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 25
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-07 08:38:11 AM  
4 votes:

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 08:57:08 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:50:54 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:45:03 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:43:43 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:12:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:42:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:32:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:13:51 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:08:48 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-07 09:53:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:44:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:17:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:15:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:14:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:12:56 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:12:14 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:03:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:15 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:54:10 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:39:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:34:12 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:31:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:18:04 AM  
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report