Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, GOP, deaths, human beings, Majority Leader Harry Reid, senate majority whip, D-IL, Strom Thurmond, American soil  
•       •       •

1506 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 8:28 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report