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  
•       •       •

10962 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 04:53:26 PM

cbathrob: 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.


They are going to keep getting cheaper, and smaller, and more lethal. Imagine if Tricky Dick had a million information-gathering, thumb sized, silent drones at his disposal. Oh, the fun he would have had.

Cheney would have conquered the world.
 
2013-03-07 04:55:35 PM

LasersHurt: 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"?


What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.
 
2013-03-07 04:56:41 PM

RedVentrue: LasersHurt: 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"?

What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.


Not sure if serious...
 
2013-03-07 04:57:53 PM

Kahabut: 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.



this answers your question.
 
2013-03-07 04:58:55 PM

RedVentrue: LasersHurt: 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"?

What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.



What country do you think this is?
 
2013-03-07 04:59:25 PM

Evil High Priest: cbathrob: 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.

They are going to keep getting cheaper, and smaller, and more lethal. Imagine if Tricky Dick had a million information-gathering, thumb sized, silent drones at his disposal. Oh, the fun he would have had.

Cheney would have conquered the world.


Then it's incumbent upon the Congress to clearly and unambiguously lay out the terms under which said drones can be used, and enforce that through their power of impeachment. If they write a law governing their use that basically says "the executive can do whatever he wants", like they did with the AUMF, then yeah, it'll be a problem.
 
2013-03-07 04:59:51 PM

Phinn: 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.


Would it also overwhelm you to consider that government is the organization formed when individuals agree not to use violence against each other, and thus when an individual in a civilized state does use violence against another this is a huge violation of the agreement between individuals? Your quote on its face is pretty dur-dur obvious, but when you examine it far more closely you'll find that it's total stupid outside of a caste system, a monarchy, any other kind of autocracy. In democractic republics the constituents truly get the government they deserve.
 
2013-03-07 05:05:05 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.


4.bp.blogspot.com

WARRIOR!!!! HOOOOAH!!!!
 
2013-03-07 05:09:11 PM
"A neighbor tells you he won't pay you the two goats he owes you, you tell the Americans he is a Taliban cadre; that's the Helmand Province way."
 
2013-03-07 05:15:15 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: 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.

Would it also overwhelm you to consider that government is the organization formed when individuals agree not to use violence against each other, and thus when an individual in a civilized state does use violence against another this is a huge violation of the agreement between individuals? Your quote on its face is pretty dur-dur obvious, but when you examine it far more closely you'll find that it's total stupid outside of a caste system, a monarchy, any other kind of autocracy. In democractic republics the constituents truly get the government they deserve.


Do you honestly expect a Fark Independent(tm) to understand something as nuanced as the social contract, when they can't understand basic cause and effect?
 
2013-03-07 05:18:12 PM
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...
 
2013-03-07 05:20:27 PM

fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...


That has the force of law and applies to all Presidents, both present and future? No? Then he didn't really solve the problem he's identified, has he?
 
2013-03-07 05:30:25 PM

fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...


And people make fun of the UN with their harshly worded letters.
 
2013-03-07 05:38:40 PM

MugzyBrown: 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?



1) TFA relates to drone use within the US; Yemen is completely unrelated to anything under discussion.

2) A cop may use deadly force to protect any life (or lives), not just his own (if you read my scenario more carefully, party "B" is not necessarily the police officer; he/she could be anyone).
 
2013-03-07 05:50:07 PM
The local news said this corksucker spoke for 6 hours.... According to CNN one hour of congress' time costs taxpayers $600,000. Way to waste $3.6 million just to make a point. Jackass.
 
2013-03-07 05:52:42 PM

qorkfiend: fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...

That has the force of law and applies to all Presidents, both present and future? No? Then he didn't really solve the problem he's identified, has he?


No, but he asked a question and got an answer. Which was his stated intention right? He wasn't trying to get another law passed, he was demanding an answer that they initially refused to give.

(am I mistaken?)
 
2013-03-07 06:02:44 PM
all of this for a damned flag
 
2013-03-07 06:14:54 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.


Oversight?

Kinda like warrantless wire taps?
 
2013-03-07 07:13:28 PM

halfof33: The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, 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.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/


The only thing that is false is everything you just said.
 
2013-03-07 07:28:10 PM
Read the headline and automatically thought they were talking about RuPaul.  Been watching too much Drag Race lately, I suppose.  But, I admit, he'd be fabulous at the job.  Oh, and far more interesting than Rand Paul.  Now why I didn't think of Ron Paul on the first pass is quite puzzling....

\blather
 
2013-03-07 08:14:03 PM

Lord_Baull: RedVentrue: LasersHurt: 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"?

What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.


What country do you think this is?


What country are we turning into? The Constitution is as good as dead, and civil liberties are being withdrawn daily.
 
2013-03-07 09:11:48 PM

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


What fresh fabricated hell are you going on about, and what does it have to do with RAND PAUL?

... or perhaps you're just firing off strawman images and ThePeoplesCube cartoons at random.

/Macro Images: Another thing right-wingers do not know how to do
 
2013-03-07 09:19:26 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-07 11:08:37 PM
But I do think it's a horrible idea and unconstitutional for Article III judges to oversee military decisions. I can imagine during another Sept. 11, as Attorney General Eric Holder said, we might have to use a drone to prevent or halt an attack. 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."

Where the hell were these people on September 20, 2001, when I was getting called a traitorous liberal?  That speech shook me to my core.  I realized that, oh dear God, the President just got handed an incredible amount of power, and these people who treat politics like it's a team sport think it's just wonderful that the President can order "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens without a trial, because 9/11 changed everything.  With the people I knew, I told them they'd change their tune as soon as a Democrat was in the White House.  And, shockingly, I was right.
 
2013-03-07 11:41:55 PM
i just re-read the classic fear and loathing on the campaign trail 1972.

now i try to imagine hunter thompson, nat hentoff, the new york times, and every single college student
reacting to richard nixon's use of drones for surveillance, infra red and otherwise, killing american citizens
on foreign soil, and taking two days of dancing around before he could agree not to use them to kill americans on american soil.except it's not nixon, it's a progressive democrat!
 besides the drone issue obama is finishing a huge data center in utah that will house combined records of every citizen including health, criminal, financial, etc etc.
and of course the IRS will administer and oversee obamacare.  i can imagine the uproar,  the outcry if all this took place under nixon. but today, under obama, that faction of the left is silent and approving.
only the ACLU has thrown its full weight against these issues of personal privacy, liberty, and the threat of full government control and oversight of every aspect of our lives.

in this thread i've read that drones flying overhead is no different than police helicopters. i think you should do a little reading. for one thing, why approve of police helicopters unless there is a specific problem? i don't want them just flying around, spying with cameras and infra red. drones however, are getting very small and can invade privacy in many different ways. the potential for abuse both now and in the future is huge.

for the life of me i can't understand how conservatives are on the correct side of this issue IMO while libs, who in past decades would be against this don't seem to care at all.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:26 PM

frymeupasteak: i just re-read the classic fear and loathing on the campaign trail 1972.

now i try to imagine hunter thompson, nat hentoff, the new york times, and every single college student
reacting to richard nixon's use of drones for surveillance, infra red and otherwise, killing american citizens
on foreign soil, and taking two days of dancing around before he could agree not to use them to kill americans on american soil.except it's not nixon, it's a progressive democrat!
 besides the drone issue obama is finishing a huge data center in utah that will house combined records of every citizen including health, criminal, financial, etc etc.
and of course the IRS will administer and oversee obamacare.  i can imagine the uproar,  the outcry if all this took place under nixon. but today, under obama, that faction of the left is silent and approving.
only the ACLU has thrown its full weight against these issues of personal privacy, liberty, and the threat of full government control and oversight of every aspect of our lives.

in this thread i've read that drones flying overhead is no different than police helicopters. i think you should do a little reading. for one thing, why approve of police helicopters unless there is a specific problem? i don't want them just flying around, spying with cameras and infra red. drones however, are getting very small and can invade privacy in many different ways. the potential for abuse both now and in the future is huge.

for the life of me i can't understand how conservatives are on the correct side of this issue IMO while libs, who in past decades would be against this don't seem to care at all.


see that's what you are steadfastly ignorant about: context: If we thought conservatives gave two tugs of a dead dogs cock about killing anyone, we might have a conversation.

What do we have? Conservatives trying to ignite loyalty in the younger groups through faux concern.. so they can get back in the white house and start killin' 'em again.

We're not fooled.
 
2013-03-08 12:45:32 AM
Obama's policy on drones is deeply flawed.  However, Paul is still a dipshiat.
 
2013-03-08 01:37:36 AM

Bucky Katt: Obama's policy on drones is deeply flawed.  However, Paul is still a dipshiat.


I think we're done here.
 
2013-03-08 02:24:28 AM
Rand...
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 02:27:13 AM

dbrunker: [i46.tinypic.com image 492x372]


I think your first problem is that you think CNN is "liberal."
 
2013-03-08 09:02:56 AM
here is an interesting point.
had to go quite a bit into these comments before we get away from not being able to distinguish the message from the messenger and the general stupid kneejerk red/blue wharrrgarrble before there was any substantive discourse on the actual subject.

which, was part of what the article was pointing out... the amount of general stupid kneejerk red/blue wharrgarrble apparent in mainstream media.

of course its truth and does not pick sides... so my statement will be ignored, hated, made fun of and/or twisted to be taken completely out of context...
 
2013-03-08 10:38:48 AM
Nothing about the photo in the article? Really?

lh3.googleusercontent.com

I had to do this, the next morning, after putting whole coffee beans in my machine without water?
Y'all suck.
 
2013-03-08 11:23:18 AM

belhade: Y'all suck.


Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.
 
2013-03-08 11:34:22 AM

BeesNuts: belhade: Y'all suck.

Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.


Look, if I was coherent enough to make coffee in the morning, I wouldn't *need* it!
 
2013-03-08 12:20:45 PM

belhade: BeesNuts: belhade: Y'all suck.

Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.

Look, if I was coherent enough to make coffee in the morning, I wouldn't *need* it!


images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-DGB-900BC-Automatic-Coffeemaker-Stai nl ess/dp/B000T9XPHC
 
2013-03-08 03:31:20 PM

belhade: BeesNuts: belhade: Y'all suck.

Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.

Look, if I was coherent enough to make coffee in the morning, I wouldn't *need* it!


This needs to be codified into some kind of mathematical paradox.
 
2013-03-08 06:18:33 PM

dbrunker: [i46.tinypic.com image 492x372]


...because they're IMAGINARY.

Jesus Christ, I saw the headlines and thought, 'oh good, finally something we can agree on' but no. He's ranting about shiat that's never happened, nobody has ever tried to do, and the Administration said they were agasint. Stawmen all the way down. What a ridiculous, useless excuse for a Congressmen.
 
Displayed 37 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