no matter how much the GOP wanted him to.  He's not a retard.

Further, his supporters aren't retards, either.  They understood then, and understand now, what that gambit was all about.  Making him look weak and anti-military right before a general election.  Duh.

And now, the GOP is taking him to task for a bill that they passed from the House.  One would think that if they were all that irate about drone strikes on American citizens, they'd pass a bill from the House doing something about it.  But they won't, because they think that they can tax the President even more by leaving it alone and harassing him on it from the House floor.

It's a political game, and if you look at the polls(the scoreboard), the GOP is losing badly.  All their nonsense, rage and fury over these things, has generated zero animosity among the masses.  Because, at the end of the day, most Americans trust this President to do the right thing.  You can look that up, by the way.  It's one of the polling features that they used in the pre-election polling.

So, all their 'ooga-booga be scared!' nonsense is falling on deaf ears, aside from a few scared white people who want reassurances that they can hold their anti-government meetings at Jed's cabin without fear of being drone-striked for being anti-government.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-03-07 10:09:16 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: Riddle me this, why would a president, who is hated soooo much by the goddamn opposing party that anything he advocates gets the party to support the exact opposite, would think that him going out of his way to say "look, I don't want to use drones. No president should use them" won't result in the party that controls congress to immediately sponsor a bill saying that all presidents should have the ability to use drones?

Obama shouldn't stand up for what he believes in, or what the people who elected him believe in, because Republicans.  I mean, he would totally do all of these great things we want him to do, but the Republicans currently control the House of Representatives (not the Senate, just the House).  The fact that Republicans control half of the legislative branch completely neutralizes Obama, and we should not blame him for standing down or ignoring all of these issues, because Republicans in the House.


It really sounds to me like you don't understand the idea of political capital, or that you think this is the only issue on his plate, so why isn't he devoting his time to it?

Look, I get the issue is important to you, and I also find myself concerned about the potential use of drones. If, however, you are suggesting the President must step up and answer his critics on every single possible (even if less than plausible) issue that is brought up, the person in that office would soon spend all of his or her time dealing with trolls instead of focusing on the things that actually might have a chance in getting passed. Standing up to rail against the gerrymandered majority in the House is about all he's got left on many issues, but if he does that and nothing but that, many things that he does have control over would be ignored and then the right would be decrying how all he does is photo ops and reads from his teleprompters no matter what the issues or concerns actually are.

Wait, that's kinda like now. Nevermind.
 
2013-03-07 10:09:31 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source

That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?


So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?
 
2013-03-07 10:10:54 AM

Fista-Phobia: It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.


And coconuts.
 
2013-03-07 10:11:20 AM

Discordulator: How can a president that is facing heavy congressional opposition to anything he does start a national conversation? By demonstrating what congress gave him and watching them fall over themselves to change it. He started a national dialogue.

Why didn't he veto a bill passed with a poison pill and a veto proof majority? You're complaining that the president is doing something clearly within the powers of the executive as granted by the executive instead of preventing it with methods that are clearly outside the executive branch?

Every time a swat team sniper kills someone it is a denial of that person's due process. This whole thing is about granting to the CIA a technological upgrade that is with similar restrictions to those it already had with snipers.



SWAT teams and snipers are used when a crime has already been committed or in progress. I agree with the ACLU that the administration just need to outline if that is the instance they feel drone strikes are authorized.
 
2013-03-07 10:13:51 AM
Just imagine if President Obama HAD come back and specifically stated this would NEVER be allowed.

The GOP would suddenly be screaming about 'the DICTATOR making his own laws without congessional oversight' or some such shiat.

/Obvious obstructionists are obvious
 
2013-03-07 10:14:30 AM

Fart_Machine: MattStafford: somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source

That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?

So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?


that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD

*facepalm*
 
2013-03-07 10:15:39 AM

somedude210: that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD


They want that self fulfilling prophecy since they've been calling him socialist dictator from Kenya Obama for the last four years anyway.
 
2013-03-07 10:16:22 AM

somedude210: Fart_Machine: MattStafford: somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source

That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?

So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?

that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD

*facepalm*


On dark days I think this is a deliberate strategy for the next time there's a Republican president.
 
2013-03-07 10:16:28 AM
somedude210:
Thank you kindly. I honestly have no idea why when I think Rand Paul's filibuster, I think Billy Joel

images.wikia.com
 
2013-03-07 10:16:41 AM

somedude210: Fart_Machine: MattStafford: somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source

That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?

So you believe the President is a dictator who can override Congress?

that seems to be the new talking point since the sequester. WHY CAN'T OBAMA BE A DICTATOR AND OVERRIDE CONGRESS BECAUSE CONGRESS BAD

*facepalm*


It's ridiculous.  They're actually mad that he's not overtly overstepping his bounds as President.  Mostly because, if he does that, they can impeach him afterward and he's not taking the bait.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:03 AM

somedude210: greater extent? You're talking about a man who can't take a shiat without Republicans calling for his impeachment. He starts going on about this and suddenly he'll be "weak on terror, weak on defense, weak on AMERICA"

Between this and the economic threads we've had, you seem like you have the ability to be a very smart man, but you lack any cognitive ability to understand reality and how things actually work in this world.


Those dastardly republicans.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:24 AM

Infernalist: t's a political game, and if you look at the polls(the scoreboard), the GOP is losing badly. All their nonsense, rage and fury over these things, has generated zero animosity among the masses. Because, at the end of the day, most Americans trust this President to do the right thing. You can look that up, by the way. It's one of the polling features that they used in the pre-election polling.


Oh, that makes it alright, then. He's trusted. And certainly there's a good reason as to why he won't clarify what might justify such use of force, either within the USA or abroad. We just don't deserve to know or something. But that's OK. He's got likability! It's only Republicans who are trying to mess with him that can't see things for how they are. Staunch obstructionist conservatives like Wyden, Leahy, the ACLU or that jerk swahnhennessy.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:44 AM

somedude210: Obama has and continues to do so. Hell, he's asking for entitlement cuts, which goes against his own party but the people want, the republicans want, and gosh darn it, the republicans still hate him for not giving in 100% of the time.


Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.
 
2013-03-07 10:17:55 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: greater extent? You're talking about a man who can't take a shiat without Republicans calling for his impeachment. He starts going on about this and suddenly he'll be "weak on terror, weak on defense, weak on AMERICA"

Between this and the economic threads we've had, you seem like you have the ability to be a very smart man, but you lack any cognitive ability to understand reality and how things actually work in this world.

Those dastardly republicans.


You're flailing, dude.  Abandon thread.
 
2013-03-07 10:18:30 AM
So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?
 
2013-03-07 10:18:48 AM

somedude210: so you admit to this now? You gotta keep your stories straight, you're tripping over your own storylines


I never said anything otherwise.  In fact, I specifically stated it would have been good, as not funding the troops would have brought a ton on national attention to the issue.
 
2013-03-07 10:19:46 AM

MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.


Yes because the Executive Branch writes laws.

Someone missed their Schoolhouse Rock
 
2013-03-07 10:20:06 AM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: t's a political game, and if you look at the polls(the scoreboard), the GOP is losing badly. All their nonsense, rage and fury over these things, has generated zero animosity among the masses. Because, at the end of the day, most Americans trust this President to do the right thing. You can look that up, by the way. It's one of the polling features that they used in the pre-election polling.

Oh, that makes it alright, then. He's trusted. And certainly there's a good reason as to why he won't clarify what might justify such use of force, either within the USA or abroad. We just don't deserve to know or something. But that's OK. He's got likability! It's only Republicans who are trying to mess with him that can't see things for how they are. Staunch obstructionist conservatives like Wyden, Leahy, the ACLU or that jerk swahnhennessy.


Yep, he's trusted to do the right thing.  Despite the best efforts to the contrary by the GOP, the American people just trust him.  Imagine that.

So, on one hand, you have the GOP saying we shouldn't trust him, because he's not detailing things enough.  And on the other, you have the American people going "no, we're good.  We trust him to do it correctly."

And the GOP rages on.
 
2013-03-07 10:20:39 AM

MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.


show me any time since he the republicans passed this right before the election that he could without getting yelled at or impeached?

better yet, show me where the bills from the Republicans in Congress put forth to take away this power
 
2013-03-07 10:20:54 AM

somedude210: 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.


You don't understand.  No Obama supporter would agree with Paul on this.  Every Obama supporter is a drone who can't think past the next talking point.  It's absolutely impossible that you could disagree with the President on anything.
 
2013-03-07 10:21:21 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: so you admit to this now? You gotta keep your stories straight, you're tripping over your own storylines

I never said anything otherwise.  In fact, I specifically stated it would have been good, as not funding the troops would have brought a ton on national attention to the issue.


as well as lose him the election, although I imagine you'd prefer that too
 
2013-03-07 10:21:33 AM

Infernalist: And the GOP rages on.


Just going to ignore all those liberals, eh?
 
2013-03-07 10:21:47 AM

Aar1012: So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?


It's kinda weird.  They're mad at him for being a dictator-in-hiding AND they're mad that he's not subverting their Congressional powers by modifying existing law just 'because' they think he should.  At the same time.
 
2013-03-07 10:22:22 AM

Mentat: Every Obama supporter is a drone who can't think past the next talking point.


dude, I wish I had hellfire missiles....
 
2013-03-07 10:23:21 AM

Infernalist: Aar1012: So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?

It's kinda weird.  They're mad at him for being a dictator-in-hiding AND they're mad that he's not subverting their Congressional powers by modifying existing law just 'because' they think he should.  At the same time.


stay tuned for when the next republican president does exactly those two things because "OBAMA DID IT! WHY NOT US?"
 
2013-03-07 10:24:11 AM

Fart_Machine: Fista-Phobia: It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.

And coconuts.


Never forget the coconuts.
 
2013-03-07 10:26:07 AM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: And the GOP rages on.

Just going to ignore all those liberals, eh?


When they're being retarded, yes, I'm going to ignore them.  I don't blame the man for a second for not wanting to nail down exactly how/when/where/why/to whom that goes into these decisions.  The GOP would just try to impeach him later over it, make political hay and harass him in general for the next few years, successfully making the narrative about Obama's decisions rather than their own pathetic fark ups.

If the GOP were sincere in their fears of an expanded Executive branch and what the President might do, they'd not be the GOP at all.   But, they're not sincere.  It's all a game to them.
 
2013-03-07 10:27:39 AM

Theaetetus: somedude210:
Thank you kindly. I honestly have no idea why when I think Rand Paul's filibuster, I think Billy Joel

[images.wikia.com image 480x360]


vote it up, sir ^_^
 
2013-03-07 10:27:43 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: Please show me where Obama has tried to get these powers removed or clarified since the bill has been passed.

show me any time since he the republicans passed this right before the election that he could without getting yelled at or impeached?

better yet, show me where the bills from the Republicans in Congress put forth to take away this power


It's almost like the GOP wants to stop Obama from using this power, yet preserve it for a future president. I wonder why that could be.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:11 AM

slayer199: GAT_00: Haha. I wonder if there's a setting so you can get emails for threads where you get referenced when you haven't commented in them.

But as long as victory is still mine, it's all good.

GAT, as much as you and I disagree on most things, you're one of the few liberals that have been vocally against the administration on this issue.  I have called you out on it in other threads.


It pisses me off that I'm one of the few. I'm not sure if I'm angrier about that or that I was right when I said this will inevitably be applied inside the US because the precedent was set.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:27 AM

Carth: Bendal: Dr Dreidel: As I understand, the authority Holder is claiming is the authority to strike a target who is in the process of planning an attack that would kill or seriously risk the health of Americans. Does anyone seriously think the president didn't have the authority (or would be granted it after the fact) to blow up a Tim McVeigh, if they knew he was on his way to the Murrah Building with a truckful of explosives and had a drone in the area?

// I'd like to see a quickie presentation of evidence, complete with a government advocate for "McVeigh" (who argues that all the evidence is circumstantial or whatever) - it may not be as good as a real trial, but at least something would have happened on-record before he gets blowed up

That's the way I heard Holder describe a possible in-country use of drones as well; there was a valid and immediate threat to the country, and no other solution was available. Suppose some group commandeered a number of transport planes and began flying them into buildings again (not passenger planes, think UPS planes). Do you not think the President is perfectly justified in using whatever asset he has (drones, planes, whatever) to stop those planes from reaching their targets whether there were Americans flying them or not?

Bush was willing to shoot down airliners full of Americans to stop them from hitting 9/11 targets. I don't see this as anything but further clarification of that decision.

If the administration was going to limit the use of drones or military strikes to attacks already in progress I don't think many people would have a problem. If that is the case they should just have just come out and said that instead of leaving open the possibility for authorizing strikes on potential terrorists a few weeks before the attack takes place.


Except Holder specifically ruled out the use of drones in that scenario. He said the only possible way he could see them being used was in an immediate threat situation where there was imminent danger to the population; i.e. another 9/11 or similar attack. Anything less and the usual law enforcement assets would be more than capable of dealing with it. Rand is just white-knuckling a strawman of drones blowing up Americans at their dinner table for attention.
 
2013-03-07 10:32:37 AM
It falls under the same category as self-defense. If you really feel the need to do it, you are not likely to be thinking about the legality of it anyway,

Just promise to never user drones against citizens. It is unlikely to happen anyway as drones are really for getting at people that we can't arrest or shoot in the old fashioned way. If some Tom Clancy scenario occurs where a drone strike on American soil is necessary, I doubt anyone will be complaining about it.
 
2013-03-07 10:33:07 AM
The civil war called.  Turns out, in some situations the military can use whatever means necessary to take out a threat to the nation.

Drones work just as well for that situation.
 
2013-03-07 10:37:50 AM

Infernalist: Aar1012: So is Obama an empty suit this week or is he the DNC-Oberst-Gruppenführer-in-Chief this week?

It's kinda weird.  They're mad at him for being a dictator-in-hiding AND they're mad that he's not subverting their Congressional powers by modifying existing law just 'because' they think he should.  At the same time.


You have to understand that Obama is the most inhumane empty suit that created a weak-on-defense dicatorship in the history of forever. He'll lead legions of Obama Jügend and Waffen-DNC to take the capital after he appoints Jimmy Carter as Secretary of Defense and George Soros as Reichsführer-DNC.
 
2013-03-07 10:40:05 AM
I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.

Late 2012, Obama is reelected.

Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do.  The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions.  The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.

Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):

1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.
2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures. 
3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.
4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.
5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.

To which I respond:

1.  I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.
2.  I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.
3.  This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it.  To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.
4.  If this is the case, why even elect him?  The point of electing someone who will protect your civil liberties is to have him stand up and protect those civil liberties.  If you elect a president based on his civil liberties promises, but then never expect him to stand up for those civil liberties because it would make him look weak, that might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  The argument boils down to "Obama can't stand up for civil liberties, because republicans will spin that to make him look weak on defense" and that is honestly one of the most cowardly arguments I've heard.  Stand up for what you believe in - make the fight about whether or not US citizens can be assassinated on US soil.
5.  Another completely idiotic argument.  Republicans won't change the bill anyway, so why try.  Then why the fark did you even elect him?

And I add:
6.  Why is Obama refusing to state "These are the explicit powers granted to me by these provisions, and I believe the violate our civil liberties in these ways"?  He should make it clear to nation what those damn republicans passed in this bill, and explain why he thinks this is unacceptable.  Yet he refuses to do so.
7.  Why did Obama not support Rand Paul during his filibuster.  Obama is supposed to be pro civil liberties, and a Senator just filibustered by going over how those liberties are in danger.  Obama has been silent on the issue, yet, as far as I can tell - he was against these very same provisions when the bill was being passed, and asked to have them removed.  Why would he not speak up when a Senator is saying the exact same thing, and a Senator across the aisle no less.  Here is a chance for bipartisan agreement on civil liberties, and Obama is silent on the matter.

The truth of the matter is that Obama wants those provisions.  If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.
 
2013-03-07 10:41:20 AM

somedude210: /two things you never want to see being made: Laws and sausages


MMMMM LAWSAGES!
 
2013-03-07 10:42:56 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.

Late 2012, Obama is reelected.

Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do.  The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions.  The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.

Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):

1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.
2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures.
3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.
4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.
5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.

To which I respond:

1.  I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.
2.  I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.
3.  This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it.  To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.
4.  If this is the case, why even ...


This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate.
 
2013-03-07 10:44:30 AM

qorkfiend: This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate.


In what way?
 
2013-03-07 10:49:33 AM

OrangeSnapper: Given the record that government forces have in targeting guys driving trucks, I would feel safer if we could at least order the police on the ground to arrest such a potential terrorist, rather than obliterating him with a missile.


Can you cite an example where they haven't done that?
 
2013-03-07 10:50:54 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.

Late 2012, Obama is reelected.

Yesterday, Rand Paul filibusters, and demands an explanation from the DoJ specifically stating what those provisions allow the president to do.  The president refuses to give an explicit answer about those provisions.  The president also refuses to lend any support to the issues that Rand Paul is bringing up.

Democrats are defending this course of events in the following ways (if I miss any, please let me know):

1. It was congress's fault in the first place for adding those provisions to the bill.
2. Obama could not veto the bill, due to political pressures. 
3. It is congress's responsibility, not Obama's, to remove or alter the provisions in the law.
4. Obama could not start a national dialogue about these provisions, or he would seam weak on defense and against the war on terror.
5. There is no reason for Obama to start a national dialogue, as nothing would get done anyway.

To which I respond:

1.  I concede the point, Congress should shoulder a large portion of the blame.
2.  I concede the point, it would have been a very politically dicey move to veto the bill - however, Obama could have certainly voice his opposition to the provisions louder, and brought more national attention to the issue.
3.  This is true in a technical sense, but Obama has the bully pulpit and completely refused to use it.  To argue that Obama has no influence over congress (particularly when his party controls one house) is complete bullshiat.
4.  If this is the case, why even ...


The truth of the matter is that Obama wants those provisions.  If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.

If Obama truly wanted those provisions, the GOP would have committed ritual suicide before giving them to him.
Boiled down, they passed a bill that had a poison pill in it(those provisions), with the intent of either making the President veto a Defense bill in the months leading up to the general election, or sign off on a bill holding some very scary intentions for civil liberties.He chose the latter, knowing that a GOP administration at this time would have been lethal to our recovery as a nation.  Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.It's akin to the President driving the GOP down the highway, and the car is starting to run out of gas.  "Let's stop here" he says, pointing to a nice gas station.  "No", says the GOP.  "Keep going.  We want to stop at the next one."  "Okay, fine."  he says. Running low on gas, the GOP points out a run down, gas station on the edge of town with plenty of vagrants hanging around.  "There, stop there."  "No, that's a horrible place."  "Well, do it or we run out of gas."  "Fine, but this is stupid." They stop for gas, and promptly get robbed, and the GOP looks up and says "Why did you stop here?  You're stupid for stopping here.  This is all your fault."The GOP made this happen and now they're trying to tax the President over it.  Could he have been more strident in pointing out what asshats the GOP were being?  Sure.  Would it have changed anything?  No.  The whole nation knows the GOP are a bunch of blithering asshats already, what good would it have done to get into a philosophical debate in those months leading up to the general election, other than to give the GOP chances to call the President unpatriotic and unAmerican for not funding the military promptly and happily?
 
2013-03-07 10:51:11 AM

MattStafford: qorkfiend: This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate.

In what way?


you still don't accept the fact that in order for this to be changed, there must be a law passed, to pass said law, you need Congress (both house and then senate) to pass this. As it stands right now, Obama taking a leak is akin to him shiatting on the constitution in the eyes/minds of many people who hold power within Congress (both House and senate), so he can advocate all he wants, it will fall on deaf ears and will go no where. There are real problems in this country that he has a better chance to enact real change on. biatching about Congress' inability to create and pass a law for something they want but refused to address prior to them magically coming across this issue serves no one and will not do anything to change the fact that this is a hypothetical situation that solely rests in the minds of republicans who want to divert attention away from the budget cuts they enacted and shift blame for something onto the President.

DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND. NOW?
 
2013-03-07 10:51:45 AM

LibertyHiller: Fart_Machine: Fista-Phobia: It's all bonds, notes, and T Bills these days boy.

And coconuts.

Never forget the coconuts.


I like coconuts. You can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun.
 
2013-03-07 10:52:43 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:


[SNIP]


Ok, its been a while since I've taken any political courses. IIRC, the President doesn't actually have to sign things to be come law. After 10 days of him receiving it, if he doesn't sign it, it becomes law anyway.

So he had 3 courses of action:

1) Sign it and make people happy cause he's funding the troops, but piss people off because he's trying to get the ability to assassinate US citizens because they looked at him funny and caleld his momma fat.
2) Veto it (which has to be accompanied by an explanation of WHY it was vetoed, to which he just has to say, "I want to support the troops, but I'm NOT going to sanction a power to use strike drones against anyone we want. Its too much power. Fix this and I'll sign."
3) Not sign it and allow it to become law on its own. Take the time to address the nation and explain why he's not providing the glowing endorsement of a signature, but also not vetoing it outright. This allows him to ride the political fence.

Can't this thing be taken to the Supreme Court?
 
2013-03-07 10:53:28 AM
And for some reason, Fark just mangled my post.

If Obama truly wanted those provisions, the GOP would have committed ritual suicide before giving them to him.

Boiled down, they passed a bill that had a poison pill in it(those provisions), with the intent of either making the President veto a Defense bill in the months leading up to the general election, or sign off on a bill holding some very scary intentions for civil liberties.He chose the latter, knowing that a GOP administration at this time would have been lethal to our recovery as a nation.  Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It's akin to the President driving the GOP down the highway, and the car is starting to run out of gas.  "Let's stop here" he says, pointing to a nice gas station.  "No", says the GOP.  "Keep going.  We want to stop at the next one."  "Okay, fine."  he says. Running low on gas, the GOP points out a run down, gas station on the edge of town with plenty of vagrants hanging around.  "There, stop there."  "No, that's a horrible place."  "Well, do it or we run out of gas."  "Fine, but this is stupid." They stop for gas, and promptly get robbed, and the GOP looks up and says "Why did you stop here?  You're stupid for stopping here.  This is all your fault."

The GOP made this happen and now they're trying to tax the President over it.  Could he have been more strident in pointing out what asshats the GOP were being?  Sure.  Would it have changed anything?  No.

The whole nation knows the GOP are a bunch of blithering asshats already, what good would it have done to get into a philosophical debate in those months leading up to the general election, other than to give the GOP chances to call the President unpatriotic and unAmerican for not funding the military promptly and happily?
 
2013-03-07 10:58:17 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: you seem to be picking and choosing what to believe about everything since we've already pointed out how wrong you are about the series of events leading up to this

Source

That was while the bill was still in congress.  What about after?  After the bill was passed, what actions has Obama taken to remove or clarify those provisions?


woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?
 
2013-03-07 11:00:57 AM

Infernalist: Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.


First, I wouldn't consider Rand Paul representative of the entire GOP.  I would imagine the majority of the GOP still want these provisions in place.

Infernalist: .It's akin to the President driving the GOP down the highway, and the car is starting to run out of gas. "Let's stop here" he says, pointing to a nice gas station. "No", says the GOP. "Keep going. We want to stop at the next one." "Okay, fine." he says. Running low on gas, the GOP points out a run down, gas station on the edge of town with plenty of vagrants hanging around. "There, stop there." "No, that's a horrible place." "Well, do it or we run out of gas." "Fine, but this is stupid." They stop for gas, and promptly get robbed, and the GOP looks up and says "Why did you stop here? You're stupid for stopping here. This is all your fault.


What a tortured analogy.  Here is a better one:

President and GOP are driving a bus down the highway.  The president wants to listen to indie rock, and the GOP wants pop country. The GOP demands that they put pop country on the radio, or else they aren't handing out sandwiches to the passengers.  The president knows that if the passengers don't get their sandwiches, they're going to be pissed.  So he say fine, they put on the pop country, and hand out the sandwiches.  And from that point on, the president does not fight to change the station back to indie rock - even though he was elected on an indie rock platform.  When a member of the GOP breaks ranks and says "hey, maybe indie rock wouldn't be so bad" - the president is silent on the matter.

There is an analogy for you.

Infernalist: The GOP made this happen and now they're trying to tax the President over it. Could he have been more strident in pointing out what asshats the GOP were being? Sure. Would it have changed anything? No. The whole nation knows the GOP are a bunch of blithering asshats already, what good would it have done to get into a philosophical debate in those months leading up to the general election, other than to give the GOP chances to call the President unpatriotic and unAmerican for not funding the military promptly and happily?


Again - it is entirely the GOP's fault that the president was unable to do anything at all about the provisions of this bill.  He was unable to specifically state to the American people what the provisions of this bill allowed him to do, because Republicans.  He was unable to ask congress to repeal or alter these provisions, because Republicans.  Despite the fact that the President is a Democrat, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats, the President is unable to do anything at all because Republicans.
 
2013-03-07 11:04:59 AM

somedude210: you still don't accept the fact that in order for this to be changed, there must be a law passed, to pass said law, you need Congress (both house and then senate) to pass this. As it stands right now, Obama taking a leak is akin to him shiatting on the constitution in the eyes/minds of many people who hold power within Congress (both House and senate), so he can advocate all he wants, it will fall on deaf ears and will go no where. There are real problems in this country that he has a better chance to enact real change on. biatching about Congress' inability to create and pass a law for something they want but refused to address prior to them magically coming across this issue serves no one and will not do anything to change the fact that this is a hypothetical situation that solely rests in the minds of republicans who want to divert attention away from the budget cuts they enacted and shift blame for something onto the President.


1.  So, since Obama can't pass the laws, he shouldn't do anything to fight for civil liberties.  That certainly seems like an awful argument.
2.  If Obama were to fight for civil liberties, no one in congress would care.  Another completely awful argument.
3.  Obama shouldn't worry about civil liberties and focus his efforts elsewhere.  Wow, 3/3 on completely awful arguments.

How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions.  They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things.  I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things.  Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?
 
2013-03-07 11:05:32 AM

GAT_00: It pisses me off that I'm one of the few. I'm not sure if I'm angrier about that or that I was right when I said this will inevitably be applied inside the US because the precedent was set.


You did call it...and most vocally.  I was against it for the same reasons...that it would ultimately be applied inside our borders.

I feel like I'm in a strange alternate universe when you and I agree...but we do on this issue.
 
2013-03-07 11:06:46 AM

not5am: woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?


What has Obama done, since the signing of that bill, to bring attention to those provisions that allow for some rather extreme violations of civil liberties.  What steps has he taken to try and alert the people, or to try and get congress to repeal or alter those provisions.

/just asking questions
 
2013-03-07 11:09:47 AM

MattStafford: Yeah, Congress shouldn't have passed it either! The reason I'm not bringing up the GOP is because it is a farking echo chamber in here. Everyone already knows the GOP is a terrible, awful party. The question is, why are all these seemingly intelligent people giving Obama a pass on this whole matter?



There's a difference between giving Obama a pass and recognizing that the only thing he can really do is talk about it.  Which is likely to do more harm than good.

If the GOP gets its horse in this race and decides the detention provision is a gross violation of civil liberties, it'll be difficult for them to sell another Patriot Act without getting primaried over it.

This is one of those, "Either he doesn't care one whit, or he's actually playing a much more intelligent game than I usually give people credit for." situations.  After the gamesmanship on DOMA, I'm more willing to give that credit.  Shiat was impressive.
 
2013-03-07 11:09:57 AM

MattStafford: not5am: woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?

What has Obama done, since the signing of that bill, to bring attention to those provisions that allow for some rather extreme violations of civil liberties.  What steps has he taken to try and alert the people, or to try and get congress to repeal or alter those provisions.

/just asking questions


Why did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Why isn't he addressing these questions?

/rabble rabble.
 
2013-03-07 11:12:00 AM

MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions. They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things. I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things. Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?


What change, realistically, would it farking make? He can't pass laws, the congress would never bring this up, so what do you hope to accomplish? He stated and did all that he could do, unless you want him to go all dictator, then I guess there are some things he could do.

Its not that he shouldn't worry about civil liberties, it's that there are other things that need to be dealt with right now, such as the budget and equality (which is a civil liberty thing). Regardless, it still boils down to Congress having to do anything, something that Congress doesn't seem to keen on doing. So how do you propose he could do something meaningful here? Tell the world how bad republicans are? well that's just party politics, or everyone already knows how douchey they are. What else could you have him do? Say he won't use them, well that's done and right now that's all a president can do. Unless, of course, you want him to be a dictator

So give me real, worthwhile ideas of things he can do, that have some modicum chance of achieving. Difficulty: anything involving Congress is dead in the water

You've got...talk to people? That's it? That's pretty weak, even for a socialist commie dictator from Kenya. He can do more, right? He could do an executive order banning it? Well yes, I suppose he could...and then be impeached for it a week later.

So what else could Obama do to actual make a worthwhile change to this?
 
2013-03-07 11:12:23 AM

BeesNuts: There's a difference between giving Obama a pass and recognizing that the only thing he can really do is talk about it. Which is likely to do more harm than good.

If the GOP gets its horse in this race and decides the detention provision is a gross violation of civil liberties, it'll be difficult for them to sell another Patriot Act without getting primaried over it.

This is one of those, "Either he doesn't care one whit, or he's actually playing a much more intelligent game than I usually give people credit for." situations. After the gamesmanship on DOMA, I'm more willing to give that credit. Shiat was impressive.


It's like he is playing three dimensional chess, or something.  We just gotta trust him - right?
 
2013-03-07 11:12:31 AM

slayer199: GAT_00: It pisses me off that I'm one of the few. I'm not sure if I'm angrier about that or that I was right when I said this will inevitably be applied inside the US because the precedent was set.

You did call it...and most vocally.  I was against it for the same reasons...that it would ultimately be applied inside our borders.

I feel like I'm in a strange alternate universe when you and I agree...but we do on this issue.


That's where liberals and libertarians intersect. I'm against it also.

The Obama administration hasn't called for a repeal or vetoed the expansion of these powers because, well, why should they? Nobody is trying to take them back. Congress certainly isn't. The Supreme Court hasn't weighed on it.

The partisan bullsh*t in this case is somewhat a rare instance of "both sides are equally bad." Now that Democrats are in the White House, they believe they are the best stewards for this kind of power. Republicans in Congress aren't motivated to take it away when someday, they'll be back in the Executive again. It's why the filibuster doesn't get reformed, for instance. Each party is concerned with what happens once they are the ones with or without that tactic or power at their disposal.

Short-sighted? Yes. Idiotic? I agree. Unconstituational? I don't know, these powers haven't been challenged and brought up to the Supreme Court yet. That's really the big question: if any of the powers granted by FISA, Patriot Act, AMFU and NDAA are put to judicial review, how would this current court rule?
 
2013-03-07 11:14:08 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions. They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things. I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things. Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?

What change, realistically, would it farking make? He can't pass laws, the congress would never bring this up, so what do you hope to accomplish? He stated and did all that he could do, unless you want him to go all dictator, then I guess there are some things he could do.

Its not that he shouldn't worry about civil liberties, it's that there are other things that need to be dealt with right now, such as the budget and equality (which is a civil liberty thing). Regardless, it still boils down to Congress having to do anything, something that Congress doesn't seem to keen on doing. So how do you propose he could do something meaningful here? Tell the world how bad republicans are? well that's just party politics, or everyone already knows how douchey they are. What else could you have him do? Say he won't use them, well that's done and right now that's all a president can do. Unless, of course, you want him to be a dictator

So give me real, worthwhile ideas of things he can do, that have some modicum chance of achieving. Difficulty: anything involving Congress is dead in the water

You've got...talk to people? That's it? That's pretty weak, even for a socialist commie dictator from Kenya. He can do more, right? He could do an executive order banning it? Well yes, I suppose he could...and then be impeached for it a week later.

So what else could Obama do to actual make a worthwhile change to this?


Use his Drone Assassination ability on the filibustering Rand Paul?
 
2013-03-07 11:15:07 AM

MattStafford: 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?


Yeah, he should probably try to repeal those laws he never put into effect. Based on past performance, I'm sure Congress would absolutely love to work with him on getting that done. I'm sure we won't get another fillibuster (now that the Conservatives realize how much attention it can get you) about "keeping our nation as safe as possible!!"
 
2013-03-07 11:15:15 AM

MattStafford: It's like he is playing three dimensional chess, or something. We just gotta trust him - right?


what else can he do that doesn't involve Congress and won't get him impeached? We've already explained to you that him going on a tirade about it wherever he goes will get him no where and hurt his political capital for things he can get done
 
2013-03-07 11:16:03 AM

somedude210: What change, realistically, would it farking make? He can't pass laws, the congress would never bring this up, so what do you hope to accomplish? He stated and did all that he could do, unless you want him to go all dictator, then I guess there are some things he could do.


You don't think Obama saying, in the State of the Union, "The Republicans have passed a bill that gives the executive, in this case me, the ability to kill a US citizen on US soil for reasons the executive does not need to reveal or explain.  I find that these provisions are terrible, and that we need to have a national conversation on these provisions, and have congress change or repeal the law" would be useless?

You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?

WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?
 
2013-03-07 11:17:22 AM
Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.
 
2013-03-07 11:17:54 AM

MattStafford: You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?

WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?



talkingpointsmemo.com
Which reason do you want first?
 
2013-03-07 11:17:55 AM
 
2013-03-07 11:18:57 AM

Celerian: MattStafford: not5am: woah, i didn't know bill o'reilly was on fark.

/or maybe one of his writers..?

What has Obama done, since the signing of that bill, to bring attention to those provisions that allow for some rather extreme violations of civil liberties.  What steps has he taken to try and alert the people, or to try and get congress to repeal or alter those provisions.

/just asking questions

Why did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Why isn't he addressing these questions?

/rabble rabble.


There's a bit more to his question than the GB's schtick.  If Obama is really opposed to those provisions he can (and some would argue should) stand up and have a frank discussion directly with the American people about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have the desired effect of causing public outcry leading to an end to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that the country is split 50/50-ish leads to some problems when it comes to using the bully pulpit.  Remember when he said we should keep our tires inflated?  I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Americans deliberately drove more on less inflated tires to screw the dummycrat...  that's the kind of environment we're in.  And it sucks.

But Obama's demonstrated that he's aware of the tools available to him if he wants to get something done.  I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the detention provision was prohibited from any future budget bills by the time he leaves office.  Likewise, I wouldn't need a fainting couch if it stayed right where it is.
 
2013-03-07 11:19:26 AM

EyeballKid: Which reason do you want first?


I know, thank god Romney wasn't elected.  He'd probably try to say that he has the right to assassinate US citizens without trial or something.  God, that would be terrible.
 
2013-03-07 11:21:37 AM

MattStafford: "The Republicans have passed a bill that gives the executive, in this case me, the ability to kill a US citizen on US soil for reasons the executive does not need to reveal or explain. I find that these provisions are terrible, and that we need to have a national conversation on these provisions, and have congress change or repeal the law"


so you want him to confess to having these powers given to him that you don't know if he's used or not? Because this isn't grounds for impeachment? Dude just admitted he can kill people at will, by law, I think that's treason right there. We should totally impeach his ass for it!

MattStafford: You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?


and tell us what? Republicans are bad douchenozzels that sidelined him into taking the lesser of two evils because they want to see him hung (some of them, literally)? We already know this. We knew when they put this provision in that the whole thing was a ploy to get him to veto it and look soft on terrorism during an election

MattStafford: WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?


Because he cares about more than 47% of the country? Because he's a decent guy? Because he's not an android? Because he actually is trying to improve this country? But mostly because we knew that electing him would short-circuit something in the brains of people like you who freak the fark out over everything that he can, cannot, will or won't do.

Congrats, 52% of the country just trolled your ass, how does it feel?
 
2013-03-07 11:21:49 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: It's like he is playing three dimensional chess, or something. We just gotta trust him - right?

what else can he do that doesn't involve Congress and won't get him impeached? We've already explained to you that him going on a tirade about it wherever he goes will get him no where and hurt his political capital for things he can get done


I'm sorry, I don't understand how the President accelerating the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and/or calling for a slowdown in counterterrorism operations - both of which are legal and feasible for his office to achieve (The former he's actually doing) - would result in impeachment proceedings. Obama doesn't have to shirk his executive duties to change policy.
 
2013-03-07 11:21:52 AM

Fart_Machine: Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.


It's almost like he did or something
 
2013-03-07 11:22:37 AM

MattStafford: I know, thank god Romney wasn't elected. He'd probably try to say that he has the right to assassinate US citizens without trial or something. God, that would be terrible.


Or, he'd just bankrupt the country helping his cult and all the people who rented his influence for the election. But, the most pressing issue should have been how each candidate would have dealt with Rand Paul's imaginary domestic boogeyman.
 
2013-03-07 11:23:30 AM

MattStafford: Bully Pulpit


again, what could telling the country that the GOP House is a bunch of rabble rousers hellbent on seeing him be a powerless figurehead actually achieve? Nothing. So the bully pulpit wouldn't really work out real well for him in this instance. Next.
 
2013-03-07 11:25:32 AM

MattStafford: Fart_Machine: Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.

It's almost like he did or something


he renews a fight over something that Congress (and Paul himself) had the ability to stop? Instead they enabled it?
 
2013-03-07 11:25:47 AM

EyeballKid: MattStafford: You don't think the president, when his party controls half of congress, has the ability to make his opinion heard on a matter as important as this?

WHY THE fark DID YOU EVEN ELECT HIM?


[talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x360]
Which reason do you want first?


God, they both look like insane skeleton men.

BeesNuts: There's a bit more to his question than the GB's schtick.  If Obama is really opposed to those provisions he can (and some would argue should) stand up and have a frank discussion directly with the American people about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have the desired effect of causing public outcry leading to an end to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that the country is split 50/50-ish leads to some problems when it comes to using the bully pulpit.  Remember when he said we should keep our tires inflated?  I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Americans deliberately drove more on less inflated tires to screw the dummycrat...  that's the kind of environment we're in.  And it sucks.

But Obama's demonstrated that he's aware of the tools available to him if he wants to get something done.  I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the detention provision was prohibited from any future budget bills by the time he leaves office.  Likewise, I wouldn't need a fainting couch if it stayed right where it is.


I agree with you. And I did mention earlier the three real options Obama had. I didn't have to readdress the fact that no matter which way he went, he was still screwed.  The best option, to me, seemed to be just let it pass into law without a signature, but I'm sure there would be plenty of spin about how he wanted the drone strike ability but really didn't want to fund the troops. Maybe he should have vetoed it and just laughed at the republicans. I would be pretty forgiving to hear, "Of course I want to fund the troops, but I'm not signing in an ability to kill american citizens for no reason." In his shoes, I think I would have started calling out the GOP long ago. He needs to stand firm and shut them down when they're trying to be underhanded.
 
2013-03-07 11:26:16 AM

somedude210: so you want him to confess to having these powers given to him that you don't know if he's used or not? Because this isn't grounds for impeachment? Dude just admitted he can kill people at will, by law, I think that's treason right there. We should totally impeach his ass for it!


Um, what?  I'm fairly confident explaining the what the provisions in a law allow him to do is not an impeachable offense.  Are you serious on this?

somedude210: and tell us what? Republicans are bad douchenozzels that sidelined him into taking the lesser of two evils because they want to see him hung (some of them, literally)? We already know this. We knew when they put this provision in that the whole thing was a ploy to get him to veto it and look soft on terrorism during an election


He needs to tell the people what the lesser of those two evils was, which he refuses to do.  It is a huge difference between saying "republicans used politics to make me sign something I didn't want to" and "republicans used politics to make me allow assassination of US citizens without trial".
 
2013-03-07 11:27:05 AM

MattStafford: Fart_Machine: Since Paul is a Senator you'd think he'd put forward legislation to stop this rather than a useless filibuster.

Unless it was about media whoring.

It's almost like he did or something


Good for him on that. What does this have to do with a law barring drone strikes on US citizens?
 
2013-03-07 11:27:43 AM

somedude210: 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.


Your in the same boat as us liberals who favor gun ownership.
 
2013-03-07 11:29:39 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


Now, now, you just need to be institutionalized for your own safety, you're not a threat. By the way, if you ever get tired of hearing the voices and so forth, Obamcare means you can get the help you need.
 
2013-03-07 11:30:01 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: Bully Pulpit

again, what could telling the country that the GOP House is a bunch of rabble rousers hellbent on seeing him be a powerless figurehead actually achieve? Nothing. So the bully pulpit wouldn't really work out real well for him in this instance. Next.


There are actually several things well within the President's authority to decrease and limit the Patriot Act and other powers.

- Prisoner transfer from Guantanamo to country of origin, albeit structured and limited at first
- Telling the DEA and DOJ to stand down from minor drug offenders, and states with legal pot laws on the books
- Reduce and/or eliminate covert operations in Yemen, Horn of Africa and elsewhere
- Bring Afghanistan to full closure
- Put an end date to Plan Colombia, and put the onus on that government to finish its negotiations with the FARC
- Become an advocate for decriminalization of certain controlled substances, as opposed to legalization, which is practically unteneable in DC.
- Request authorization to transfer war on terror funds to other defense-related operations
- Submit budget proposals asking for more funds on job programs, energy and infrastructure spending, instead of defense
 
2013-03-07 11:32:08 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: so you want him to confess to having these powers given to him that you don't know if he's used or not? Because this isn't grounds for impeachment? Dude just admitted he can kill people at will, by law, I think that's treason right there. We should totally impeach his ass for it!

Um, what?  I'm fairly confident explaining the what the provisions in a law allow him to do is not an impeachable offense.  Are you serious on this?

somedude210: and tell us what? Republicans are bad douchenozzels that sidelined him into taking the lesser of two evils because they want to see him hung (some of them, literally)? We already know this. We knew when they put this provision in that the whole thing was a ploy to get him to veto it and look soft on terrorism during an election

He needs to tell the people what the lesser of those two evils was, which he refuses to do.  It is a huge difference between saying "republicans used politics to make me sign something I didn't want to" and "republicans used politics to make me allow assassination of US citizens without trial".


So, you got your PoliSci and law degrees from the same place you got your economics degree, huh?
 
2013-03-07 11:32:13 AM

MattStafford: You don't think Obama saying, in the State of the Union, "The Republicans have passed a bill..." would be useless?


Actually, I think, precisely, that Obama casting blame on republicans for ANYTHING would be useless.  Half this country would take it as a personal attack and, as such, would immediately adopt the policy under question as a rallying cry against Obummer.

What he *can* do, is force Republican Senators, many of whom are vulnerable both at primary time and general time, to stake out this contrary position FOR him.  Let Rand Paul convince people in Kentucky that this is a bad policy.  Rand Paul is going to be a much more effective messenger anyway.
 
2013-03-07 11:32:15 AM

MattStafford: Um, what? I'm fairly confident explaining the what the provisions in a law allow him to do is not an impeachable offense. Are you serious on this?


my sarcasm/dry wit is tough to read through text sometimes. I thought I do a decent enough job showing it though. But I'm pretty sure we have some executive orders in place preventing the assassination of people, both foreign and domestic, that someone, somewhere would use as grounds for impeachment and removal if he ever openly admitted "fark y'all, I can totes kill you with a drone! Thanks Congress!"

MattStafford: He needs to tell the people what the lesser of those two evils was, which he refuses to do. It is a huge difference between saying "republicans used politics to make me sign something I didn't want to" and "republicans used politics to make me allow assassination of US citizens without trial".


those that would understand that he's not responsible for these provisions already know who is responsible and why they did it in the first place. If it got challenged, it could go to the SC but there would need to be a court case about it first. so until then, its a congressional thing to deal with
 
2013-03-07 11:33:30 AM

MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions.  They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things.  I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things.  Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?


If the president was to stop what he's doing to point out every poison pill the obstructionist GOP puts in very bill they can, he'd never get anything done. but, that's obviously the goal, isn't it?
 
2013-03-07 11:34:20 AM

somedude210: MattStafford: Bully Pulpit

again, what could telling the country that the GOP House is a bunch of rabble rousers hellbent on seeing him be a powerless figurehead actually achieve? Nothing. So the bully pulpit wouldn't really work out real well for him in this instance. Next.


and the president did that leading upto the sequester, which the house and senate gop used as an excuse to NOT work with him because he was being mean to them in public.
 
2013-03-07 11:35:31 AM

somedude210: If it got challenged, it could go to the SC but there would need to be a court case about it first.


It can't get challenged.  You know why?  The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it!  Isn't that a tricky move by the Obama administration?
 
2013-03-07 11:36:29 AM

vudutek: If the president was to stop what he's doing to point out every poison pill the obstructionist GOP puts in very bill they can, he'd never get anything done. but, that's obviously the goal, isn't it?


I think he could probably take time out his day to address the one that allows assassination of us citizens without a trial.  That might be the one he would like to address.

But nope, those dastardly republicans again!
 
2013-03-07 11:37:21 AM

vudutek: MattStafford: How difficult would it have been for Obama to say, at some point last year "Look at these provisions.  They allow a president, me or the next guy, to do these various things.  I was elected to protect us from the government doing those things.  Tell Congress to remove those provisions"?

If the president was to stop what he's doing to point out every poison pill the obstructionist GOP puts in very bill they can, he'd never get anything done. but, that's obviously the goal, isn't it?


The thing that is so weird is that a majority of Republicans voters agree with Obama. But for some reason, their "leaders" in Washington don't care.
 
2013-03-07 11:38:39 AM

BeesNuts: Actually, I think, precisely, that Obama casting blame on republicans for ANYTHING would be useless. Half this country would take it as a personal attack and, as such, would immediately adopt the policy under question as a rallying cry against Obummer.


Then say congress passed a bill - it had bipartisan support.

BeesNuts: What he *can* do, is force Republican Senators, many of whom are vulnerable both at primary time and general time, to stake out this contrary position FOR him. Let Rand Paul convince people in Kentucky that this is a bad policy. Rand Paul is going to be a much more effective messenger anyway.


You are suggesting a better course of action would be to let congress (the very same people who passed this bill over his objections) be the ones to explain to the people why this is a bad law?  Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?  How many other senators are going to go Rand on this one?
 
2013-03-07 11:39:17 AM
There are just a few problems with these. I'll see if I can translate them into the typical GOP response:

- Prisoner transfer from Guantanamo to country of origin, albeit structured and limited at first OMG HE'S LETTING TERRORISTS LOOSE!!!!!
- Telling the DEA and DOJ to stand down from minor drug offenders, and states with legal pot laws on the books OMG HE'S SOFT ON CRIME! WHY ISN'T HE ENFORCING THE LAWS!!!!
- Reduce and/or eliminate covert operations in Yemen, Horn of Africa and elsewhere OMG SOFT ON TERRORISMS! WHY DOES HE NOT WANT AMERICA PROTECTED!?!!
- Bring Afghanistan to full closure Okay, I don't have much on this but TERRORISTS!!!!
- Put an end date to Plan Colombia, and put the onus on that government to finish its negotiations with the FARC DAMN YOU DREW CURTIS!!!!! ALSO! SOFT ON DRUGS, HIPPIE-IN-CHIEF!!!
- Become an advocate for decriminalization of certain controlled substances, as opposed to legalization, which is practically unteneable in DC. SOFT ON DRUGS/CRIME/TERRORISMS!!!
- Request authorization to transfer war on terror funds to other defense-related operations SOFT ON TERRORISMS! WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA/TROOPS!!!!?
- Submit budget proposals asking for more funds on job programs, energy and infrastructure spending, instead of defense OBAMA A DICTATOR PICKING AND CHOOSING WHO LIVES AND DIES IN THE ECONOMY?!!?!

the sad thing is, I've heard this all before, from the GOP, for similar things Obama wants to do or tried doing
 
2013-03-07 11:39:19 AM
Celerian:BeesNuts: There's a bit more to his question than the GB's schtick.  If Obama is really opposed to those provisions he can (and some would argue should) stand up and have a frank discussion directly with the American people about it.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have the desired effect of causing public outcry leading to an end to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that the country is split 50/50-ish leads to some problems when it comes to using the bully pulpit.  Remember when he said we should keep our tires inflated?  I'm not convinced that a significant portion of Americans deliberately drove more on less inflated tires to screw the dummycrat...  that's the kind of environment we're in.  And it sucks.

But Obama's demonstrated that he's aware of the tools available to him if he wants to get something done.  I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the detention provision was prohibited from any future budget bills by the time he leaves office.  Likewise, I wouldn't need a fainting couch if it stayed right where it is.

I agree with you. And I did mention earlier the three real options Obama had. I didn't have to readdress the fact that no matter which way he went, he was still screwed.  The best option, to me, seemed to be just let it pass into law without a signature, but I'm sure there would be plenty of spin about how he wanted the drone strike ability but really didn't want to fund the troops. Maybe he should have vetoed it and just laughed at the republicans. I would be pretty forgiving to hear, "Of course I want to fund the troops, but I'm not signing in an ability to kill american citizens for no reason." In his shoes, I ...


High five, brother.

I'll be honest and say I didn't read the whole thread :P  But as a point of order, "just asking questions" usually applies better to REALLY farking dumb questions.  Like "Does Obama favor banning microwave ovens for individuals making more than 15 dollars an hour?"  Or "How many dead dogs has Obama personally been responsible for with his dietary predilections since his usurpation of the White House?  America Demands Answers.  Find out more at Blaze.com"

Matt's not *quite* there.

Proper form might have been "You sure sound *concerned*." or even "yes, but what has he done for us LATELY?"
 
2013-03-07 11:40:58 AM

MattStafford: The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it! Isn't that a tricky move by the Obama administration?


hahaha, that's a new one. Please, give me a citation for that.

also, I must point out that a law is a law, the DOJ doesn't have to recognize it to have it challenged in court
 
2013-03-07 11:41:06 AM

MattStafford: I know, thank god Romney wasn't elected.  He'd probably try to say that he has the right to sell US citizens without paying taxes or something.  God, that would be legit.

 
2013-03-07 11:41:17 AM

somedude210: the sad thing is, I've heard this all before, from the GOP, for similar things Obama wants to do or tried doing


So you're argument basically comes down to this:

We elected Obama to do a bunch of things.  If, however, Obama did any of those things, Republicans would disagree and try to make Obama look bad.  Therefore, Obama shouldn't do any of these things, and the fact that Obama won't do any of these things is the Republicans fault.
 
2013-03-07 11:41:33 AM
Not sure about a vote after this, God knows I've never been a governing man.
Baptised by Aqua Buddha I wade into the Congress to lower taxes all across the land.
 
2013-03-07 11:42:55 AM

MattStafford: I'm going to try and start over here:

Late 2011, Republicans (with Democratic support) pass bill containing some very troubling provisions wrt civil liberties.  They tie this bill to a bill funding the troops.  Obama asks Congress to remove those provisions, and they do not.  Obama signs the bill, but states that he will not use those provisions.  He signed this bill ostensibly for political reasons, as he did not want to appear weak or not support the troops in an election year.


The truth of the matter is that Obama wants those provisions.  If you can't see it, you're wearing blinders.

The fact he didn't want them, is proof to you that he wanted them.

I wish I could say this is the stupidest thing you've ever said.  But it isn't.
 
2013-03-07 11:43:50 AM

somedude210: hahaha, that's a new one. Please, give me a citation for that.

also, I must point out that a law is a law, the DOJ doesn't have to recognize it to have it challenged in court


People cannot sue on behalf of Awlaki, because the Obama administration refuses to officially recognize the drone strike program.  People are fighting for the right to sue, and guess who is fighting back?  The Obama administration.  Take off the blinders and do some research.
 
2013-03-07 11:44:09 AM

MattStafford: somedude210: If it got challenged, it could go to the SC but there would need to be a court case about it first.

It can't get challenged.  You know why?  The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it!  Isn't that a tricky move by the Obama administration?


If someone challenged it, his DOJ would be obligated to provide a constitutional defense.  Either Obama doesn't want it heard because he's worried it will get overturned, or he's worried it will be determined to be constitutionally sound.  At which point we're stuck with it.

If he's worried about it being overturned, he's a bad guy and he should feel bad.  If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.
 
2013-03-07 11:46:00 AM

PanicMan: The fact he didn't want them, is proof to you that he wanted them.

I wish I could say this is the stupidest thing you've ever said. But it isn't.


Perhaps it was a case of false resistance.  No, no!  Please don't give me these powers.  *wink

Of course I'm wrong though, I mean this is Obama!  The guy is a saint, and is in no way a typical politician who would say one thing but do another.  Not him.
 
2013-03-07 11:47:08 AM

BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.


They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld?  That might be four dimensional chess.
 
2013-03-07 11:47:14 AM

MattStafford: We elected Obama to do a bunch of things. If, however, Obama did any of those things, Republicans would disagree and try to make Obama look bad. Therefore, Obama shouldn't do any of these things, and the fact that Obama won't do any of these things is the Republicans fault.


oy, I'm not saying that he shouldn't do any of these things. There's a time and place for the battles to be waged. He held off on gay marriage until he knew he had the support, he held off on gun control until he knew he had the support. Most, if not all, will have lockstep Republican opposition to them, there are ways around that if he can convince a few to change sides, but he needs to pick his battles wisely or he risks blowing all his capital and won't be able to get anything at all done for the remainder of his term (see post-Obamacare)

If you understood how the dysfunction in washington worked, if you understood why it takes so long to get some seemingly perfect ideas passed, then you understand why Obama can't just offer up an omnibus super law to Congress to pass that has every agenda item he wants in it and it'll pass and he will have nothing else to do for the rest of his term.

When you understand that, grasshopper, then you will understand why we still prefer him over whatever the GOP offers up as a replacement
 
2013-03-07 11:49:06 AM

BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.


Like DOMA
 
2013-03-07 11:50:31 AM

MattStafford: BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.

They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld?  That might be four dimensional chess.


have you seen what's going up against the SCOTUS? It's not out of the realm of possibility that this court will see it as constitutional to kill civilians.
 
2013-03-07 11:51:24 AM

MattStafford: Wicked Chinchilla: That being said, you have to temper criticism with what is politically possible. There are a LOT of things I would have loved Obama to do and would have heavily criticized him for not doing...if he had a cooperative congress. But that's not our political reality. The appointment of Sec. Def. has never before in our history been opposed. They held it for two weeks. Nothing gets done in this environment without some dirty, nasty dog fight. Should he have done more? Absolutely. Did it have a shot in hell of getting anything done? Nope. Would it have cost him politically to make the attempt and weaken other efforts? Undoubtedly.

Thats why I say "I would like to have seen him do more." I would be a naive little twit if I took him to task for not attempting something he didn't have a shot in hell of completing.

Standing up and saying to the nation "Congress just authorized me to use these powers, and this is explicitly what I am allowed to do with these powers.  I entirely disagree with this, and would like to see Congress repeal these provisions.  Please contact your congress critters and have them repeal these provisions" would be too difficult?

The fact of the matter is this:  Rand Paul, a junior Senator from Kentucky, has just made these serious issues part of the national conversation.  Are you suggesting that Obama, the President of the United States, could not have done the very same thing at some point during the last year, to an even greater extent?


OK, so earlier in the thread you were biatching about the recently passed re-authorization of military force, that gave the president the power to do this drone thing. If it is true that this incarnation of the bill actually expanded the authority of the president to use drones on US citizens on US soil, then WHY did Rand Paul NOT filibuster the bill for 13 hours back before it was passed, instead of doing it now?
 
2013-03-07 11:53:54 AM

somedude210: If you understood how the dysfunction in washington worked, if you understood why it takes so long to get some seemingly perfect ideas passed, then you understand why Obama can't just offer up an omnibus super law to Congress to pass that has every agenda item he wants in it and it'll pass and he will have nothing else to do for the rest of his term.

When you understand that, grasshopper, then you will understand why we still prefer him over whatever the GOP offers up as a replacement


Yeah, that's it.  Obama has just been waiting for the right time to fight for these civil liberties.  It is amazing I haven't been able to see it, what with all of the denials and court fights and ambiguity.  He is so invested in waiting for the right time to fight these battles that he is actively fighting anyone else trying to fight these battles.
 
2013-03-07 11:55:13 AM

orlandomagik: OK, so earlier in the thread you were biatching about the recently passed re-authorization of military force, that gave the president the power to do this drone thing. If it is true that this incarnation of the bill actually expanded the authority of the president to use drones on US citizens on US soil, then WHY did Rand Paul NOT filibuster the bill for 13 hours back before it was passed, instead of doing it now?


That is a good question, I'm not Rand.  I can tell you, however, that he did introduce legislation to specifically remove US Citizens from these provisions that was voted down by the Senate.  He raised these issues back then, as well.
 
2013-03-07 12:00:00 PM

Cheron: 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.


Where was that bright line when the government ignored the 4th amendment, like with warrantless wiretaps?
Where was that bright line when the government denied due process to American citizens like Jose Padilla?

Citizens are killed all the time by agents of the government, like when a sniper takes out a bomb threat, or a hostage taker. Why would this situation be any different?
 
2013-03-07 12:01:59 PM
profile.ak.fbcdn.net

is not amused by this headline or subby's skank hooker wife
 
2013-03-07 12:04:27 PM

MattStafford: Infernalist: Now, the GOP is harassing him over the same provisions that THEY CAME UP WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

First, I wouldn't consider Rand Paul representative of the entire GOP.  I would imagine the majority of the GOP still want these provisions in place.

Infernalist: .It's akin to the President driving the GOP down the highway, and the car is starting to run out of gas. "Let's stop here" he says, pointing to a nice gas station. "No", says the GOP. "Keep going. We want to stop at the next one." "Okay, fine." he says. Running low on gas, the GOP points out a run down, gas station on the edge of town with plenty of vagrants hanging around. "There, stop there." "No, that's a horrible place." "Well, do it or we run out of gas." "Fine, but this is stupid." They stop for gas, and promptly get robbed, and the GOP looks up and says "Why did you stop here? You're stupid for stopping here. This is all your fault.

What a tortured analogy.  Here is a better one:

President and GOP are driving a bus down the highway.  The president wants to listen to indie rock, and the GOP wants pop country. The GOP demands that they put pop country on the radio, or else they aren't handing out sandwiches to the passengers.  The president knows that if the passengers don't get their sandwiches, they're going to be pissed.  So he say fine, they put on the pop country, and hand out the sandwiches.  And from that point on, the president does not fight to change the station back to indie rock - even though he was elected on an indie rock platform.  When a member of the GOP breaks ranks and says "hey, maybe indie rock wouldn't be so bad" - the president is silent on the matter.

There is an analogy for you.

Infernalist: The GOP made this happen and now they're trying to tax the President over it. Could he have been more strident in pointing out what asshats the GOP were being? Sure. Would it have changed anything? No. The whole nation knows the GOP are a bunch of blithering asshats already, ...


How is one person so amazingly terrible at analogies? It is truly mind boggling
 
2013-03-07 12:12:31 PM

MattStafford: BeesNuts: If he's worried that it will get upheld, it makes sense to keep the provision in Limbo until he and his people can figure out how to lose that SCotUS case while still meeting their obligation to defend the law.

They are fighting the court case because they are afraid if it is heard, it will be upheld?  That might be four dimensional chess.


This might be good information for you to have.  Stumbled across this through the other MJ article on here.

In response to your "Obama should tell the American people about this!" remarks, behold!

He did.  Two days ago apparently.  Not gonna blame you for missing it.  Cause I sure as hell didn't notice.

Which is just more evidence supporting the people who are telling you that he can't accomplish anything simply by talking about it publicly.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:51 PM
"I can't ultimately stop the nomination, but what I can do is try to draw attention to this and try to get an answer ... that would be something if we could get an answer from the president ... if he would say explicitly that noncombatants in America won't be killed by drones. The reason it has to be answered is because our foreign drone strike program does kill noncombatants. They may argue that they are conspiring or they may someday be combatants, but if that is the same standard that we are going to use in the United States, it is a far different country than I know about."
 
2013-03-07 12:18:12 PM
 
2013-03-07 12:28:31 PM

somedude210: So what else could Obama do to actual make a worthwhile change to this?


He could feed an undercurrent of rumors and speculation that continues to grow until some idiot Republican Senator takes the bait and stands up and fillibusters for 13 hours over the details.
 
2013-03-07 12:45:59 PM

MattStafford: "I can't ultimately stop the nomination, but what I can do is try to draw attention to this and try to get an answer ... that would be something if we could get an answer from the president ... if he would say explicitly that noncombatants in America won't be killed by drones. The reason it has to be answered is because our foreign drone strike program does kill noncombatants. They may argue that they are conspiring or they may someday be combatants, but if that is the same standard that we are going to use in the United States, it is a far different country than I know about."


Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.
 
2013-03-07 12:54:13 PM

Celerian: Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.


Anyone but Obama.  Not his law, not his problem - that's what I always say.
 
2013-03-07 01:00:08 PM

MattStafford: Celerian: Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.

Anyone but Obama.  Not his law, not his problem - that's what I always say.


well...it's not his law, since he didn't advocate for it (like obamacare) and he was vocal against it because of these provisions, so yes, it is a congressional problem and requires a congressional solution. Direct your anger at them since they have the power to change this and choose not to
 
2013-03-07 01:00:14 PM

SlothB77: "[Barack Obama] has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil," Eric Holder.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

How does it feel to be a living stereotype?
 
2013-03-07 01:10:02 PM

somedude210: he was vocal against it


Keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-03-07 01:12:24 PM

somedude210: MattStafford: Celerian: Since the GOP came up with most or all of the bill, shouldn't THEY answer those questions? Maybe the president doesn't fully know what the bill would allow him to do. Or better yet, since the judiciary system would be the one to interpret the law, let the SCOTUS handle the verbage with what he can/can't do.

Anyone but Obama.  Not his law, not his problem - that's what I always say.

well...it's not his law, since he didn't advocate for it (like obamacare) and he was vocal against it because of these provisions, so yes, it is a congressional problem and requires a congressional solution. Direct your anger at them since they have the power to change this and choose not to


He's deflecting anyway. I'm not giving Obama a pass as much as I'm saying that the law seems vague and since he didn't write the law, maybe he doesn't know what the intent was. I think the person who wrote the law should provide an interpretation, or the SCOTUS should clarify the law. What Obama thinks it means he can do and what he can actually do according to the law in question could be two very different things.
 
2013-03-07 01:15:23 PM

MattStafford: somedude210: he was vocal against it

Keep telling yourself that.


....so he didn't ask congress to take the provision out? call them out that it was a clearly political dick move to do during an election? He didn't do any of that when the NDAA was up for debate last fall? No? Could it be that the GOP felt threatened that they were up against the only democrat to be considered strong on defense in the last 150 years?
 
2013-03-07 01:30:50 PM
Okay, so it's now politically convenient for Republicans to be against expansive Executive military powers, and there is a hypothetical instance where the President could militarily employ UAV's in the US (Though by AG Holder's words, we're talking 9/11 and Pearl Harbor rarity here).

So...why aren't Republicans working with the hardcore, peacenik liberals to draft up some legislation? Where's the bill to decrease funding to Overseas Contingency Operations (formerly Global War on Terror)? Where's the bill to revise the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where's the bill that narrows this language and specifies what the Executive Branch can't do?

There's a legitimate chance to get some bipartisan work done here and make significant changes to our foreign policy. If it's now okay for you to be for it, then why aren't your people in DC doing it, Republicans?
 
2013-03-07 01:36:29 PM
After all, the most important thing we want Obama to do is get up, give a speech, and give up a power, like everyone else and every other president would do.

Seems to me if this was such a big deal, it should have been debated 8 years ago or so.  This is BS.  It was a good conversation to have then.  It's established precedent now.
 
2013-03-07 01:41:23 PM

verbaltoxin: Okay, so it's now politically convenient for Republicans to be against expansive Executive military powers, and there is a hypothetical instance where the President could militarily employ UAV's in the US (Though by AG Holder's words, we're talking 9/11 and Pearl Harbor rarity here).

So...why aren't Republicans working with the hardcore, peacenik liberals to draft up some legislation? Where's the bill to decrease funding to Overseas Contingency Operations (formerly Global War on Terror)? Where's the bill to revise the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where's the bill that narrows this language and specifies what the Executive Branch can't do?

There's a legitimate chance to get some bipartisan work done here and make significant changes to our foreign policy. If it's now okay for you to be for it, then why aren't your people in DC doing it, Republicans?


Because just like Democrats we only support civil liberties when our side is arguing for it.

Stop pretending that Democrats are any better. Your argument can be twisted easily in a way that is still a fallacy but makes more sense.. Now that some Republicans support these things, why are Democrats, the actual party in power not reaching out to make policy changes. I will tell you why not. Because both sides care about winning, not your liberties.

Yes I am a Republican.

Slutter McGee
 
2013-03-07 01:43:39 PM

Slutter McGee: Yes I am a Republican.


in fairness, the last time we (republicans) defended civil liberties, it was to give women the right to vote.
 
2013-03-07 01:45:27 PM

Slutter McGee: verbaltoxin: Okay, so it's now politically convenient for Republicans to be against expansive Executive military powers, and there is a hypothetical instance where the President could militarily employ UAV's in the US (Though by AG Holder's words, we're talking 9/11 and Pearl Harbor rarity here).

So...why aren't Republicans working with the hardcore, peacenik liberals to draft up some legislation? Where's the bill to decrease funding to Overseas Contingency Operations (formerly Global War on Terror)? Where's the bill to revise the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where's the bill that narrows this language and specifies what the Executive Branch can't do?

There's a legitimate chance to get some bipartisan work done here and make significant changes to our foreign policy. If it's now okay for you to be for it, then why aren't your people in DC doing it, Republicans?

Because just like Democrats we only support civil liberties when our side is arguing for it.

Stop pretending that Democrats are any better. Your argument can be twisted easily in a way that is still a fallacy but makes more sense.. Now that some Republicans support these things, why are Democrats, the actual party in power not reaching out to make policy changes. I will tell you why not. Because both sides care about winning, not your liberties.

Yes I am a Republican.

Slutter McGee


That's all you needed to say.

/Independent, actually, but thanks for assuming.
 
2013-03-07 02:12:11 PM

MattStafford: The fact that Obama's administration won't come out and explicitly state how they use those clauses doesn't trouble you? The fact that the administration (supposedly pro civil liberties) has not brought those clauses to the forefront of the political scene and asked congress to repeal them doesn't trouble you? The fact that they have simply ignored this filibuster, when one would expect, if they truly disagreed with those provisions, they would #stoodwithrood?

Yeah, just keep slobbing that knob and telling yourself that he's different.


The Obama administration hasn't explicitely come out and said they weren't going to take part in the train that's going to be run on your mother this weekend.  What is Obama trying to hide?  Why isn't he denying that he, along with 300 of his closest friends, plans to nail your mother?  Doesn't that trouble you?
 
2013-03-07 02:39:13 PM

Satanic_Hamster: The Obama administration hasn't explicitely come out and said they weren't going to take part in the train that's going to be run on your mother this weekend. What is Obama trying to hide? Why isn't he denying that he, along with 300 of his closest friends, plans to nail your mother? Doesn't that trouble you?


If I elected Obama specifically to speak out and prevent the train from occurring, than yeah - that would trouble me.  I might think I elected someone who lied to me, and wasn't going to follow through on what he promised.
 
2013-03-07 03:07:06 PM

MattStafford: If I elected Obama specifically to speak out and prevent the train from occurring, than yeah - that would trouble me.


wait, so now you're telling me you know why we elected Obama? well shiat, man. It couldn't be because...you know, he wasn't batshiat insane and had a common sense of decency, could it?

there are serious issues in this country that need to be tackled and dealt with now, as of right now, there hasn't been an issue of drone strikes in the US yet, so we're barking up a hypothetical tree while ignoring very real issues in the country right now.

So while I agree that there needs to be a law somewhere that says that we need to cut this shiat out from ever happening, it's a philosophical game right now and we have other shiat we need to work on first, so let's get that shiat down before we move on to hypotheticals.
 
2013-03-07 03:47:58 PM

somedude210: wait, so now you're telling me you know why we elected Obama? well shiat, man. It couldn't be because...you know, he wasn't batshiat insane and had a common sense of decency, could it?

there are serious issues in this country that need to be tackled and dealt with now, as of right now, there hasn't been an issue of drone strikes in the US yet, so we're barking up a hypothetical tree while ignoring very real issues in the country right now.

So while I agree that there needs to be a law somewhere that says that we need to cut this shiat out from ever happening, it's a philosophical game right now and we have other shiat we need to work on first, so let's get that shiat down before we move on to hypotheticals.


Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal.  Yeah fark off dude.
 
2013-03-07 04:19:59 PM

MattStafford: Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal.


so we're going to the broad assassinating US citizens thing now? I thought this was about using drones on people at home? Now it doesn't have to be on US soil, because that would mean it's hypothetical still? okay then, move the goal posts and lets argue this point now
 
2013-03-07 04:21:57 PM

MattStafford: And again, I don't give a fark.


I see.

So now we can add "liar" to your already impressive list of accomplishments?

MattStafford: The Obama administration refuses to officially acknowledge it, so courts refuse to give anyone standing to challenge it!


Whoa.  That's certainly a "novel" way to ascertain "standing".

And I say "novel" in the sense that "novels" are "totally made-up".
 
2013-03-07 04:33:30 PM

Slutter McGee: Stop pretending that Democrats are any better. Your argument can be twisted easily in a way that is still a fallacy but makes more sense.. Now that some Republicans support these things, why are Democrats, the actual party in power not reaching out to make policy changes. I will tell you why not. Because both sides care about winning, not your liberties.

Yes I am a Republican.

Slutter McGee


Because the GOP will filibuster themselves to prevent the administration from accomplishing anything.
 
2013-03-07 05:16:47 PM

MattStafford: Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal. Yeah fark off dude.


Exactly.

If Bush had done the same thing, what would those liberals defending Obama be saying?  They'd be calling for his impeachment.

My hats off to guys like GAT (and again, I can't believe I said that) who have at least been consistent when it comes to civil liberties on this issue.  The rest of you are hypocritical Democratic Party drones.

As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that THEY'RE the party that supposed to stand up for civil liberties...NOT tear them down.  I expect the GOP to be all for this encroachment on civil liberties, not the Democrats.

Shame on all of you Democrats that are defending the Obama administration on this..
 
2013-03-07 05:31:09 PM

slayer199: MattStafford: Assassinating US citizens without a trial isn't a big deal. Yeah fark off dude.

Exactly.

If Bush had done the same thing, what would those liberals defending Obama be saying?  They'd be calling for his impeachment.

My hats off to guys like GAT (and again, I can't believe I said that) who have at least been consistent when it comes to civil liberties on this issue.  The rest of you are hypocritical Democratic Party drones.

As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that THEY'RE the party that supposed to stand up for civil liberties...NOT tear them down.  I expect the GOP to be all for this encroachment on civil liberties, not the Democrats.

Shame on all of you Democrats that are defending the Obama administration on this..


How do you not understand that only Congress can alter an act of Congress? If Congress wants clear restrictions on this power, they are the only ones who can put them in place.

Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.
 
2013-03-07 05:32:04 PM

slayer199: As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that  I'm actually a Republican.



ftfy
 
2013-03-07 05:59:50 PM

qorkfiend: Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.


The issue is that Obama, and the Democrats in general, aren't even fighting it at all!   They are doing literally nothing to protect our civil liberties!
 
2013-03-07 06:51:15 PM

qorkfiend: How do you not understand that only Congress can alter an act of Congress? If Congress wants clear restrictions on this power, they are the only ones who can put them in place.

Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.


Holder was the one that wrote the legal justification for drone strikes on American citizens abroad and is the one that stated they could be used domestically.  Last I heard he was a member of the Obama administration.

Stop defending because you don't have a leg to stand on.

EyeballKid: slayer199: As a libertarian, the reason that the Democrats especially rub me the wrong way right now is that  I'm actually a Republican.


ftfy


Yes because anyone that disagrees with the Obama administration MUST be a Republican.  I've voted the libertarian party for more than 20 years.   Apparently you don't have any reading comprehension and you must be new here because I've consistently attacked the GOP on a wide range of issues from attacks on civil liberties like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and abortion as well as their unabashed corporatism.

As a libertarian you hope that when Democrats get elected they do more to improve civil liberties.  The Democrats had 2 years of control of Congress and the White House.  Did they do anything to restrict or scale back the Patriot Act?  Nope.  Did the Obama administration do anything to scale back arrests and seizures of medical marijuana clinics?  Nope.  They had no problem passing the HCRA.

What has Obama done with the power granted under the Patriot Act?  He expanded it.  Years ago I would have said that when Republicans get in power you hope they reduce the deficit and spending but that's a pipe dream...they're worse than the Democrats at this point as they'd expand the deficit AND restrict individual liberty.

So yeah, if I bash the Democrats it's because they're the only viable party for civil liberties at this point and other than supporting gay marriage, they haven't done squat.
 
2013-03-07 06:52:38 PM

qorkfiend: Do you want this power gone for good, or just for Obama? If it's the former, then saying "Why doesn't Obama just stop" is useless.


To clarify...I want it gone for good and forever.  The government should not be able to eliminate due process for American citizens...ever.
 
2013-03-08 09:04:02 AM

slayer199: Shame on all of you Democrats that are defending the Obama administration on this..


I guess you feel pretty silly right about now, huh?
 
Displayed 291 of 291 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report