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  
•       •       •

10955 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 02:51:11 PM

Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."


And how come it is you park on a driveway, but you park in a driveway? I mean, hello!
 
2013-03-07 02:52:02 PM

EyeballKid: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

And how come it is you park on a driveway, but you park in a driveway? I mean, hello!


I mean, you drive in a parkway, but...
Oh, fark it, I've been on this shiat too long.
 
2013-03-07 02:55:36 PM

Dr Dreidel: 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



and the second got lost in a National Park.
 
2013-03-07 02:59:13 PM

halfof33: Lord_Baull: Fantastic! Using your own logic, you've admitted 9/11 was Bush I's fault.

While not agreeing with your analysis at all, I suspect that you meant Clinton (he was the one who hit Al Qaeda with cruise missiles in August of 1998)



No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.
 
2013-03-07 03:02:55 PM

adamatari: Instead we have everyone falling all over themselves to defend the president's actions - most of them people who would have called it a scandal if it had been done by Bush!



What actions has Obama taken?
 
2013-03-07 03:04:23 PM

olddinosaur: Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.



Hmmm. What, if anything, could Rand Paul do about that?
 
2013-03-07 03:04:46 PM

Lord_Baull: Because filibustering an appointment nominee for political posturing has an established precedent.


Cato the Younger did it to Julius Caesar.
 
2013-03-07 03:10:28 PM

Parthenogenetic: 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 image 265x388]

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?


This is different from police helicopters how?  Other than being cheaper and not risking a pilot.  I'm ambivalent about the drone thing but I don't see that argument.  Police copters come over my neighborhood almost every day anyway.  I just don't see how it would be different if it was a drone.

Maybe since they'd be cheaper they could use more of them so the people in the nicer neighborhoods might actually see one now and then?  Yeah it's only scary when it's happening to them, right?  Business as usual around here.  They were okay when it was just that.  Now they're concerned?  Whatever.

I look forward to the inevitable response from someone who misses the point of what I said entirely and thinks I'm saying that armed drone strikes against citizens are A-OK.  Hush now, go polish your guns and have a good cry.  It will all be just fine.
 
2013-03-07 03:24:24 PM
Rand Mother F'n PAUL!!
 
2013-03-07 03:25:36 PM

hitlersbrain: "Where, for that matter, are the mainstream media and the liberal punditocracy that would be calling for impeachment about now if a Republican president had done all this?"

I'm sorry, how is this equivalent to a band of corporately owned puppets (Cheney and Turd Blossom) lying us into attacking a neutral country for no reason?

Rand Paul is a halfwit.


When did we attack Switzerland?
 
2013-03-07 03:25:43 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-07 03:26:07 PM
All by himself= 12 Senators, including a Democrat. Also two democrats brought him extra snacks, thermoses, and other things to help him.
 
2013-03-07 03:27:21 PM

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x361]


That awkward moment when the party that wanted to ship people to guantanamo and even tried to have an American declared an enemy combatant so he wouldn't get a trial... is now complaining about due process.
 
2013-03-07 03:27:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 405x257]

Sen. Graham on the floor.


Ah, "In the US." If he had left that off he would have to put "only a handful or so."
 
2013-03-07 03:28:36 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-07 03:34:28 PM

LasersHurt: 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.


I just think it's a morally hazardous area that requires careful navigation.  Removing the public interest in war making could go a long way towards giving congress and the president carte blanche to commit US military resources to conflicts anywhere in the world without a peep from our press or our population.

I'm not giving it a value judgment.  I'm just willing to have a discussion about the logistics and rules of engagement wrt Drones.  Can "We the People" make ethical, well informed decisions about the use of our military if "We the People" aren't even going to have to break a sweat to use it?
 
2013-03-07 03:38:45 PM

halfof33: vygramul: So how can we apply a different standard here?

1. You have stipulated that Brennan was operating outside the command structure

2. you have stipulated that the CIA and State department were not apprised of the attacks, and therefore, additional security precautions were not taken in Libya.


I didn't stipulate point 2. I stipulated he ordered them without going up the chain - not that he kept them in the dark about the attacks - something that seems incredibly unlikely as tracking what assets have been used where is not something that doesn't happen.

And given the host of other actions against al Qaeda, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that a few more attacks would have made all the difference in the world.
 
2013-03-07 03:40:25 PM

firefly212: hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x361]

That awkward moment when the party that wanted to ship people to guantanamo and even tried to have an American declared an enemy combatant so he wouldn't get a trial... is now complaining about due process.


I wonder what his take on police snipers is.
 
2013-03-07 03:40:47 PM

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x361]


That awkward moment when you realize nobody ever said "Hey Oblahma, will you promise to not kill Americans," and the President replied, "Ah hell no!"
 
2013-03-07 03:43:33 PM

burning_bridge: Parthenogenetic: 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 image 265x388]

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?

This is different from police helicopters how?  Other than being cheaper and not risking a pilot.  I'm ambivalent about the drone thing but I don't see that argument.  Police copters come over my neighborhood almost every day anyway.  I just don't see how it would be different if it was a drone.

Maybe since they'd be cheaper they could use more of them so the people in the nicer neighborhoods might actually see one now and then?  Yeah it's only scary when it's happening to them, right?  Business as usual around here.  They were okay when it was just that.  Now they're concerned?  Whatever.

I look forward to the inevitable response from someone who misses the point of what I said entirely and thinks I'm saying that armed drone strikes against citizens are A-OK.  Hush now, go polish your guns and have a good cry.  It will all be just fine.


I was under the impression that helicopters came out when they were needed, not just to ... you know... be there.

I could *easily* be mistaken about this, as I've done zero research and am making this up whole cloth, though.  So YMMV.

If helicopters are being used to just maintain an ubiquitous surveillance presence, then I have a problem with that ALSO.  If helicopters are being used during manhunts, rescue operations, etc, that's one thing.  If they are being used as a mobile CCTV camera then that's not cool by me.

In Philly, the 'copters and floodlights came out when police got shot and very rarely otherwise.
 
2013-03-07 03:46:07 PM

Lord_Baull: olddinosaur: Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.


Hmmm. What, if anything, could Rand Paul do about that?


Given the current political climate in Congress, not much.
 
2013-03-07 03:47:23 PM

sprgrss: Wow, a non-binding resolution that expresses current US and international law. That's really going out on a limb here.


You said he should propose something, that's the proposal he asked the senate to vote on (Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on it).  Also, it seems (though I could be misunderstanding) that you agree there's no need for legislation, and this is already illegal under US and international law.  So all we need is a statement from the President acknowledging that, which is what the resolution calls for.  There's no need for additional legislation.

bikerific: A Sense of the Senate Resolution asking the President to explain himself is not legislation.


ValisIV: That's a non-binding resolution, it's not a bill of law. It says the Senate doesn't think it's right for him to do so, but it does not forbid it. Political grandstanding.


If you want to argue about what the definition of 'legislation' is, you might want to at least define the term before making the claim that this doesn't qualify.

Legislation - noun
1 : the action of legislating; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
2 : the enactments of a legislator or a legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body

While a non-binding resolution may not satisfy definition 1 it certainly falls within both 2 and 3.
 
2013-03-07 03:49:31 PM

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: 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.

I just think it's a morally hazardous area that requires careful navigation.  Removing the public interest in war making could go a long way towards giving congress and the president carte blanche to commit US military resources to conflicts anywhere in the world without a peep from our press or our population.

I'm not giving it a value judgment.  I'm just willing to have a discussion about the logistics and rules of engagement wrt Drones.  Can "We the People" make ethical, well informed decisions about the use of our military if "We the People" aren't even going to have to break a sweat to use it?


I think so. You're right that it's hard, and it's something worth discussing, but at the end of the day I don't think it's that much harder to discuss simply because the act of drone piloting is easy. After all, information technology has made it easier to kill, but it's also made it easier for everyone to see and understand who was killed and why. While the act may be "easier," it's maybe under more scrutiny than ever before, which I consider good.
 
2013-03-07 03:50:30 PM
It's pretty funny. Fark commenters are so ridiculously politically blind they don't even realize it.

If Bush Jr were faced with the same question while in office, "Will you kill American citizens on American Soil without trial,"  and he made no clear denial in writing/speech, etc... all these Obama defenders would all be screaming bloody murder, and they would be correct to do so.

Now that their Jesus-figure won't deny the frighteningly obvious, everyone else who suggests an overreach of executive power is somehow crazy for insinuating the obvious.

I expect this level of hypocrisy from politicians and their ilk, not from normal citizens.
 
2013-03-07 03:51:43 PM

Big Man On Campus: I expect this level of hypocrisy from politicians and their ilk, not from normal citizens.


Why not?
 
2013-03-07 03:52:44 PM
Best moments of the drone debate
 
2013-03-07 03:54:32 PM

Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?

Look it up.  Learn something.


Bear in mind I was mocking you for not being half as clever as you seem to consider yourself to be (maybe I was reading too much into a very short post with a very shallow "truism").
 
2013-03-07 03:58:05 PM

Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.


Well then, using that reasoning, one might note that Bush put those bases in Saudi Arabia as part of the retaliation against Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and therefore, Saddam was behind 9/11.
 
2013-03-07 04:01:46 PM
Emotionally, I honestly wouldn't have problems with drones taking out a Tim McVeigh domestic terrorist type on US soil.  Logically, I can understand why there are some problems with this, but still the whole issue boils down to a "meh".
 
2013-03-07 04:03:27 PM

Big Man On Campus: It's pretty funny. Fark commenters are so ridiculously politically blind they don't even realize it.

If Bush Jr were faced with the same question while in office, "Will you kill American citizens on American Soil without trial,"  and he made no clear denial in writing/speech, etc... all these Obama defenders would all be screaming bloody murder, and they would be correct to do so.

Now that their Jesus-figure won't deny the frighteningly obvious, everyone else who suggests an overreach of executive power is somehow crazy for insinuating the obvious.

I expect this level of hypocrisy from politicians and their ilk, not from normal citizens.


Yet here you are. LOL indeed.
 
2013-03-07 04:03:37 PM

Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.


Actually, Bin Laden's complaint was not that Bush put bases in Saudi Arabia, his complaint was that Clinton didn't take them out.

/we are really getting far afield though.
 
2013-03-07 04:06:05 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?

Look it up.  Learn something.

Bear in mind I was mocking you for not being half as clever as you seem to consider yourself to be (maybe I was reading too much into a very short post with a very shallow "truism").


You've overwhelmed me with your avalanche of nuance and hypocrisy.
 
2013-03-07 04:08:01 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: 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.

Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?

No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.


When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason, then you too will be an enemy combatant.
 
2013-03-07 04:09:07 PM
Nice to see the libs can be just as hypocritical and obtuse as the cons.
 
2013-03-07 04:12:49 PM
Well if he wasn't in lock-step with the Tea Party Retards (r) every other day of the week the media and the public might view this one principled stance more favorably than they did.

Also, he's having his little filibuster party at the wrong hearing.  If he wanted to make a stink during the BUDGET discussion, with the intent to squeeze some language in regarding the use of federal dollars on drone programs, then that would make sense.  But he's not.  He's holding up a cabinet official's confirmation hearing, which is one of the more pathetic things any Senator can use the filibuster power for.

So in summary, if he wants to get respected for his principled views, he shouldn't be in bed with those dogs getting their fleas every other day of the week.
 
2013-03-07 04:14:25 PM

RedVentrue: When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason


What makes you think drones are going to fire on Americans, or anyone, for "no apparent reason"?
 
2013-03-07 04:14:45 PM
Everyone has a better chance of being killed in a car accident than getting killed by a terrorist.  Actually, everyone has a better chance of getting hit by lightning than killed by a terrorists.  This just goes to show that terrorism works.

Run Chicken Little!  Run!

From the TSA who will sexually molest you until your tail feathers off if they catch you.
 
2013-03-07 04:16:57 PM
Obama has been talking for over 4 years and nothing good has come from anything he's said
 
2013-03-07 04:20:12 PM

doubled99: Nice to see the libs can be just as hypocritical and obtuse as the cons.


But we're so lucky independents (Is that what you're still calling yourselves? Or, are you "libertarians" now?) such as yourself can stand above the fray and give us the unique point of view of a pompous dickhole.

Let me guess your solution. Does it rhyme with "go gote Gepublican?"
 
2013-03-07 04:22:27 PM
I actually find myself agreeing with Rand Paul on this one.

Goddam it so much.
 
2013-03-07 04:24:07 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.


Call it urban renewal.
 
2013-03-07 04:26:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: 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


Free Speech Zones were brought to you by the DNC in 1988 actually. *sighs* It is pretty sad really.
 
2013-03-07 04:26:56 PM

jshine: 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?


To be fair, it makes it a heckova lot easier and cheaper to keep watch on more people--without needing a warrant, I might add.  Much easier to abuse than aircraft surveillance.
 
2013-03-07 04:35:43 PM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: LasersHurt: 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.

I just think it's a morally hazardous area that requires careful navigation.  Removing the public interest in war making could go a long way towards giving congress and the president carte blanche to commit US military resources to conflicts anywhere in the world without a peep from our press or our population.

I'm not giving it a value judgment.  I'm just willing to have a discussion about the logistics and rules of engagement wrt Drones.  Can "We the People" make ethical, well informed decisions about the use of our military if "We the People" aren't even going to have to break a sweat to use it?

I think so. You're right that it's hard, and it's something worth discussing, but at the end of the day I don't think it's that much harder to discuss simply because the act of drone piloting is easy. After all, information technology has made it easier to kill, but it's also made it easier for everyone to see and understand who was killed and why. While the act may be "easier," it's maybe under more scrutiny than ever before, which I consider good.


High five.

I hope you're right.  You probably are, at least, right *enough* that we won't encounter any moral hazards which wouldn't just be introduced by other, less exotic technologies.  It's not harder to talk about, it's just harder to steer the conversation away from all the red herrings about GITMO, extrajudicial rendition, weddings, and the like.

It's kind of the same ethical quandary as eliminating the draft.  On the one hand, AWESOME!  Thanks.  On the other, do you think we'll be able to get out of another Vietnam type situation?

Then we see Iraq and Afghanistan and it looks like... yes!  The American people still provide enough political resistance to warfare that it was the central pillar of the 2008 election.  So maybe we aren't lost.

I really hope we can stay on target.
 
2013-03-07 04:39:43 PM

halfof33: Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.

Well then, using that reasoning, one might note that Bush put those bases in Saudi Arabia as part of the retaliation against Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and therefore, Saddam was behind 9/11.


You should have seen how Kuwait was dressed though. They were just asking for it, so really they were the ones behind 9/11. And who's their most powerful ally? Dun dun dun...we are! So really - really - we were behind 9/11.

Truthers: not as crazy as you think!
 
2013-03-07 04:44:55 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.


hah. you actually beleive that

adamatari: My question is:

Where the hell is everyone else?

The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity. This is Obama's "torture memo" - and take a look at our representatives. Literally ONE has been willing to stand up, and only a small handful are willing to support him.

Where is everyone? Why is almost no-one willing to call an unconstitutional power grab what it is? Where are the Democrats to pull the president from their party back in line?

Instead we have everyone falling all over themselves to defend the president's actions - most of them people who would have called it a scandal if it had been done by Bush!


gee I never read that memo. the one where it said that he could kill anyone,anywhere at any time without any reason.  you got the actual text of that?  I was of the understanding that the target had to be actively engaged in a terrorist act. Where is the memo contradiciting that and allowing them to kill anyone at any time?
 
2013-03-07 04:44:59 PM

cbathrob: I actually find myself agreeing with Rand Paul on this one.

Goddam it so much.


I know. It's crazy pills time.
 
2013-03-07 04:45:32 PM
The whole drone strike thing overseas seams a bit like Catch-22 to me. We need to stop this War on Terror BS, stop drone strikes unless we are targeting specific people with good evidence of their activities (instead of "signature strikes" where we strike targets based in behavior, ie 5 people gathering at night in northern Yemen), and get out of Afghanistan.

A: "We blew up some militants"

B: "How can we be sure no innocent civilians were hurt?"

A: "Because we defined every person killed in the blast to be a militant"
 
2013-03-07 04:47:20 PM

halfof33: Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.

Well then, using that reasoning, one might note that Bush put those bases in Saudi Arabia as part of the retaliation against Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and therefore, Saddam was behind 9/11.



Only if you believe OBL was retaliating against Saddam by blowing up the WTC. Which I wouldn't put past you.
 
2013-03-07 04:49:54 PM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x416]


I have news for you, if you think this is a picture of a liberal, you have no farking idea what that word means.

This message brought to you by sanity.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report