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.

(Washington Post)   "And so it's come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. It is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse...of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 337
    More: Sad, Rand Paul, White House, filibusters  
•       •       •

10963 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 12:00:24 PM  

Carth: FTFA: " I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens." "

God, i agree with Jennifer Rubin on something. I feel like i need to change my opinion just to disagree with her.


You realize that's pretty much exactly what Holder said to Rand Paul, right?
 
2013-03-07 12:01:07 PM  
Hurrrrrrrp Benghazi! Duuuuurp drones!

farking a you inbred militia hicks are boring as shiat anymore.
 
2013-03-07 12:02:15 PM  

Maud Dib: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

I KNEW it was her column before clicking on it.
I knew it, I knew it.




Damn you Fark, you spit out my image.
api.ning.com
 
2013-03-07 12:02:22 PM  
I can't stand Rand, but he is 100% right on this issue.
 
2013-03-07 12:03:19 PM  
pbs.twimg.com

Sen. Graham on the floor.
 
2013-03-07 12:03:25 PM  

qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?


Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?
 
2013-03-07 12:03:38 PM  

dietbubba: PreMortem: *click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*

Pretty much what I did


didn't even get that far.  I saw the cray-cray headline and the WaPo link and checked the thread before I clicked.  Saved me the guilt of feeding her a pageview.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:13 PM  
Looks like Rand Paul has a new whore.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:22 PM  

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.

Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.

Yes, I do give him plenty of credit for that.  And it was on a legitimate issue, though I don't think he's sincere about it.

But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.


Was it?  He was filibustering something that was completely unrelated to the military drones.  Why couldn't he filibuster during, I don't know, actual legislation regarding the war on terror?  Why couldn't he do like a certain democrat did over actual legislation, alone.

Why couldn't he do this during the NDAA, instead of just dropping the cheater's filibuster and give s hort speech and let it go?  and why couldn't the GOP rally behind him then?

Oh yeah, because Obama didn't actually support that.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:23 PM  

Bastard_Lunatic: I can't stand Rand, but he is 100% right on this issue.


Not really. He's taken a core idea which isn't absurd and just piled on bullshiat, fear, what ifs, slippery slopes, and dogpiling friends. It's an opportunistic act, not the principled move of a man fighting for something right.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:26 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

kxnet.images.worldnow.com

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?
 
2013-03-07 12:05:14 PM  
Rand Paul is an asshole, but I will at least give him props for actually performing a filibuster (or much of it, anyways).  If you're gonna be an asshole, at least own it.
 
2013-03-07 12:05:41 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Lucky for you then that most of them are aircraft; they don't really operate on soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:05:49 PM  
But the excessive reliance on drones is troublesome from a policy standpoint, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

If you actually listen to what Holder said when he was asked whether drones could be used in the US instead of what the Washington Post and Rand Paul think they heard, you'd realize that that's the exact position Holder took - that using drones in the US is entirely hypothetical and would not happen except under some extraordinary circumstance.

As for the 'excessive use'?  What makes hellfiring by drone so much less honorable method of warfare than shooting someone with a rifle or kicking someone when they're down?  For farks sake - my drill instructors told me that the BEST time to kick someone.

Republicans might be tough on national defense, but Iraq, Afghanistan, the hunt for bin Laden, and being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.
 
2013-03-07 12:06:10 PM  
It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.
 
2013-03-07 12:06:48 PM  
The House has got a much better handle on this kind of asshattery. Limit debate time and force a vote at the end of the debate.

Representative, your time is up.
 
2013-03-07 12:07:00 PM  

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.
 
2013-03-07 12:08:12 PM  

meat0918: I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.



And Republicans would rather we put American soldiers and police officers in harm's way, based on their reactions.
 
2013-03-07 12:08:30 PM  
If I was a U.S. senator; I'd filibuster everything until they did away with the patriot act and the TSA.

/ I'd probably do the entire musical H.M.S. Pinafore
 
2013-03-07 12:08:38 PM  

MugzyBrown: It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.


Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.
 
2013-03-07 12:09:06 PM  

MugzyBrown: Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO


And he tried to close it.  Republican obstruction stopped him.
 
2013-03-07 12:09:22 PM  

jshine: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Lucky for you then that most of them are aircraft; they don't really operate on soil.


i.imgur.com

Not yet they don't.
 
2013-03-07 12:10:21 PM  

Karac: I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

If you actually listen to what Holder said when he was asked whether drones could be used in the US instead of what the Washington Post and Rand Paul think they heard, you'd realize that that's the exact position Holder took - that using drones in the US is entirely hypothetical and would not happen except under some extraordinary circumstance.


I think you answered your own question. I don't think the administration thought it needed to specifically set an unwavering barrier on the least likely possible thing to happen.

They may not have been right, because clearly someone thought it warranted fillibustery. I guess you should never assume that everyone is on the same page.
 
2013-03-07 12:10:58 PM  
A politician doing nothing but standing around talking is news? I thought that was normal.
 
2013-03-07 12:11:01 PM  

Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.


Well, to "use" drones is a very ambiguous term...  I've got no real objection to drones being used for aerial surveillance in place of cops in helicopters (as is currently done).  Firing missiles is entirely different, and I wouldn't support that.
 
2013-03-07 12:11:19 PM  

qorkfiend: Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.


So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

It's congress fault for giving him the legal ability to kill people without trial, but not his fault for doing it?
 
2013-03-07 12:12:20 PM  

Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.


/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!


So Obama should update the NDAA, the Posse Comitatus Act and/or the Insurrection Act.

Wait, did I say "Obama"? I meant, um...the legislative body that makes law for the US. What's it called again - the one where the crazy old Texan libertarian's son is now a member in good standing of one part, and can draft and introduce legislation (and if he can convince the right number of his colleagues, the president's opinion matters not a fart in a windstorm)?

Holder defined the scope of the law that body passed. If the Legislature doesn't like the interpretation (or the law that gave rise to it), there are at least two means of righting that wrong without involving the president.
 
2013-03-07 12:12:39 PM  

St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.


Since when do new laws need to be created to remove unconstitutional action? I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.
 
2013-03-07 12:12:47 PM  

God's Hubris: Of course, when Obama appoints officials during recess to avoid this bullshiat, we'll hear about how the authoritarian dictator is circumventing constitutional law.


Being as the Senate wasn't in recess at the time, Obama just decided they were and appointed them anyway. And according to the Circuit Court that was unconstitutional.

Congress establishes their own rules, not the POTUS. I would have thought a temporary former Senator would have known that. But he's cool, y'know? So it's okay.
 
2013-03-07 12:13:02 PM  

MugzyBrown: he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?


The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.
 
2013-03-07 12:13:11 PM  

qorkfiend: Carth: FTFA: " I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens." "

God, i agree with Jennifer Rubin on something. I feel like i need to change my opinion just to disagree with her.

You realize that's pretty much exactly what Holder said to Rand Paul, right?


If you're talking about the same letter I read he went out of his way not to  limit it to just that. He said one situation that they could order drone strikes would be an ongoing attack like 9/11 but he did not say it was the only situation. Just that it would require "extraordinary circumstances in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable  laws of the United States" .

That is the same level Bush requires before using torture and it wasn't good enough then either.
 
2013-03-07 12:13:15 PM  

iheartscotch: If I was a U.S. senator; I'd filibuster everything until they did away with the patriot act and the TSA.

/ I'd probably do the entire musical H.M.S. Pinafore


moderateinthemiddle.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-07 12:13:23 PM  

MugzyBrown: It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.



What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?
 
2013-03-07 12:13:55 PM  

MyRandomName: I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.


People are killed in the commission of crime often. Without trial. Is this also unconstitutional?
 
2013-03-07 12:14:14 PM  

MugzyBrown: So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?


When has that ever been on the table?  All Holder said was that drones could be used in the case of an imminent threat.  How is piloting a drone any different than authorizing lethal force for a sniper or SWAT team?
 
2013-03-07 12:14:15 PM  

LasersHurt: The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.


So the CIA currently does not kill people in foreign countries via drone without judicial review?
 
2013-03-07 12:15:52 PM  

Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?


Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?
 
2013-03-07 12:15:57 PM  

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


On social issues I lean liberal, and I have to agree with you...shiat would have surely hit the fan if ol' GW suggested using drones domestically.
Our politics have come down to my team verses yours, with both sides now incapable of stepping back and examining their parties policies with any objectivism.
/the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:00 PM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.

So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

It's congress fault for giving him the legal ability to kill people without trial, but not his fault for doing it?


Yes, it's Congress's fault for not revoking that ability and then complaining that the President is doing something they have legally empowered him to do. It's not that difficult to understand.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:06 PM  

Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.


Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:09 PM  
Jennifer Rubin...projecting?! THE HELL YOU SAY!
 
2013-03-07 12:16:16 PM  

GAT_00: MugzyBrown: Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO

And he tried to close it.  Republican obstruction stopped him for fear the terrorists would break out of a ultra-maximum security prison en masse and destroy America's villages one by one as they stampede across America.



Added for clarity.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:46 PM  

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.

So the CIA currently does not kill people in foreign countries via drone without judicial review?


I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:59 PM  
I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:59 PM  

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.

So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

It's congress fault for giving him the legal ability to kill people without trial, but not his fault for doing it?


Are we comparing prisoners captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan with targets deep in Taliban- / al Qaeda-held territory?
 
2013-03-07 12:17:32 PM  

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?

Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?


Maybe Congress shouldn't have granted the power to make that determination solely to the executive in the first place. Maybe they should undo that, since they have the ability to do so.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:21 PM  
So a hyper-partisan media pundit is writing a column in the media complaining about how anything written by the media would surely be partisan if they were to veer off of event reporting and start writing something partisan.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:55 PM  

NeoCortex42: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't get the distinction that makes drones a huge problem that didn't exist before.  The debate should be about using lethal force on citizens on US soil, whether it's through a remote-controlled drone, a well-trained sniper, or a heavily armed SWAT team.

Ditto on places that are up in arms about surveillance drones, but have never had any problem with police helicopters.


Thank you for being one of the few unretarded people talking about this.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:55 PM  

Lord_Baull: meat0918: I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.


And Republicans would rather we put American soldiers and police officers in harm's way, based on their reactions.


I can at least understand that you might be more hesitant to commit force if there are your guys lives to risk, but given the ability the US government has to twist public opinion to support an ill advised war, I'm not sure having or not having drones will stop any sort of military strike.

Besides, rones of one type or another are already being used for surveillance by both government, business, and private individuals here in the US.  This particular genie is out of the bottle.


images.intomobile.com

www.gadgets-reviews.com

Any assurance of no drone attacks against US citizens on US soil except in extreme situations is a tenuous assurance at best.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:00 PM  

PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.


Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report