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  
•       •       •

10961 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 12:47:25 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.


My problem with this is that some people seem to legitimately think we didn't have civilian casualties and nothing went wrong BEFORE drones.

I never see people comparing strikes by drone with old-school stikes with a team, or old style munitions.

It's like they think it's all new, as of now.
 
2013-03-07 12:47:54 PM

vygramul: halfof33: vygramul: So?

So, Brennan has no business being named the head of the CIA and his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.

What was the damage that was caused by his actions?



Not having access to Obama's time machine, nor the precognition it apparently requires.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:07 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?

I didn't say you have to agree with me, but you're hypocritical if you support the current drone program and criticized GTMO.


I think that's an absurd dichotomy to make, and not supported by any good sense or logic.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:32 PM

God's Hubris: Saiga410:  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.


Am I reading this right? You're lamenting that we took out an active Al-Queada member without the single loss of American lives because they weren't actually building a bomb at the time?


Am I reading this right?  You're assuming somebody is guilty of being an active Al-Qaeda member solely on the fact that they were called one by the people who killed him?  You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:53 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.

I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation.  It must be difficult in your day-to-day life.



Shine on, you precious little flower.
 
2013-03-07 12:50:24 PM

jshine: Its a matter of circumstance: if person A is in the process of pulling a gun to shoot person B, then a cop is justified in shooting A to prevent the murder. That has been the law for -- well -- forever, as far as I'm aware (though IANAL).

Obviously its preferable to arrest A and send him/her to trial, but if there's an imminent threat to the life of a cop or another person, then police have the power to use deadly force to deal with that threat if necessary.


How is your scenario of imminent threat to the life of a cop comparable to two guys in a car in Yemen?
 
2013-03-07 12:51:28 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!


How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?
 
2013-03-07 12:51:44 PM
fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-07 12:54:22 PM

Karac: We've droned people sitting in cafes on American soil? Why was I not told about this?


The report on that attack was hidden, along with those plans for the shipping of weapons to Turkey out of Libya. Everybody thought it was hidden, but they didn't count on Rand Paul finding it.
 
2013-03-07 12:54:47 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?

I didn't say you have to agree with me, but you're hypocritical if you support the current drone program and criticized GTMO.

I think that's an absurd dichotomy to make, and not supported by any good sense or logic.


Mugzy makes perfect sense if your worldview is formed entirely by political commentators but you ignore any other sort of expert in every field ever.
 
2013-03-07 12:55:00 PM

vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?


four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.
 
2013-03-07 12:56:14 PM
 
2013-03-07 12:56:32 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.

I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation.  It must be difficult in your day-to-day life.

LasersHurt: I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.

It's not difficult to hold people accountable for their corruption.  If you agreed that GTMO was an embarassment to the US, then you should be appalled at the current administration's use of drones, which everybody agrees has been greatly expanded in the past 4 years.

The CIA's history is filled with abuse of power, killing people outside the law, and have been grilled for it.  But now because you like Obama, you defend his policy.


Do you suffer under the delusion that, in the absence of drones, the military would hold trials in the battlefield before shooting at anybody?
 
2013-03-07 12:56:56 PM

theorellior: 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!

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?


Trolls be trollin'.
 
2013-03-07 01:00:12 PM

trisarahtops: Do you suffer under the delusion that, in the absence of drones, the military would hold trials in the battlefield before shooting at anybody?


How does this compare to 2 guys in a car in Yemen?
 
2013-03-07 01:00:48 PM

halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?

four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.


Seriously, its just a pile of bloody feathers now.
 
2013-03-07 01:02:03 PM

MugzyBrown: Any innocent blood killed by the drones since 2009 is on Obama's hands not congress's



I'm not sure if I should go with the inigo montaya.jpg, the quizzical dog.jpg, or the successful troll.jpg.
 
2013-03-07 01:04:10 PM
halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?
 
four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.

Why isn't this man on trial for murder??!!
 
2013-03-07 01:05:50 PM

MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.



You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?
 
2013-03-07 01:06:36 PM
For all the harping on about everything and partisan accusations, the facts are this: Paul and the Republicans are grandstanding, or they'd push a law to remove the powers Congress authorized. No poison pills, no non-binding resolutions. No push for a ruling-out by this administration only to leave it for future (possibly their team) ones. Until then, it's all just rhetoric to try and embarrass the current administration, and nothing more.
 
2013-03-07 01:07:19 PM

SilentStrider: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

Without clicking the link, I knew it would be something from her.


it's the obligatory weekly neocon sponsored fark link
 
2013-03-07 01:08:02 PM

CPennypacker: halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?

four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.

Seriously, its just a pile of bloody feathers now.


i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 01:08:48 PM

NeoCortex42: 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?


because drone sounds scary. and Obama uses them.
 
2013-03-07 01:09:04 PM

God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?


Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.
 
2013-03-07 01:09:09 PM
My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"
 
2013-03-07 01:09:44 PM
Rand Paul is weak on terror.
Bad for America
 
2013-03-07 01:10:19 PM

ValisIV: For all the harping on about everything and partisan accusations, the facts are this: Paul and the Republicans are grandstanding, or they'd push a law to remove the powers Congress authorized. No poison pills, no non-binding resolutions. No push for a ruling-out by this administration only to leave it for future (possibly their team) ones. Until then, it's all just rhetoric to try and embarrass the current administration, and nothing more.



I'm totally not voting for Obama in 2014.
 
2013-03-07 01:11:39 PM

Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.

You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.



Are you even trying?
 
2013-03-07 01:14:20 PM

ValisIV: For all the harping on about everything and partisan accusations, the facts are this: Paul and the Republicans are grandstanding, or they'd push a law to remove the powers Congress authorized. No poison pills, no non-binding resolutions. No push for a ruling-out by this administration only to leave it for future (possibly their team) ones. Until then, it's all just rhetoric to try and embarrass the current administration, and nothing more.


Rand Paul also doesn't realize drone usage in the US is more of a 4th amendment issue, rather than a 5th amendment one.
 
2013-03-07 01:14:24 PM
The world we love in: the left and right wing of the political spectrum has literally changed the exact same spots they were in the 2000s

"fark off with that patriotic act nonsense that only happens when you're a terrorist! Barking moonbat libs!"
 
2013-03-07 01:15:12 PM

halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?

four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.


You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?
 
2013-03-07 01:18:11 PM

Talondel: sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.

Like this?

[i5.photobucket.com image 664x596]



A Sense of the Senate Resolution asking the President to explain himself is not legislation.
 
2013-03-07 01:18:26 PM

vygramul: You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?


No I am not. We have already stipulated that: The Benghazi terrorist attack was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.
 
2013-03-07 01:20:52 PM
I for one am actually quite surprised the number of farkers who are ok with the idea that a cheetos eating kid sitting on a sofa some 500 miles away in an AFB somewhere has the legal authorization to kill Americans on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 01:20:53 PM

Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.


Well, I think we should attack the lower classes, first using bombs and artillery to send them scurrying helplessly from their homes, and then mowing them down with machine guns.  And then, of course, releasing the vultures.

Now, I realize that my views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:45 PM

anfrind: Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.

Well, I think we should attack the lower classes, first using bombs and artillery to send them scurrying helplessly from their homes, and then mowing them down with machine guns.  And then, of course, releasing the vultures.

Now, I realize that my views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.


Popularity is for proles.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:46 PM

Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"



There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.
 
2013-03-07 01:26:29 PM

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.


I'm sure her bottom line appreciates the distinction.

/sometimes trolls get paid instead of fed
 
2013-03-07 01:26:36 PM
As opposed to circling the wagons around the last administration, which was necessary to protect America from bin Laden.
 
2013-03-07 01:27:03 PM
Remember how when you were a kid you would narrate your actions like a sports commentator? "Clambam moves in from the outside, he shoots, he scores... touchdown!" (suffice to say I was not athletic). The repubs are the same way. Each one moves around in a self-narrated movie in which evil brown people get mowed down by your righteously wielded concealed carry, where the bad guy looks at you in dawning disbelief and terror as you pronounce "Immunity... revoked!", where the president tearfully pins the Medal of Honor on your blood-stained camos after you single-handedly fight off the Red Menace while Michelle Malkin makes "call me" gestures in the background. For thirteen glorious hours Rand Paul got to pretend he was Jimmy Stewart. The eyes of the nation were upon him, it was a glorious validation of his superior moral fiber and dedication. It accomplished nothing, except to provide him with some video for his next campaign. He delayed John Brennan's confirmation by exactly zero hours. Just when he could have demonstrated his commitment to his principles, he called it quits because he had to pee. He is a hero in his own mind, and those of his followers. Actually accomplishing something is beside the point--he fulfilled the cinematic requirements for heroism, who cares about the actual ones?  Rand Paul is an attention whore.
 
2013-03-07 01:27:16 PM

halfof33: vygramul: You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?

No I am not. We have already stipulated that: The Benghazi terrorist attack was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.



Fantastic! Using your own logic, you've admitted 9/11 was Bush I's fault.
 
2013-03-07 01:28:26 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?


The problem I have with this law specifically is unlike other technologies, a drone by it's very definition is self automated and self guiding. The only reason it isn;t yet is because our technologies hasn;t caught up to it. When you pass a law (especially one involves the taking of lives!!) you have to think of the future and possible unintended consequences.

Sure, you might argue... a cop can still get on a chopper and kill you from the air not unlike a drone today BUT 30 yrs from now when AI and raw processing power is good enough the drone can eliminate you based on algorithms and scans that it itself determines. The cop on the other hand while having a better gun and helicopter etc will still have the same fundamentals as today or yesterday's cops.

hope you see a difference. I do.
 
2013-03-07 01:29:41 PM
The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.
 
2013-03-07 01:33:41 PM

dickfreckle: Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Paul's accusation of the media circling wagons is true. Fox is by all accounts the top-rated 'news' channel out there. Does anyone tune into Brian Williams with the same sort of zeal they do Fox? No, it's just the news, usually just playing in the background. Do people specifically tune in because he's helping to circle the wagons around Obama?

Do people tune into CNN for any other reason but a missing white girl or a sinkhole that killed a guy?

And even MSNBC - does anyone actually watch it? I'm one of the biggest libtards here and I've only seen it through Maddow clips posted at Fark. When I still used cable I had it, but never bothered with it.

Who, precisely, is this media circling the wagons when you guys own the most powerful infotainment/propaganda machine out there? Can't have it both ways.


Oh, yes they can.  Take a good serious look at "news" in the USA.  It's a joke.  It's a total and utter joke.  There isn't enough FACT in a newspaper to print a single page worth.  There aren't ANY facts on TV news.

It's not so different in most countries.  But you know something, there is at least one top notch news service in the world.  Al Jazzera.  Irony, though art a cruel mistress.
 
2013-03-07 01:34:24 PM

aegean: This is the creepiest person in American History.


Don't worry, little troll. Even if that were true, you wouldn't have far to catch up.
 
2013-03-07 01:34:40 PM

SuperNinjaToad: 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?

The problem I have with this law specifically is unlike other technologies, a drone by it's very definition is self automated and self guiding. The only reason it isn;t yet is because our technologies hasn;t caught up to it. When you pass a law (especially one involves the taking of lives!!) you have to think of the future and possible unintended consequences.

Sure, you might argue... a cop can still get on a chopper and kill you from the air not unlike a drone today BUT 30 yrs from now when AI and raw processing power is good enough the drone can eliminate you based on algorithms and scans that it itself determines. The cop on the other hand while having a better gun and helicopter etc will still have the same fundamentals as today or yesterday's cops.

hope you see a difference. I do.


The tech is there now. It will never be employed however as human oversight is always a good idea, and I think we can all agree there. Even with the tech, never will we let AI scan for and determine targets and dispense justice without human review.
 
2013-03-07 01:34:52 PM

aegean: The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.


Wow, you convinced me. Who do I send all my money to?
 
2013-03-07 01:35:33 PM

aegean: The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.


He truly is worse than Hitler.


conservativenewager.files.wordpress.com

 
2013-03-07 01:35:54 PM
SuperNinjaToad:

The problem I have with this law specifically is unlike other technologies, a drone by it's very definition is self automated and self guiding. The only reason it isn;t yet is because our technologies hasn;t caught up to it. When you pass a law (especially one involves the taking of lives!!) you have to think of the future and possible unintended consequences.

Sure, you might argue... a cop can still get on a chopper and kill you from the air not unlike a drone today BUT 30 yrs from now when AI and raw processing power is good enough the drone can eliminate you based on algorithms and scans that it itself determines. The cop on the other hand while having a better gun and helicopter etc will still have the same fundamentals as today or yesterday's cops.

hope you see a difference. I do.



Glad to see I'm not the only one who look down the road instead of current implementation. Imagine a peaceful protest where suddenly dozens of drones are circling overhead ready to deploy pepper spray, tazer, rubber bullets or some other crowd control at once. That is just not a country I want to be apart of.

Look at what the Seattle mayor did, and banned them from the city.
 
2013-03-07 01:36:09 PM

aegean: And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?


Yup, in accordance with the NDAA Congress passed 2 years ago. Congress can still update that, you know - and Obama will be just as bound by the 2013 NDAA as he was by the 2011 version.

// the First was beaten to death in a Free Speech Zone sometime in 2005
// the Fourth and Fifth were taken behind the barn with a .30-30 after Nixon caught them smoking pot together behind the school
 
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