Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Yahoo)   Old Man McCain shows his pimp hand: "If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about"   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Rand Paul, John McCain, Republican, dorms, filibusters, senior senator, laws of war, online social networks  
•       •       •

2602 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 5:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 01:46:01 PM  
Can I get an "Oh SNAP!" from the con-gregation?
 
2013-03-08 01:49:30 PM  
lol, sometimes McCain comes across as a senile old man, other times he comes out with quotes like the one subby used in the headline.

/oh snap indeed
 
2013-03-08 01:57:15 PM  
BENGHAZI.
 
2013-03-08 02:13:44 PM  
And the war between the establishment GOP and Tea Party continues
 
2013-03-08 03:31:37 PM  

Raharu: BENGHAZI.


i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-08 03:47:56 PM  

Raharu: BENGHAZI.


He lost whatever little credibility and respect he deserved wiht Benghazi and he had precious little left after selecting Palin as his running mate.
 
2013-03-08 04:09:01 PM  

Raharu: BENGHAZI.


This right here is the perfect comeback to McCain's quote.
 
2013-03-08 04:09:34 PM  
Good point about knowing what you're talking about before speaking. You should try it sometime, John.
 
2013-03-08 04:13:11 PM  
McCain is right.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com


If you want to be taken seriously, you can't pull cheap political stunts just to get your base riled up.
 
2013-03-08 04:13:30 PM  
As if his selection of Palin wasn't a political stunt.
 
2013-03-08 04:20:46 PM  
Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.
 
2013-03-08 04:38:56 PM  

Voiceofreason01: lol, sometimes McCain comes across as a senile old man, other times he comes out with quotes like the one subby used in the headline.

/oh snap indeed


When he's not pandering to the Republican Party, he's quite the amazing man.
 
2013-03-08 04:48:29 PM  
Lord, no - we can't be talking to impressionable kids while they're impressionable. Better to let them wander off to some other even more stupid belief system.
 
2013-03-08 04:50:00 PM  

Gulper Eel: Lord, no - we can't be talking to impressionable kids while they're impressionable. Better to let them wander off to some other even more stupid belief system.


www.jesus-is-savior.com

Agrees wholeheartedly with your statement.
 
2013-03-08 04:55:19 PM  
"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about,"

If only this were true.
 
2013-03-08 05:06:30 PM  
Someone needs to slap a diaper on that fool and send him home.
 
2013-03-08 05:06:44 PM  
So he should be trying to make cheap political points off the death of Americans instead, right John?
 
2013-03-08 05:08:07 PM  
actually, no he doesn't welcome to the base people like you created, McCain
 
2013-03-08 05:09:59 PM  

I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago before electricity.


img838.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-08 05:10:35 PM  

I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.


www.jamesrocchi.com
 
2013-03-08 05:11:20 PM  

Magorn: Can I get an "Oh SNAP!" from the con-gregation?


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-08 05:14:13 PM  

vernonFL: McCain is right.
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 274x184]
If you want to be taken seriously, you can't pull cheap political stunts just to get your base riled up.



F'in This. On the other hand, that probably taught him the lesson.
 
2013-03-08 05:15:08 PM  
Well, thank you "guy who chose Palin for VP."
 
2013-03-08 05:15:55 PM  
And I bet he said that without a hint of irony.
 
2013-03-08 05:16:25 PM  
Would it help if he crashed a couple planes?
 
2013-03-08 05:17:39 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-08 05:19:18 PM  
...says the man who completely sold out to the worst elements of the GOP.
 
2013-03-08 05:23:14 PM  
Benghazi'd him up on that one.
 
2013-03-08 05:24:27 PM  

macadamnut: I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.

[www.jamesrocchi.com image 466x262]


Felt sorry for and her Senator father. Angela Landsbury was so creepy coont in that movie. Sinatra kicked ass.
 
2013-03-08 05:24:30 PM  

hardinparamedic: Gulper Eel: Lord, no - we can't be talking to impressionable kids while they're impressionable. Better to let them wander off to some other even more stupid belief system.

[www.jesus-is-savior.com image 320x240]

Agrees wholeheartedly with your statement.


What's he doing there, literally shiatting a brick?
 
2013-03-08 05:26:18 PM  
He's paraphrasing Hugo Black's opinion in Korematsu. "Defendant, of course you're right, but what are you gonna do about it biatch!?!
 
2013-03-08 05:29:31 PM  
...can use some straight talk...

www.navytimes.com
 
2013-03-08 05:31:40 PM  
Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.
 
2013-03-08 05:33:50 PM  

vernonFL: McCain is right.


[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 274x184]


If you want to be taken seriously, you can't pull cheap political stunts just to get your base riled up.


/thread
 
2013-03-08 05:37:37 PM  

Magorn: Can I get an "Oh SNAP!" from the con-gregation?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 05:40:07 PM  

regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.


Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea
 
2013-03-08 05:42:49 PM  

I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.


Hell, he was something TEN years ago. It all fell to shiat when he realized that he was going to have to back down on about 60% of his principles in order to pander to the Right.
 
2013-03-08 05:45:11 PM  
RAND is a wacko and I need to take a dump.
 
2013-03-08 05:45:49 PM  
It'll be fun watching the GOP totally fall in love with Rand Paul and talk about how he'll be the best president ever, and then squirm when he's in a debate and starts saying Paulian things like "well I think we should SELL nukes to Iran, if they want to pay for them".
 
2013-03-08 05:46:43 PM  

ShawnDoc: Raharu: BENGHAZI.

This right here is the perfect comeback to McCain's quote.


Rand Paul declared Benghazi the worst tragedy since 9/11 and demanded Hillary be fired, even while proposing a 71% cut to their budget that would have decimated their security funds.
 
2013-03-08 05:47:43 PM  

Diogenes: As if his selection of Palin wasn't a political stunt.


A man is not allowed to share what he has learned from his own farkups with other people now? It seems to me he's more speaking from personal experience and less from a position of shameless hypocrisy (at least on criticizing Paul's filitantrum).
 
2013-03-08 05:48:53 PM  

I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.


It's impossible to be within the GOP- especially at McCain's level- and not have the scumbaggery infect your soul.
 
2013-03-08 05:51:26 PM  

Lochsteppe: regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.

Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea


A vote's a vote!
 
2013-03-08 05:51:26 PM  

hardinparamedic: Voiceofreason01: lol, sometimes McCain comes across as a senile old man, other times he comes out with quotes like the one subby used in the headline.

/oh snap indeed

When he's not pandering to the Republican Party, he's quite the amazing man.


The problem is that it looks like he's spent the last 12 years doing nothing but pandering.

At this point we need to acknowledge that it isn't really pandering, it's who he really is.
 
2013-03-08 05:52:18 PM  
Old Man McCain eats his own children?  Has Meghan been warned?
 
2013-03-08 06:01:01 PM  

regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.


The GOPs economic policy is toxic to anyone who isn't wealthy and white (wealthy Asians still hate them). The only young people supporting the GOP are socially conservative Christians, and spoiled rich kids who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. Unfortunately, libertarians don't appeal to the first group, and the second group accounts for only 20% of the population.

Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.
 
2013-03-08 06:06:00 PM  
My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.
 
2013-03-08 06:06:11 PM  
Thud needs to STFU and go back to fellating Lindsey Graham.
 
2013-03-08 06:06:53 PM  

Magorn: Can I get an "Oh SNAP!" from the con-gregation?


"Oh, SNAP, you are one hypocritical douchbag, Magorn!"
 
2013-03-08 06:07:19 PM  
I'm sorry, but if your name is Rand then you have no credibility to begin with. You're nothing more than the physical manifestation of a really horrible ideology. Recognizing that fact needs to be the starting point of our analysis every time this douche nozzle opens his mouth.
 
2013-03-08 06:08:43 PM  
cdn.pjmedia.com

Sorry old man, Rand Paul just displayed more principle twelve hours than you've done in the last eight years.  STFU and GBTW.
 
2013-03-08 06:08:52 PM  

MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.


Well as long as you get to feel better than anyone else without examining anything of substance McCain has said, or any of the reasons people are actually criticizing Paul's filibustering.
 
2013-03-08 06:09:29 PM  
"For the better part of 20 years now, every time McCain pushes the Republican-bashing button, he gets a food pellet from the press corps. At this point he probably couldn't stop if he wanted to."
 
2013-03-08 06:09:39 PM  
Correction: there's supposed to be an "in" somewhere in that sentence.  Oh well.

/It's Miller time
 
2013-03-08 06:09:42 PM  

hardinparamedic: Voiceofreason01: lol, sometimes McCain comes across as a senile old man, other times he comes out with quotes like the one subby used in the headline.

/oh snap indeed

When he's not pandering to the Republican Party, he's quite the amazing man.


He really isn't. John McCain has always been an asshole, despite the so-called "Maverick" narrative people bought into 13 years ago.
 
2013-03-08 06:11:49 PM  
I don't get McCain. Sometimes he's a reality-based rational person, and sometimes he's John McCain.
 
2013-03-08 06:12:18 PM  

MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.


Yep, the sucking up to Rand Paul is pretty disgusting.
 
2013-03-08 06:12:46 PM  
Rapeublicans like McCain are going to drive the ranks of the Libertarian Party through the roof.

I say give the old man a Redbull and a bullhorn.
 
2013-03-08 06:13:48 PM  

phenn: Someone needs to slap a diaper on that fool and send him home.


mjcdn.motherjones.com

Leave him out of this.
 
2013-03-08 06:14:12 PM  
Since when is Rand Paul a Libertarian????????????????????????


/RandPauls motto: Regulations are bad, but regulations are good against our enemies.
 
2013-03-08 06:16:40 PM  

GoldSpider: ...says the man who completely sold out to the worst elements of the GOP.


That wasn't really a known thing at the time. It was much more about trying to get disaffected Clinton voters to cross over.

As soon as she opened her mouth and showed up with a pregnant 17 year old in tow, thats when the fun started.
 
2013-03-08 06:20:36 PM  

schrodinger: Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.


mypetjawa.mu.nu
 
2013-03-08 06:21:27 PM  

MasterThief: [cdn.pjmedia.com image 400x266]

Sorry old man, Rand Paul just displayed more principle twelve hours than you've done in the last eight years.  STFU and GBTW.


Crotchrocket Slim: MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.

Well as long as you get to feel better than anyone else without examining anything of substance McCain has said, or any of the reasons people are actually criticizing Paul's filibustering


Rand Paul spent 13 hours attacking a strawman that no one was defending in the first place (whether or not the US can use drone attacks on US soil against NON-COMBATIVEcitizens on US soil.) That's not standing up for principle, that's being an attention whore.

That would bbe like me wasting 13 hours on a speech on why it would be wrong for Ron Paul to kill hobos, and the declaring when Ron Paul says he's already against it.
 
2013-03-08 06:21:46 PM  
McCain the old man has been there too long.   He is entrenched in Washington,  and I don't think he knows how to do what America needs.     He didn't do it for a presidential election, and lost.   He can't cut the mustard as a Senator anymore.

Time for him to go Arizona.
 
2013-03-08 06:22:11 PM  

hardinparamedic: When he's not pandering to the Republican Party, he's quite the amazing man.


img1-cdn.newser.com 

1.bp.blogspot.com

media.advisorone.com

Yeah, amazing.
 
2013-03-08 06:23:44 PM  

Vectron: schrodinger: Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.

[mypetjawa.mu.nu image 450x340]


All I said was that Rand opposes the civil rights act. Which he does. Sharing Rand Pauls actual political views is now an accusation of racism?
 
2013-03-08 06:24:51 PM  
Rand Paul had a mighty bad toupee. I would the free markettm could provide a better hair piece for RON PAUL'S son. His original hair seems to have gone Galt.
 
2013-03-08 06:28:29 PM  

hardinparamedic: Gulper Eel: Lord, no - we can't be talking to impressionable kids while they're impressionable. Better to let them wander off to some other even more stupid belief system.

[www.jesus-is-savior.com image 320x240]

Agrees wholeheartedly with your statement.


Interestingly, Pat is in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Weird times we live in. Especially, for the GOP
 
2013-03-08 06:29:28 PM  
In the midst of all this posturing, can someone answer a simple question for me?

Is that a toupee on Rand Paul's head?
 
2013-03-08 06:29:56 PM  

MasterThief: Sorry old man, Rand Paul just displayed more principle


media.comicvine.com

fark rand paul.  He doesn't stand for jack shiat except being a contrarian jackass.

/Same with McCain.  Can they both dig a hole and jerk of to Ayn Rand in it together?
 
2013-03-08 06:33:59 PM  

MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.


Establishment as in Republican Presidential/POW candidate knob?

/I bit. Sounds German
 
2013-03-08 06:34:24 PM  

RevMercutio: He really isn't. John McCain has always been an asshole, despite the so-called "Maverick" narrative people bought into 13 years ago.


Not to white-knight McCain, but being an asshole can still be considered Maverick-y.  Especially in a sea of toadies, potato-heads, and differently-flavored assholes.  His asshole behavior may go against the grain of the normal assholes.

And for nothing: when I see the name Rand Paul, I keep thinking someone forgot a comma, and the name is really Paul Rand.  Preemptive apologies to anyone named Paul Rand.
 
2013-03-08 06:34:39 PM  
The GOP internal feud continues...

To understand this in its fullest, you need to understand that traditionally, after a general election is when you'll see the challenging party put forth its contenders for the next general election.  This is the reason Dole was chosen to answer Clinton's first State of the Union address back in the day.  To get him out in front of the cameras, seen and heard and remembered.

Today, it's less of a thing, but make no mistake about it, Rand Paul has his eye on the WH and he does NOT have the okay of the establishment GOP in this.  He's making a power play to rile the Tea Derpers and those that call themselves Libertarians and he's doing this by deliberately fouling up the scheduled efforts of the establishment players in the GOP.

This is why you're seeing the snark and biting comments coming from the 'elders' of the GOP toward him for his filibustering efforts.  That wasn't part of 'the plan' and he's pissing them off now.

So, before you get all riled up and gung-ho about McCain's efforts to snark at Rand Paul, you should consider that he's doing that snarking on behalf of the monied interests that run the GOP.
 
2013-03-08 06:40:33 PM  

schrodinger: Vectron: schrodinger: Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.

[mypetjawa.mu.nu image 450x340]

All I said was that Rand opposes the civil rights act. Which he does. Sharing Rand Pauls actual political views is now an accusation of racism?


The irony is that he's the one who played the race card.
 
2013-03-08 06:41:30 PM  
"To my party, I'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war," Graham said.

This has always bugged me. What country are we at war with? Has a declaration been issued?
 
2013-03-08 06:41:31 PM  

Vectron: schrodinger: Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.

[mypetjawa.mu.nu image 450x340]


Nice race card you got there Whitey.
 
2013-03-08 06:43:37 PM  

Infernalist: The GOP internal feud continues...

...
...So, before you get all riled up and gung-ho about McCain's efforts to snark at Rand Paul, you should consider that he's doing that snarking on behalf of the monied interests that run the GOP.

nice analysis. I suppose it's telling i cant tell you who any front runner for the WH in 2016 would be -- but then again, i cant name a single republican/libertarian representative I respect, so maybe that's a problem... seems like the biggest lights of the republican party was an actor, and they managed to go downhill from there. If they could find a fiscally fact-sane (not conservative) leader who was "socially liberal" like America was presumably established to be, they might have a chance. Instead the gays and god is the only thing that gets it up for them anymore. Political viagra, drones are not.
 
2013-03-08 06:45:28 PM  

Vectron: schrodinger: Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.

[mypetjawa.mu.nu image 450x340]


If you're a racist, post stupid macros saying anyone calling you a racist is losing the debate.That'll show them!
 
2013-03-08 06:46:01 PM  

Vectron: schrodinger: Rand Paul is a guy who loves Lochner and hates the civil rights act.

[mypetjawa.mu.nu image 450x340]


Yeah... Rand Paul has publicly expressed that he does not support the Civil Rights Act on multiple occasions yet progressives are playing the race card...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/09/400521/rand-paul-explain s- his-familys-opposition-to-civil-rights-act-its-about-controlling-prope rty/

Keep up the derp and keep wondering why no one takes paultards seriously..
 
2013-03-08 06:47:27 PM  
Libs love John McCain because he's a loser.


If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.
 
2013-03-08 06:49:30 PM  

schrodinger: Sharing Rand Pauls actual political views is now an accusation of racism?


To be fair, his actual political views are racist.

 ...and his father is a published racist.
 
2013-03-08 06:50:15 PM  

1derful: Libs love John McCain because he's a loser.


If we truly loved losers, we'd be voting Republican.

1derful: If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.


I don't think so, Tim. Rand's pa was saying the same things during the Bush years and we catcalled him too.
 
2013-03-08 06:51:08 PM  

1derful: If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.


Both sides are bad! Amirite!?
 
2013-03-08 06:51:33 PM  

Without Fail: and his father is a published racist.


He has no memory of those papers and he loves rosa parks (i.e. he has a black friend).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-t he -racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog. html
 
2013-03-08 06:56:22 PM  

Magorn: Can I get an "Oh SNAP!" from the con-gregation?

 
2013-03-08 06:56:25 PM  

Without Fail: ...and his father is a published racist.


Odd how RON PAUL had the infamous newsletter, hung with Stormfronters, and gave 'the South was right' speeches in front of a Confederate flag...

... and his son, Rand, just happens to want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and started his campaign with a spokesman who celebrates 'Happy Successful and Attractive African-American Day' while ruminating on how he wants to visit the mall in KKK garb.

But remember you're the racist for even touching Rand's beliefs on the CRA.
 
2013-03-08 06:56:31 PM  

Without Fail: ...and his father is a published racist.


Which was okay when it was Joe Kennedy being the published racist.
 
2013-03-08 06:57:47 PM  

Gulper Eel: Which was okay when it was Joe Kennedy being the published racist.


I know! Nixon will show his kid the ol' what-for! And that Elvis Presley, ugh, its the devil's music I tell you!
 
2013-03-08 06:58:37 PM  

schrodinger: ShawnDoc: Raharu: BENGHAZI.

This right here is the perfect comeback to McCain's quote.

Rand Paul declared Benghazi the worst tragedy since 9/11 and demanded Hillary be fired, even while proposing a 71% cut to their budget that would have decimated their security funds.


To be fair, if you operate as a strict isolationist, you don't have very many embassies or consulates to worry about securing.
 
2013-03-08 06:59:30 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 1derful: If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.

I don't think so, Tim. Rand's pa was saying the same things during the Bush years and we catcalled him too.


Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.
 
2013-03-08 07:01:12 PM  

MisterRonbo: Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.


My recollection is none of us wanted to crown him with laurels, and pretty much marked him as a crank the instant we discovered the newsletters.
 
2013-03-08 07:01:14 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.

Yep, the sucking up to Rand Paul is pretty disgusting.


Seriously. The dude is a Senator with a 12-term (12!) Representative as a father. He was born with silver spoons and government dollars shoved into every orifice. What kind of moron would trust what that guy has to say?

I say we enact term limits to get disingenuous wastes of space like Ron Paul out of the House. Maybe if we had gotten him out a decade ago, his government money addicted spawn wouldn't be in the Senate lying to the American people now!

/ Did I bag it right?
 
2013-03-08 07:05:07 PM  
Now, now, the impressionable libertarian I know is a completely out of touch forty -something who thinks the money for her beloved libraries comes from the aether and believes in chemtrails, arsenic in the chicken, and everything naturalnews.com publishes.
 
2013-03-08 07:05:14 PM  
Hrm, so Republicans expect Republicans to know what they're talking about before saying anything...

We'll just have to wait and see if Democrats hold Democrats to that same standard.
 
2013-03-08 07:05:15 PM  

Gulper Eel: Without Fail: ...and his father is a published racist.

Which was okay when it was Joe Kennedy being the published racist.


That might, just might, have something to with the fact that JFK pushed for the Civil Rights Act while Rand Paul wants it repealed. I know that's crazy talk, what with the trying to put things in context and all, but think on that for a while. Study it out.
 
2013-03-08 07:05:59 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.

Yep, the sucking up to Rand Paul is pretty disgusting.

Seriously. The dude is a Senator with a 12-term (12!) Representative as a father. He was born with silver spoons and government dollars shoved into every orifice. What kind of moron would trust what that guy has to say?

I say we enact term limits to get disingenuous wastes of space like Ron Paul out of the House. Maybe if we had gotten him out a decade ago, his government money addicted spawn wouldn't be in the Senate lying to the American people now!

/ Did I bag it right?


Ron and Rand hate the government so much they donate their salaries to paying the deficit off.
 
2013-03-08 07:07:40 PM  

MasterThief: Correction: there's supposed to be an "in" somewhere in that sentence.  Oh well.

/It's Miller time


You're drinking Miller? And you feel you have a leg to stand on criticizing others opinions? Huh
 
2013-03-08 07:10:53 PM  
The Paul family has created a political dynasty out of not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Why should they stop now?
 
2013-03-08 07:15:03 PM  
Everyone in this thread knows what they are talking about.
 
2013-03-08 07:20:45 PM  

macadamnut: I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.

[www.jamesrocchi.com image 466x262]


He ain't that old.
 
2013-03-08 07:22:59 PM  

fusillade762: "To my party, I'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war," Graham said.

This has always bugged me. What country are we at war with? Has a declaration been issued?


Mm, we're "at war" with Terror, and still are, and will be until some President has the balls and intestinal fortitude to declare what a waste of time, money and human life it has been. I hope it happens in my lifetime; but it's the reason we're even having this drone debate in the first place.

Drones and strikes on people in non-declared combat zones in friendly (or at least non-hostile) countries is the entirely foreseeable result of the "Global War on Terror" which was declared by George W. Bush in his speech whenever that was in 2001, and some people tried to warn everyone else that this was going to happen; but nobody was listening. If you declare "a war" on a tactic and on small, disorganized, nonaligned groups, then sooner or later the "war" has no boundaries and is taking place in no country; and then you have a problem. You can either attack that small group in whatever (non-hostile) country they're holed up in with conventional military force--and thus declare war on that country for no reason--OR you use a remotely piloted drone with attendant plausible deniability and less collateral damage.

The third option, the BETTER option, is to stop this asinine "war on terror" and turn this back into a criminal problem and let the civil authorities deal with it like we did all through the last century. When the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, Clinton sent in the FBI, not the Marines, and they pretty well broke the back of that al-Qaeda cell in Yemen without so much as one Hellfire missile being dropped by anyone. Ditto the 1993 WTC bombing, and those guys are all in prison now. But as long as everyone wants this to be a "war" on terror, then it has to be a war, and the solution has to be a military one. Hence: drones.

I don't like it either, so if you want to start a petition to get the President to declare a ceasefire in the "war on terror", the idea is free, and then we could stop arguing about this nonsense once and for all.
 
2013-03-08 07:22:59 PM  
www.catholic.com
 
2013-03-08 07:25:05 PM  

schrodinger: Rand Paul spent 13 hours attacking a strawman that no one was defending in the first place (whether or not the US can use drone attacks on US soil against NON-COMBATIVEcitizens on US soil.) That's not standing up for principle, that's being an attention whore.


From Holder's first letter, dated March 4, on "whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial"- "Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."

From Holder's second letter, dated March 7 (during or shortly after the filibuster) - "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."

The first letter is boilerplate.  This is the sort of thing a lawyer says when he wants to say neither yes nor no.  And it was in response to an important question of principle regarding the limits of executive power.

The second letter is an actual no.  (A no to a slightly different question than was first asked, but still a no, and in writing.)

Yes, Paul was grandstanding.  But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order.  Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no."  And fark McCain for complaining about it.  Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do.
 
2013-03-08 07:25:31 PM  

1derful: Libs love John McCain because he's a loser.


If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.


If "Libs loved John McCain" so farking much, he'd have won the Presidency in 2008, you complete and utter partisan dipshiat.

I love it when Idiot "Fark independents" are the ones that decide what "Libs love". Go fark off, seriously.
 
2013-03-08 07:26:47 PM  
So, am I supposed to cheer for the douchey attention whore who is against gay marriage, a woman's right to choose and believes states should have more rights than people, or for the doddering old fool who unleashed Sarah Palin on the rest of America?

I choose...neither.

Put 'em in a steel cage and let 'em duke it out, while 'The Party of 'No' crumbles around them.
 
2013-03-08 07:28:40 PM  

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: 

...

...Drones and strikes on people in non-declared combat zones in friendly (or at least non-hostile) countries is the entirely foreseeable result of the "Global War on Terror" which was declared by George W. Bush in his speech whenever that was in 2001, and some people tried to warn everyone else that this was going to happen...

...


the new "this": ayup
 
2013-03-08 07:29:43 PM  

Duck_of_Doom: RevMercutio: He really isn't. John McCain has always been an asshole, despite the so-called "Maverick" narrative people bought into 13 years ago.

Not to white-knight McCain, but being an asshole can still be considered Maverick-y.  Especially in a sea of toadies, potato-heads, and differently-flavored assholes.  His asshole behavior may go against the grain of the normal assholes.

And for nothing: when I see the name Rand Paul, I keep thinking someone forgot a comma, and the name is really Paul Rand.  Preemptive apologies to anyone named Paul Rand.


Problem: Your last name sounds like a first name.
Solution: Give your son a first name that sounds like a last name!
 
2013-03-08 07:30:29 PM  

MasterThief: schrodinger: Rand Paul spent 13 hours attacking a strawman that no one was defending in the first place (whether or not the US can use drone attacks on US soil against NON-COMBATIVEcitizens on US soil.) That's not standing up for principle, that's being an attention whore.

From Holder's first letter, dated March 4, on "whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial"- "Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority."

From Holder's second letter, dated March 7 (during or shortly after the filibuster) - "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."

The first letter is boilerplate.  This is the sort of thing a lawyer says when he wants to say neither yes nor no.  And it was in response to an important question of principle regarding the limits of executive power.

The second letter is an actual no.  (A no to a slightly different question than was first asked, but still a no, and in writing.)

Yes, Paul was grandstanding.  But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order.  Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no."  And fark McCain for complaining about it.  Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do.


If only there were some branch of government that could be specifically empowered to do things create laws, laws that could set limits on executive power. It's a real shame that such a thing does not exist and thus Rand Paul cannot be elected to such a body so he could make laws clarifying the limits of executive power, leaving him with no other option than pulling an attention whoring PR stunt.
 
2013-03-08 07:34:23 PM  

MasterThief: Yes, Paul was grandstanding.  But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order.  Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no."  And fark McCain for complaining about it.  Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do


Hear hear. I think Rand is doing what the Democrats didn't have the will to force the Republicans to do: Kill the idiotic institution of filibuster by doing it live on CSPAN. No wonder McCain hates him.
 
2013-03-08 07:38:57 PM  
McCain is a one trick pony now.  All he can do is talk shiat about others.  Sometimes he pulls it off, sometimes he yells at clouds.
 
2013-03-08 07:42:09 PM  
First - I know that Congress passed these laws.  Second - Replace Obama and his advisers with any future president and his/her advisers.

The fact of that matter is this:

Obama has declared that the executive branch has the right to kill an American citizen abroad when not actively engaged in combat.  He killed Anwar Awlaki with no trial, no warning, and no evidence presented (neither before nor after).  He killed an American citizen without due process, for reasons that only he and his close advisers know.

If he is capable of doing this to an American overseas, is he capable of doing it to an American on US soil?  Rand Paul asked that question, and received an answer of: "in certain circumstances, yes".  The problem with that answer is, that Obama and his close advisers are the ones that determine those certain circumstances.  If Obama and his advisers determined that favorable reporting on Al Qaeda was enough to kill an American - based on the legal reasoning so far presented by his DoJ - it would be entirely legal to assassinate that American on US soil with no trial or evidence.  He killed Awlaki with no trial or evidence for reasons known only to him, so presumably he could do the same to an American on US soil.

Rand Paul asked for clarification on that issue.  Which is an entirely necessary thing to do.  At this point in time, based on the actions and statements of the administration, Obama had the ability to determine whether or not a US citizen was worthy of being killed, with no oversight or explanation, and then kill them, as long as the president determined the situation was warranted.  And again, there have been no explicit definitions given as to what determines if a situation warrants assassination.

Holder responds that a citizen has to be actively engaged in combat on US soil for an assassination with no judicial oversight to take place.  This seems to have satisfied Rand, but in reality, we still need a definition for combat.  Perhaps there is one out there, but we need an explicit definition from the administration as to what they determine combat to consist of.

From Google:


NounFighting between armed forces.VerbTake action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable).Sure, we can all think that combat means actively firing shots at a federal building, but as that definition shows, combat is a vague term.  Publishing articles that go against federal government's policies could be defined as combat - and I can easily find examples where that is the case, if you would like me to.  And again, who is it that defines the word combat?  Obama and his advisers.

This is the current legal precedent, based on actions and statements from the Obama administration:

The executive branch has the right to assassinate any American citizen without trial if they are engaged in combat (as the executive branch defines) or it is an extraordinary circumstance (as the executive branch defines).

Without explicit definitions of those words, we've given the executive branch the role of judge jury and executioner, and thank god people like Rand Paul are out there bringing light to these issues.
 
2013-03-08 07:44:16 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: MisterRonbo: Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.

My recollection is none of us wanted to crown him with laurels, and pretty much marked him as a crank the instant we discovered the newsletters.


Understanding that RON PAUL'S early political career centered on the issue of 'Judicial/Federal Overreach' vis a vis busing helps too.

YARLY!
 
2013-03-08 07:45:05 PM  

MattStafford: First - I know that Congress passed these laws.  Second - Replace Obama and his advisers with any future president and his/her advisers.

The fact of that matter is this:

Obama has declared that the executive branch has the right to kill an American citizen abroad when not actively engaged in combat.  He killed Anwar Awlaki with no trial, no warning, and no evidence presented (neither before nor after).  He killed an American citizen without due process, for reasons that only he and his close advisers know.

If he is capable of doing this to an American overseas, is he capable of doing it to an American on US soil?  Rand Paul asked that question, and received an answer of: "in certain circumstances, yes".  The problem with that answer is, that Obama and his close advisers are the ones that determine those certain circumstances.  If Obama and his advisers determined that favorable reporting on Al Qaeda was enough to kill an American - based on the legal reasoning so far presented by his DoJ - it would be entirely legal to assassinate that American on US soil with no trial or evidence.  He killed Awlaki with no trial or evidence for reasons known only to him, so presumably he could do the same to an American on US soil.

Rand Paul asked for clarification on that issue.  Which is an entirely necessary thing to do.  At this point in time, based on the actions and statements of the administration, Obama had the ability to determine whether or not a US citizen was worthy of being killed, with no oversight or explanation, and then kill them, as long as the president determined the situation was warranted.  And again, there have been no explicit definitions given as to what determines if a situation warrants assassination.

Holder responds that a citizen has to be actively engaged in combat on US soil for an assassination with no judicial oversight to take place.  This seems to have satisfied Rand, but in reality, we still need a definition for combat.  Perhaps there is on ...


I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

Without that mistrust, there's not going to be any outrage.  Sorry.  No one gives a fark.
 
2013-03-08 07:56:15 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 1derful: Libs love John McCain because he's a loser.

If we truly loved losers, we'd be voting Republican.



OH SNAP!
 
2013-03-08 07:56:18 PM  
georgeireton.com
 
2013-03-08 07:59:24 PM  
Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.
 
2013-03-08 07:59:49 PM  
Can't fly a plane and win an election outside of Aripiostan. The man is a born looser.
 
2013-03-08 08:01:38 PM  

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.


Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:20 PM  

MasterThief: The first letter is boilerplate. This is the sort of thing a lawyer says when he wants to say neither yes nor no. And it was in response to an important question of principle regarding the limits of executive power.


The first question didn't have a "Yes" or "No" answer because it was a stupid question that lacked any of the clarifying details necessary to give a meaningful response. It's basically someone asking "Is it legal to kill a person?" and leaving it at that.
 
2013-03-08 08:09:49 PM  

Biological Ali: The first question didn't have a "Yes" or "No" answer because it was a stupid question that lacked any of the clarifying details necessary to give a meaningful response. It's basically someone asking "Is it legal to kill a person?" and leaving it at that.


And the proper response from the DoJ should have been - it is legal to kill someone given these specific conditions.  Instead, the response was - it is legal to kill someone whenever an extraordinary circumstance (defined by the executive branch) happens.  It would be akin to saying it is legal to kill person when I say it is legal to kill that person.
 
2013-03-08 08:12:21 PM  

Infernalist: 1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.

Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.


It's another example of the Republican party running against their version of President Obama, not the actual President.  I think most people think the Attorney General's response to the question even before his letter clarifying it was reasonable: if the United States is under military attack, then a military response, which might include drones.  They just don't buy into the "Farbongo is history's greatest monster" mindset you need to really be worked up about this.

In short, most voters do not believe President Obama would use drones against American citizens unless really, really bad shiat was going down.  And there's nothing in any evaluation of Obama's true record that doesn't come from a derp site that suggests he would.
 
2013-03-08 08:13:20 PM  

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.


The AG said the President MIGHT be allowed to use drones on American citizens if there's a Pearl Harbor/9-11-scale attack perpetrated by American citizens. Y'know, a situation in which he, and any other President, would be allowed to order the killing of said American citizens via other military weaponry.
 
2013-03-08 08:14:11 PM  

jake_lex: if the United States is under military attack, then a military response, which might include drones.


That isn't what the letter said - it said under extraordinary circumstances, and gave two examples (9/11 and Pearl Harbor).  The executive branch can determine anything to be an extraordinary circumstance, given that text (and not have to defend it in court).
 
2013-03-08 08:15:07 PM  

LordJiro: The AG said the President MIGHT be allowed to use drones on American citizens if there's a Pearl Harbor/9-11-scale attack perpetrated by American citizens. Y'know, a situation in which he, and any other President, would be allowed to order the killing of said American citizens via other military weaponry.


That isn't what he said.  He said extraordinary circumstances, but did not define extraordinary circumstances.  He gave two examples, but examples are not a definition.
 
2013-03-08 08:15:39 PM  
"Holy lack of self-awareness, Batman!" - Robin
 
2013-03-08 08:16:37 PM  

vernonFL: McCain is right.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't pull cheap political stunts just to get your base riled up.


I see this has been taken care of.
 
2013-03-08 08:17:06 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: "Holy lack of self-awareness, Batman!" - Robin


"Holy balls! How did McCain get replaced with RON PAUL in my head, Batman?!?!" - DTMB
 
2013-03-08 08:17:50 PM  
McCain's Benghazi bullsh*t was slightly less idiotic than Paul's "cafe experience" bullsh*t but the difference doesn't leave enough room for McCain to call out Paul for riling the rubes.

/imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
 
2013-03-08 08:18:42 PM  

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.



Relax. You're not important enough to assassinate.
 
2013-03-08 08:19:32 PM  

MattStafford: And the proper response from the DoJ should have been - it is legal to kill someone given these specific conditions. Instead, the response was - it is legal to kill someone whenever an extraordinary circumstance (defined by the executive branch) happens.


What do you mean by "Instead"? The executive is the one that gets to make the call about the need to use immediate military force for national defense. Should Holder have lied and given a different answer, or perhaps pretended not to know the answer?
 
2013-03-08 08:24:52 PM  

Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.


I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?
 
2013-03-08 08:31:53 PM  

Infernalist: 1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.

Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.


Does Rand Paul believe in the second amendment? Does he believe in self defense? What's to stop him from shooting me to death and then claiming that I attacked him first?
 
2013-03-08 08:32:25 PM  
The funniest thing about Rand Paul's bullshiat is that he thinks a legal opinion is going to keep some "Future Hitler" from drone bombing Americans.
 
2013-03-08 08:33:01 PM  

Biological Ali: What do you mean by "Instead"? The executive is the one that gets to make the call about the need to use immediate military force for national defense. Should Holder have lied and given a different answer, or perhaps pretended not to know the answer?


Perhaps I wasn't clear - the difference is this:

The president can assassinate an American citizen given the following conditions: x, y, z.

The president can assassinate an American citizen based on secret conditions.

If you don't think that there is a difference there, you're insane.
 
2013-03-08 08:36:40 PM  

MattStafford: The president can assassinate an American citizen given the following conditions: x, y, z.

The president can assassinate an American citizen based on secret conditions.


What do you mean by "secret conditions"? We're about to head into tinfoil territory, aren't we?
 
2013-03-08 08:37:18 PM  
I'm fairly liberal, but I gotta favor Rand Paul. Unlike the angry old man, Paul ballsed up and did a real life filibuster, not the wimpy one today where someone files some paperwork. Plus, he demanded answers on a real issue of assassinating Americans, not waving the bloody shirt of J. Christopher Stevens to avoid fiscal and gun control debate.
 
2013-03-08 08:42:18 PM  

Biological Ali: What do you mean by "secret conditions"? We're about to head into tinfoil territory, aren't we?


What do you mean what do I mean?

What are the specific conditions where the president can assassinate a US citizen.  What was the official reason the executive branch gave for assassinating Awlaki?
 
2013-03-08 08:43:36 PM  

MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?


Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.
 
2013-03-08 08:44:56 PM  

MattStafford: What was the official reason the executive branch gave for assassinating Awlaki?


This can't possibly be a serious question.
 
2013-03-08 08:47:11 PM  
img48.imageshack.us

Sure thing, John...
 
2013-03-08 08:48:27 PM  

MattStafford: The president can assassinate an American citizen given the following conditions: x, y, z.

The president can assassinate an American citizen based on secret conditions.

If you don't think that there is a difference there, you're insane.


One requires algebra?
 
2013-03-08 08:53:11 PM  

Biological Ali: This can't possibly be a serious question.


I assure you, it is a serious question.  The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.  They have not shown, in a court of law, any evidence indicating that he was an imminent threat.  The only official reason released as to why he was killed is that the administration deemed him an imminent threat.

There is no official definition of imminent threat.  So as far as I can surmise, the administration killed Awlaki because they believed him to be a threat, and they are not required to provide evidence (either before or after) showing this to be true.
 
2013-03-08 08:53:48 PM  
To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.
 
2013-03-08 08:58:07 PM  

steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.


Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.
 
2013-03-08 09:09:19 PM  

Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.


.....what?
 
2013-03-08 09:13:28 PM  

LordJiro: steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.

Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.


Wouldn't be the first time.

www.everythingology.com

 
2013-03-08 09:14:12 PM  

BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?


What part of that post confused you?
 
2013-03-08 09:15:23 PM  

MattStafford: I assure you, it is a serious question. The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.


On the off chance that you're serious...

"But most of his crime was sympathizing, and was it enough of a standard? I think in a court - in a treasonous court, I think Awlaki would have been convicted of treason. Were I a juror, I would have voted that he was committing treason and I wouldn't have had trouble at all with a drone strike on him."

Rand Paul specifically mentions Awlaqi several times as an example of a drone strike that he was perfectly okay with. Granted, his grasp of how criminal justice works in the US seems a little shaky, since he appears to think that a drone strike could be ordered as a punishment for treason, but you get the picture.

In the end, neither of Rand Paul's questions were about anything the administration actually has actually done, or plans to do for that matter. They were about (quite poorly defined) hypothetical situations that are far removed from normal military conduct.
 
2013-03-08 09:17:56 PM  

Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?

What part of that post confused you?


The part about him giving up executive powers. Not sure if serious.
 
2013-03-08 09:18:50 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: I assure you, it is a serious question. The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.

On the off chance that you're serious...

"But most of his crime was sympathizing, and was it enough of a standard? I think in a court - in a treasonous court, I think Awlaki would have been convicted of treason. Were I a juror, I would have voted that he was committing treason and I wouldn't have had trouble at all with a drone strike on him."

Rand Paul specifically mentions Awlaqi several times as an example of a drone strike that he was perfectly okay with. Granted, his grasp of how criminal justice works in the US seems a little shaky, since he appears to think that a drone strike could be ordered as a punishment for treason, but you get the picture.

In the end, neither of Rand Paul's questions were about anything the administration actually has actually done, or plans to do for that matter. They were about (quite poorly defined) hypothetical situations that are far removed from normal military conduct.


Here's another hypothetical situation to mull over:

A military officer has been discovered to be in the process of traveling to deliver sensitive information to members of a terrorist organization.  This information will, in the long run, result in probable death to a number of Americans.

The treasonous officer is not partaking in combat, but he's also far beyond the reach of conventional US personnel.  There's no chance of capturing him or stopping him at this point.

Drone strike or no?
 
2013-03-08 09:21:47 PM  

BMFPitt: Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?

What part of that post confused you?

The part about him giving up executive powers. Not sure if serious.


Well, he didn't want them in the first place.  He's not stupid enough to actually think that the GOP was handing 'him' those executive powers.  He knows that they're just setting up the stage for 4/8/12 years down the road when the GOP gets the WH again.

That's why he didn't want them in the bill in the first place.

So, I anticipate that he'll do whatever he can to emasculate those provisions before leaving office.
 
2013-03-08 09:25:08 PM  
Yes, Rand Paul was AWing.  I still am glad that Obama explicitly stated the obvious.  I also think it was interesting to see an honest to god filibuster.  It should be the way it is done.  No more of this filibuster by fiat crap.
 
2013-03-08 09:29:20 PM  

Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?

What part of that post confused you?

The part about him giving up executive powers. Not sure if serious.

Well, he didn't want them in the first place.  He's not stupid enough to actually think that the GOP was handing 'him' those executive powers.  He knows that they're just setting up the stage for 4/8/12 years down the road when the GOP gets the WH again.

That's why he didn't want them in the bill in the first place.

So, I anticipate that he'll do whatever he can to emasculate those provisions before leaving office.


Would you like to bet a whole bunch of money on that?
 
2013-03-08 09:29:21 PM  

HempHead: LordJiro: steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.

Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.

Wouldn't be the first time.
[www.everythingology.com image 640x647]


So an armed confrontation/shootout with police that escolated horribly (police acted badly and survivors recieved a large civil settlement) is the same as a drone blowing up your house with a hellfire missile?
 
2013-03-08 09:32:27 PM  

MattStafford: Biological Ali: This can't possibly be a serious question.

I assure you, it is a serious question.  The administration said that he was an imminent threat, and said no more.  They have not shown, in a court of law, any evidence indicating that he was an imminent threat.  The only official reason released as to why he was killed is that the administration deemed him an imminent threat.

There is no official definition of imminent threat.  So as far as I can surmise, the administration killed Awlaki because they believed him to be a threat, and they are not required to provide evidence (either before or after) showing this to be true.


Under what specific conditions can a regular US soldier take the life of anyone in general? Your question is open ended to the point of being meaningless. Its funny how you priest the use of drones, but you want to make all life and death considerations to be laid out like a computer program. Warfare doesn't work that way. War is messy, and decisions are messy. You can learn to make better decisions, but you can't act like some sort of robot.
 
2013-03-08 09:32:47 PM  
John McCain?  Does he still think people listen to what he has to say?  This is the guy who back in 1996 had a Washingtonian Magazine article written about him titled "Senator Hothead" where it described an incident where he had to be pulled away with force from a 90 year old Senator b/c poor unstable John McCain felt Strom Thurmond insulted him...

While I am no fan of Obama, I do thank God that this raving lunatic never had the opportunity to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Mr. McCain, it is time you ride off into the sunset shaking your fist at clouds while mumbling to yourself... BTW, take that worthless lapdog of yours Lindsey Graham with you..
 
2013-03-08 09:34:52 PM  

Infernalist: Here's another hypothetical situation to mull over:

A military officer has been discovered to be in the process of traveling to deliver sensitive information to members of a terrorist organization. This information will, in the long run, result in probable death to a number of Americans.

The treasonous officer is not partaking in combat, but he's also far beyond the reach of conventional US personnel. There's no chance of capturing him or stopping him at this point.

Drone strike or no?


If the terrorist organization is al-Qaeda then that guy would be a valid military target on that count alone.
 
2013-03-08 09:49:08 PM  

Biological Ali: Rand Paul specifically mentions Awlaqi several times as an example of a drone strike that he was perfectly okay with. Granted, his grasp of how criminal justice works in the US seems a little shaky, since he appears to think that a drone strike could be ordered as a punishment for treason, but you get the picture.

In the end, neither of Rand Paul's questions were about anything the administration actually has actually done, or plans to do for that matter. They were about (quite poorly defined) hypothetical situations that are far removed from normal military conduct.


Way to dodge the question.

This has nothing to do with Rand Paul.  I don't care what he has to say on this matter.  This has everything to do with what conditions are required for the US government to assassinate a US citizen.

The US government assassinated Awlaki, a US citizen, and the only reason given was that he was an imminent threat.  The US government has not given an explicit definition of imminent threat.  The US government has not, and by all indications will not, defended their assassination of Awlaki in a court of law using evidence.

So based on these actions and legal decisions, it appears that Obama can assassinate any US citizen that he feels is an imminent threat to the US, but he does not need to define imminent threat nor produce any evidence showing that the assassination target is, in fact, an imminent threat.

To continue, the Holder letters explained the government was able to assassinate US citizens on US soil provided they were in combat (not defined - left up to executive branch interpretation) or it was an extraordinary situation (not defined - left up to executive branch interpretation).  Based on the Awlaki precedent, the administration would not need to provide evidence in a court of law showing that the person was in fact engaging in combat, or that it was in fact an extraordinary situation.

You can defend it as much as you want, but as it stands right now, based on these actions and legal precedents, the executive branch has the power to be judge, jury, and executioner with no congressional or public oversight whatsoever.
 
2013-03-08 09:52:20 PM  

schrodinger: Under what specific conditions can a regular US soldier take the life of anyone in general? Your question is open ended to the point of being meaningless. Its funny how you priest the use of drones, but you want to make all life and death considerations to be laid out like a computer program. Warfare doesn't work that way. War is messy, and decisions are messy. You can learn to make better decisions, but you can't act like some sort of robot.


So because war is sloppy we have decided that it is alright for the executive branch to be judge, jury, and executioner?  Is that the new defense?
 
2013-03-08 10:03:03 PM  

steverockson: HempHead: LordJiro: steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.

Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.

Wouldn't be the first time.
[www.everythingology.com image 640x647]

So an armed confrontation/shootout with police that escolated horribly (police acted badly and survivors recieved a large civil settlement) is the same as a drone blowing up your house with a hellfire missile?




The police used a helicopter to firebomb someone's house.

Very similar to using a drone with Hellfire missile. In fact, it's almost exactly the same.

No one went to jail. Many children died.

Helicopter pilots did not receive medals, that about the only difference between then and now.
 
2013-03-08 10:11:16 PM  
LOL. Young people are so stupid and idealistic! Not like my better generation!
 
2013-03-08 10:11:41 PM  

HempHead: steverockson: HempHead: LordJiro: steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.

Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.

Wouldn't be the first time.
[www.everythingology.com image 640x647]

So an armed confrontation/shootout with police that escolated horribly (police acted badly and survivors recieved a large civil settlement) is the same as a drone blowing up your house with a hellfire missile?

The police used a helicopter to firebomb someone's house.

Very similar to using a drone with Hellfire missile. In fact, it's almost exactly the same.

No one went to jail. Many children died.

Helicopter pilots did not receive medals, that about the only difference between then and now.


thats what makes the entire argument so fallacious; if anyone really cared about weaponry on american soil, why start with drones? Oh, cause those were in terminator movies. tested well in focus groups.

as I mentioned somewhere else, as political viagra, drones are a flaccid topic precisely because it's so obviously  grandstanding. If they cared, they be doing so much more than trying to protect the defense industries budget. So very obviously ethically morally bankrupt, i dont know why the GOP even opens their mouth (well, they're trying to reach the new suckers they know are born)
 
2013-03-08 10:14:53 PM  

MattStafford: schrodinger: Under what specific conditions can a regular US soldier take the life of anyone in general? Your question is open ended to the point of being meaningless. Its funny how you priest the use of drones, but you want to make all life and death considerations to be laid out like a computer program. Warfare doesn't work that way. War is messy, and decisions are messy. You can learn to make better decisions, but you can't act like some sort of robot.

So because war is sloppy we have decided that it is alright for the executive branch to be judge, jury, and executioner?  Is that the new defense?


So do you think soldiers in battle contact a judge and jury before they're allowed to shoot anyone?

You want to define the exact times when the president is allowed to kill, when you can't even do that for a regular soldier.

Does acregular soldier have more authority than the president?
 
2013-03-08 10:17:43 PM  

HempHead: steverockson: HempHead: LordJiro: steverockson: To me all this drone stuff is such a non-issue.  If you leave America, go overseas, join Al-Qaeda and proclaim that you want to kill Americans, don't be surprised if we take your ass out.

The other issue, domestic drone strikes is so idiotic it barely merits mention.  If you really think the government is going to blow up your house with a HELLFIRE MISSILE then you need therapy.

Furthermore, as pointed out, if our government got to the point where it *would* blow up your house with a Hellfire, it doesn't matter one farking iota what the law says.

Wouldn't be the first time.
[www.everythingology.com image 640x647]

So an armed confrontation/shootout with police that escolated horribly (police acted badly and survivors recieved a large civil settlement) is the same as a drone blowing up your house with a hellfire missile?

The police used a helicopter to firebomb someone's house.

Very similar to using a drone with Hellfire missile. In fact, it's almost exactly the same.

No one went to jail. Many children died.

Helicopter pilots did not receive medals, that about the only difference between then and now.



Obviously, the solution is to ban helicopters. While were at it, we should also ban fire.
 
2013-03-08 10:20:48 PM  

MattStafford: The US government has not, and by all indications will not, defended their assassination of Awlaki in a court of law using evidence.


NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Plaintiff, v. BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; ROBERT M. GATES, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and LEON E. PANETTA, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants.

The suit was tossed out because in the US, courts have no place when it comes to determining the appropriateness of military action.
 
2013-03-08 10:40:03 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net  ts4.mm.bing.net  ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-03-08 10:40:37 PM  
As if his selection of Palin wasn't a political stunt.

It was a cunning stunt.
 
2013-03-08 10:42:43 PM  
Bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb a-mer-i-cans.
 
2013-03-08 11:00:42 PM  

schrodinger: MattStafford: schrodinger: Under what specific conditions can a regular US soldier take the life of anyone in general? Your question is open ended to the point of being meaningless. Its funny how you priest the use of drones, but you want to make all life and death considerations to be laid out like a computer program. Warfare doesn't work that way. War is messy, and decisions are messy. You can learn to make better decisions, but you can't act like some sort of robot.

So because war is sloppy we have decided that it is alright for the executive branch to be judge, jury, and executioner?  Is that the new defense?

So do you think soldiers in battle contact a judge and jury before they're allowed to shoot anyone?

You want to define the exact times when the president is allowed to kill, when you can't even do that for a regular soldier.

Does acregular soldier have more authority than the president?


Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that President has the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, as long as we are at "war"?
 
2013-03-08 11:01:21 PM  

Biological Ali: MattStafford: The US government has not, and by all indications will not, defended their assassination of Awlaki in a court of law using evidence.

NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf and as next friend of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Plaintiff, v. BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; ROBERT M. GATES, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and LEON E. PANETTA, in his official capacity as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants.

The suit was tossed out because in the US, courts have no place when it comes to determining the appropriateness of military action.


Convenient. You still are refusing to address my argument.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:08 PM  

schrodinger: MattStafford: schrodinger: Under what specific conditions can a regular US soldier take the life of anyone in general? Your question is open ended to the point of being meaningless. Its funny how you priest the use of drones, but you want to make all life and death considerations to be laid out like a computer program. Warfare doesn't work that way. War is messy, and decisions are messy. You can learn to make better decisions, but you can't act like some sort of robot.

So because war is sloppy we have decided that it is alright for the executive branch to be judge, jury, and executioner?  Is that the new defense?

So do you think soldiers in battle contact a judge and jury before they're allowed to shoot anyone?

You want to define the exact times when the president is allowed to kill, when you can't even do that for a regular soldier.

Does acregular soldier have more authority than the president?




After WWII, we held German soldiers accountable for their actions.

Of course, now torture is a OK with the American people.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I have no doubt killing by drone will soon follow.

I think Goering said it best:
www.aaanything.net
 
2013-03-08 11:32:11 PM  

MattStafford: schrodinger: MattStafford: schrodinger: Under what specific conditions can a regular US soldier take the life of anyone in general? Your question is open ended to the point of being meaningless. Its funny how you priest the use of drones, but you want to make all life and death considerations to be laid out like a computer program. Warfare doesn't work that way. War is messy, and decisions are messy. You can learn to make better decisions, but you can't act like some sort of robot.

So because war is sloppy we have decided that it is alright for the executive branch to be judge, jury, and executioner?  Is that the new defense?

So do you think soldiers in battle contact a judge and jury before they're allowed to shoot anyone?

You want to define the exact times when the president is allowed to kill, when you can't even do that for a regular soldier.

Does acregular soldier have more authority than the president?

Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that President has the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, as long as we are at "war"?


No, YOU are making that argument. Nobody else except you is even trying to make that argument.

When we are at war--and as I've pointed out above already, we are "at war" with "terror"--then the President has the authority to decide if someone is an imminent and unacceptable threat to US safety and security. If the President so decides, then he further has the authority to have that threat eliminated via MILITARY ACTION. Now, that may mean sending in the Marines, it may mean carpet bombing, it may mean a covert ops strike with Seal Team Six, OR it may mean a UAV strike with a Predator. Nobody gets to decide that but the President "with the advice and consent of Congress" like it says in the fine print in the Constitution. That drone strike that so seems to frighten and anger you wasn't done in the dead of night without anyone else's knowledge, btw--everyone in the Defense Dept., and most of the Senate, knew about it. And they all agreed that al-Awlaki was sufficiently dangerous as to warrant some kind of military action.

Now, you don't have to agree with that; but would you be as scared and angry if we HAD sent in the SEALs, or a platoon of Marines? Or an overflight of F-18s? There would have been no difference, except more dead civilians and probably war with Yemen. Is it YOUR argument that this would have been a better alternative? That open warfare is preferable in your book of equations to covert murder?

If you are really as furious and terrified of the implications as you seem to be, then the way to prevent this whole issue is to focus your outrage on where it should be: Ending this "war on terror." Because if you're worried about this idea that the president can be "judge, jury and executioner", then I hate to burst your righteously indignant bubble, but that's been on the table for at least 50 years and probably more. Pres. Ford's EO 11905 had to explicitly prohibit "POLITICAL assassination" (meaning by implication that that had been okay prior), but left all other types of extrajudicial assassinations on the table by omission, and that was in 1976. This just isn't new.

I'm sorry you're so upset by the revelation that our government doesn't have clean hands. Welcome to the real world.
 
2013-03-09 12:15:27 AM  

HempHead: After WWII, we held German soldiers accountable for their actions.


Sure, when they surrendered, or when they allowed themselves to be captured alive.  When that happens, great.  But what if we aren't that lucky?

Do you really think that  no one in World War II was killed without trial?
 
2013-03-09 12:28:27 AM  

MattStafford: Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that President has the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, as long as we are at "war"?


Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that you have the ability to lie and say whatever you want, made up for whatever reason, because you don't like to admit that your wrong.

I asked you to define the exact conditions that allow soldiers on the battlefield to take a life.  When is it okay for a soldier to shoot someone?  When is it not okay?  If you can't answer a question about the powers of a lowly soldier, then how do you expect me to answer the same question about the US president?  Presumably, the President has all of the same authorization that a soldier does, and more.

Does a regular soldier have the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, so long as we are are at "war"?  No?  Then you're either relying on a strawman, or you're just being a total idiot.
 
2013-03-09 12:29:55 AM  

HempHead: I have no doubt killing by drone will soon follow.


What exactly is the difference between killing someone with a drone and killing someone with a laser-guided bomb?  You know, like we've been doing for the last 40 years.
 
2013-03-09 12:39:04 AM  

Fart_Machine: HempHead: I have no doubt killing by drone will soon follow.

What exactly is the difference between killing someone with a drone and killing someone with a laser-guided bomb?  You know, like we've been doing for the last 40 years.


Apparently, Manned vehicle=Ok
                Unmanned vehicle=The Devil
 
2013-03-09 12:40:22 AM  
How's that presidency working out for you Mr McCain? oooooo... sorry, that's right you didn't win.
 
2013-03-09 12:40:34 AM  

schrodinger: MattStafford: Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that President has the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, as long as we are at "war"?

Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that you have the ability to lie and say whatever you want, made up for whatever reason, because you don't like to admit that your wrong.

I asked you to define the exact conditions that allow soldiers on the battlefield to take a life.  When is it okay for a soldier to shoot someone?  When is it not okay?  If you can't answer a question about the powers of a lowly soldier, then how do you expect me to answer the same question about the US president?  Presumably, the President has all of the same authorization that a soldier does, and more.

Does a regular soldier have the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, so long as we are are at "war"?  No?  Then you're either relying on a strawman, or you're just being a total idiot.


He's being a total idiot. Or he's 19 and really thinks  the world works like his Poli Sci professor taught him it should.

Obtuse people irk the shiat out of me.
 
2013-03-09 12:56:53 AM  

BMFPitt: Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: BMFPitt: Infernalist: MisterRonbo: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

I trust this President.  I don't trust his successors.

Precedents, how do they work?

Oh, I agree 100%, and I also believe that before these 4 years are up, we'll see an effort by this President to strip those provisions out via some other method that the GOP doesn't anticipate.

Just because that's how he seems to do things.

.....what?

What part of that post confused you?

The part about him giving up executive powers. Not sure if serious.

Well, he didn't want them in the first place.  He's not stupid enough to actually think that the GOP was handing 'him' those executive powers.  He knows that they're just setting up the stage for 4/8/12 years down the road when the GOP gets the WH again.

That's why he didn't want them in the bill in the first place.

So, I anticipate that he'll do whatever he can to emasculate those provisions before leaving office.

Would you like to bet a whole bunch of money on that?


Oh c'mon, it's only logical that Obama would give up that executive power near the end of his term.  Just as it's logical that at some point when the addiction has taken a terrible physical toll, a crackhead will give up crack.

Also about as likely.
 
2013-03-09 01:02:52 AM  
That dumb old bastard is sundowning, but once in a while he screams at the right cloud.
 
2013-03-09 01:33:33 AM  

MisterRonbo: Oh c'mon, it's only logical that Obama would give up that executive power near the end of his term.  Just as it's logical that at some point when the addiction has taken a terrible physical toll, a crackhead will give up crack.


The power to drone strike already existed under Bush.

Really, as far as executive powers go, drone strikes are near the bottom of my list, regardless of who the president is.  I'm far more worried about things like "Who will he pick for his cabinet?" and "Who will he nominate to the Supreme Court?"  You know, things that the president actually does.
 
2013-03-09 01:53:05 AM  
If the concern for Executive authority is really that, then join up with the liberals who say the war on terror is just a giant wankfest that makes lots of enemies of brown nations while keeping stockholders of certain key companies very happy.

Yes, the idea that President may, in the interest of national security, order a killing on an American citizen using military force is disturbing. It also presents a difficult precedent, and unspecified terms are dangerous when 50% of the major political powers in the US are sociopathic. I trust Barack Obama; I don't trust unnamed Presidents #45 through infinity
 
2013-03-09 01:54:09 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: I_C_Weener: Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.

It's impossible to be within the GOP- especially at McCain's level- and not have the scumbaggery infect your soul.


Well in the current Republican Party yes.  But you see McCain was (great,) (great,) grandfathered in.
 
2013-03-09 02:07:39 AM  

jake_lex: Infernalist: 1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.

Once again, no one cares, man.  That's why there's no protests, no fury, demands for investigations.  They look at the President and go "No, it's cool, we trust him."

Hang it up.

It's another example of the Republican party running against their version of President Obama, not the actual President.  I think most people think the Attorney General's response to the question even before his letter clarifying it was reasonable: if the United States is under military attack, then a military response, which might include drones.  They just don't buy into the "Farbongo is history's greatest monster" mindset you need to really be worked up about this.

In short, most voters do not believe President Obama would use drones against American citizens unless really, really bad shiat was going down.  And there's nothing in any evaluation of Obama's true record that doesn't come from a derp site that suggests he would.


Oh course here is the problem.  I told this to Bush supporters who "trusted him" with all these powers.  What about the next president.  He/she will have these powers too.  We don't know who that will be yet.  We don't know how "trustworthy" they will be either.
 
2013-03-09 02:41:36 AM  

Lochsteppe: regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.

Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea


THIS!!

For God's sake, people, RAND PAUL isn't riling up members of the base who'll think critically and make informed decisions, he's riling up members who'll be taken in by BS stunts and political posturing. You know, the kinds of people who champion RON PAUL while denying his obvious, gaping flaws.
 
2013-03-09 02:56:59 AM  

Empty Matchbook: Lochsteppe: regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.

Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea

THIS!!

For God's sake, people, RAND PAUL isn't riling up members of the base who'll think critically and make informed decisions, he's riling up members who'll be taken in by BS stunts and political posturing. You know, the kinds of people who champion RON PAUL while denying his obvious, gaping flaws.


"Paultard" is actually a medical condition.
 
2013-03-09 03:27:57 AM  
Funny thing about libertarians: I keep getting older, they stay the same age.
 
2013-03-09 03:32:49 AM  
I know McCain is generally nuts, but everyone once in a while he hits one of the park. He's like Adam Dunn of the White Sox. It's nice that there's a shred of sanity left in McCain's brain.
 
2013-03-09 03:50:56 AM  
This reminds me of pre-2004 (aka pre-Bush hugging) McCain.
 
2013-03-09 04:09:58 AM  

SamWaters: RAND is a wacko and I need to take a dump.


Rand is a wacko, and I'm taking a dump
 
2013-03-09 04:39:01 AM  

MisterRonbo: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 1derful: If Bush were President then every one of these douchebags who are attacking Paul would crown him with laurels for suggesting that the AG not equivocate on the question of whether or not the POTUS has authority to kill American citizens on American soil.

I don't think so, Tim. Rand's pa was saying the same things during the Bush years and we catcalled him too.

Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.


The problem with Ron Paul's anti-war stance is that he managed to completely stay out of the spotlight and out of the controversy at a time when his views might have actually helped, only to make a name for himself after the war was already unpopular in order to ask for donations.  He's an opportunist, not a man of principle.
 
2013-03-09 05:13:28 AM  

schrodinger: MisterRonbo: 

Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.

The problem with Ron Paul's anti-war stance is that he managed to completely stay out of the spotlight and out of the controversy at a time when his views might have actually helped, only to make a name for himself after the war was already unpopular in order to ask for donations.   He's an opportunist, not a man of principle.


I agree completely.  Since it's with you, makes me think I should re-examine my position   ;)
 
2013-03-09 05:30:39 AM  

MisterRonbo: schrodinger: MisterRonbo:

Funny, my recollection was that many libs (including me) kept saying that his anti-war stance was the one thing RON PAUL got right.

The problem with Ron Paul's anti-war stance is that he managed to completely stay out of the spotlight and out of the controversy at a time when his views might have actually helped, only to make a name for himself after the war was already unpopular in order to ask for donations.   He's an opportunist, not a man of principle.

I agree completely.  Since it's with you, makes me think I should re-examine my position   ;)


I'm a huge liberal.  I'm also a realist.

The only real difference I see between drones and what we had before is less cost and fewer of our own troops get killed.  Given that one of the major critiques of the Iraq war was "so many of our own troops are dying!", this should be a good thing.  Now, there might be a psychological issue that a troop is more likely to hit "fire" if he's looking at a computer screen, and not an actual person.  But since the order is ultimately coming from the president, who isn't looking at a real person in either circumstance, it's a moot point.

Aside from the drone issue, there's the due process issue. No one seems to be able to explain the fundamental difference between what Obama has to decide at his desk, and what a soldier has to decide on the battlefield.  If I accept that soldiers have the authority to make that choice, then I have to accept that the president has the authority to make that choice as well.
 
2013-03-09 05:39:17 AM  

schrodinger: Aside from the drone issue, there's the due process issue. No one seems to be able to explain the fundamental difference between what Obama has to decide at his desk, and what a soldier has to decide on the battlefield.  If I accept that soldiers have the authority to make that choice, then I have to accept that the president has the authority to make that choice as well.


Well, the drones that kill people seem to mostly be used by the CIA, and they don't answer questions.  Ask the White House or the Pentagon about them, and eventually they'll say it's not us, check with the CIA.
 
2013-03-09 05:59:40 AM  

Alphax: Well, the drones that kill people seem to mostly be used by the CIA, and they don't answer questions.  Ask the White House or the Pentagon about them, and eventually they'll say it's not us, check with the CIA.


And how much are we allowed to know about Seal Team Six?  Are we even allowed to ask them for their names?
 
2013-03-09 06:03:30 AM  

schrodinger: Alphax: Well, the drones that kill people seem to mostly be used by the CIA, and they don't answer questions.  Ask the White House or the Pentagon about them, and eventually they'll say it's not us, check with the CIA.

And how much are we allowed to know about Seal Team Six?  Are we even allowed to ask them for their names?


We know far more about what they did.
 
2013-03-09 06:28:05 AM  
Farkers still acknowledge MattStafford's existence?

Wow.
 
2013-03-09 06:52:20 AM  

Voiceofreason01: lol, sometimes McCain comes across as a senile old man, other times he comes out with quotes like the one subby used in the headline.

/oh snap indeed


I bet its when he is attacking republicans that you find him smart, and when he is BEING a republican (rarely) is when you find him dumb, huh?

/ not that hard to figure out.
 
2013-03-09 07:09:49 AM  

MasterThief: [cdn.pjmedia.com image 400x266]

Sorry old man, Rand Paul just displayed more principle twelve hours than you've done in the last eight years.  STFU and GBTW.


McCain's working days are over. The US now needs to thank him for his service and send his sorry ass back to Arizona to live out his days hiding from the future and keeping his mouth shut.
 
2013-03-09 07:20:02 AM  

I sound fat: Voiceofreason01: lol, sometimes McCain comes across as a senile old man, other times he comes out with quotes like the one subby used in the headline.

/oh snap indeed

I bet its when he is attacking republicans that you find him smart, and when he is BEING a republican (rarely) is when you find him dumb, huh?

/ not that hard to figure out.



I know. I mean, criticizing Ron W. Paul for political grandstanding in lieu of actually proposing or drafting any legislation to challenge the issue he has a problem with = SMART

But, picking a running mate with a 5th grade education and a slew of bastard grandkids = STUPID.

It's sad that libards pick and choose like that, amirite?
 
2013-03-09 07:54:52 AM  
If Senator McCain wants to be taken seriously, he needs to stop his endless warmongering. Bomb bomb Iran. Intervene in Libya, Intervene in Syria. He should stop overcompensating for the fact that he got shot down in Vietnam and was a POW.
 
2013-03-09 08:21:28 AM  

vernonFL: McCain is right.


[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 274x184]


If you want to be taken seriously, you can't pull cheap political stunts just to get your base riled up.


like suspending your campaign to rescue the economy.
 
2013-03-09 08:29:56 AM  
"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts..."

Seriously, what do the repubs have left? They can't propose anything substantive, i.e., amenable to negotiation. That will only brand them as RINOs. When their initiative look like they might pass they kill them themselves--God help them if they actually have a track record and have to follow through on it. All they can do is repeat the same old unworkable sound bites--lower taxes even more! Privatize Social Security!--and pray that nobody catches on as the good ol' indestructible US economy pulls itself out of its daze like a punch-drunk fighter and staggers to its feet for another round. Then they can claim that they saved the economy, that obstructing Democratic stimulus and recovery plans prevented a total disaster rather than prolonging the recession. And it might work. The repub strategy is based on the assumption that people are stupid enough to be manipulated, the Democrats' on the assumption that people are smart enough to see which side their bread is buttered on. At least at the state level, the repub strategy seems to be working.
 
2013-03-09 08:47:41 AM  
McCain is completely out of touch. He thinks civil liberty is nothing to be concerned about. I thinks everything will be fine as long as the Republicans are in charge.  Young people don't have any money so they don't really care about economic liberty but they sure as hell recognize that their civil liberty is under attack.
 
2013-03-09 09:38:51 AM  
You all think he's great now but in a month he'll be telling us how he was the guy that inspired Paul to filibuster and how he's against building that wall on the border now.

McCain is a douche. The Republican version of Hillary Clinton. The fact that you agree with him on this issue should be setting off alarms in your head but you ignore them because...Obama.
 
2013-03-09 10:32:55 AM  

badhatharry: McCain is completely out of touch. He thinks civil liberty is nothing to be concerned about. I thinks everything will be fine as long as the Republicans are in charge.  Young people don't have any money so they don't really care about economic liberty but they sure as hell recognize that their civil liberty is under attack.


You think Paul's juvenile, pointless stunt had something to do with "civil liberties"?
Do you like bridges? I've got a really neat one I'm thinking of selling.
It's in Brooklyn, NYC.
 
2013-03-09 10:56:04 AM  

Gyrfalcon: schrodinger: MattStafford: Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that President has the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, as long as we are at "war"?

Just so we're on the same page, you are currently making the argument that you have the ability to lie and say whatever you want, made up for whatever reason, because you don't like to admit that your wrong.

I asked you to define the exact conditions that allow soldiers on the battlefield to take a life.  When is it okay for a soldier to shoot someone?  When is it not okay?  If you can't answer a question about the powers of a lowly soldier, then how do you expect me to answer the same question about the US president?  Presumably, the President has all of the same authorization that a soldier does, and more.

Does a regular soldier have the ability to kill whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, so long as we are are at "war"?  No?  Then you're either relying on a strawman, or you're just being a total idiot.

He's being a total idiot. Or he's 19 and really thinks  the world works like his Poli Sci professor taught him it should.

Obtuse people irk the shiat out of me.


Yup. That and if he was half way intelligent he would Google "Law of Land Warfare" and the Geneva Convention which pretty clearly lays out exactly what are valid military targets, protected statuses, justification for force, and what "Imminent Threat" is.

Honestly, hearing idiots go on about how "Imminent Threat" isn't defined in the letters is extremely frustrating. Its kind of like an idiot bursting in to a math class and going "Whoa, whoa, whoa, what does 'negative' actually mean?". Its a bit of terminology that you are expected to know before discussing the topic, and thoroughly shows you have no clue about the subject and probably shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions.
 
2013-03-09 11:01:09 AM  

nubzers: thoroughly shows you have no clue about the subject and probably shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions.


To be fair, the fact that no one here is allowed to make decisions regarding national security is pretty much a given.
 
2013-03-09 11:01:30 AM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: I'm sorry, but if your name is Rand then you have no credibility to begin with. You're nothing more than the physical manifestation of a really horrible ideology. Recognizing that fact needs to be the starting point of our analysis every time this douche nozzle opens his mouth.


Mr.Dog ate my homework is right, you should have a respectful name before anything you say is taken seriously.
 
2013-03-09 11:57:02 AM  
All you need to know about John McCain can be gleaned from the disgraceful 2000 campaign that Rove and Bush ran against him.

McCain was probably an asshole before that, but he became a truly changed man afterward. I think it's the point where he lost all sense of morality and principle; and just decided to focus on power for power's sake.
 
2013-03-09 12:23:57 PM  

contrapunctus: All you need to know about John McCain can be gleaned from the disgraceful 2000 campaign that Rove and Bush ran against him.

McCain was probably an asshole before that, but he became a truly changed man afterward. I think it's the point where he lost all sense of morality and principle; and just decided to focus on power for power's sake.



I don't know if McCain is mentally stable anymore or not.... but he doesn't seem to be solving any problems these days.   Much like Harry Reid, he is the old guard that needs changed.
He ain't worth a bucket of warm spit these days.


/he graduated bottom of his class.
//maybe he was not all that smart to start
 
2013-03-09 12:24:19 PM  

thurstonxhowell: nubzers: thoroughly shows you have no clue about the subject and probably shouldn't be allowed to make any decisions.

To be fair, the fact that no one here is allowed to make decisions regarding national security is pretty much a given.


That part was more geared towards congressman that throw hissy fits instead of, you know, actually doing his job.
 
2013-03-09 12:50:14 PM  

schrodinger: MasterThief: [cdn.pjmedia.com image 400x266]

Sorry old man, Rand Paul just displayed more principle twelve hours than you've done in the last eight years.  STFU and GBTW.

Crotchrocket Slim: MattStafford: My god, Fark.  It is mindblowing to me how much you slobber the establishment's knob.

Well as long as you get to feel better than anyone else without examining anything of substance McCain has said, or any of the reasons people are actually criticizing Paul's filibustering

Rand Paul spent 13 hours attacking a strawman that no one was defending in the first place (whether or not the US can use drone attacks on US soil against NON-COMBATIVEcitizens on US soil.) That's not standing up for principle, that's being an attention whore.

That would bbe like me wasting 13 hours on a speech on why it would be wrong for Ron Paul to kill hobos, and the declaring when Ron Paul says he's already against it.


Nice way to sum it up.
 
2013-03-09 12:54:33 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-09 01:01:22 PM  

jso2897: badhatharry: McCain is completely out of touch. He thinks civil liberty is nothing to be concerned about. I thinks everything will be fine as long as the Republicans are in charge.  Young people don't have any money so they don't really care about economic liberty but they sure as hell recognize that their civil liberty is under attack.

You think Paul's juvenile, pointless stunt had something to do with "civil liberties"?
Do you like bridges? I've got a really neat one I'm thinking of selling.
It's in Brooklyn, NYC.


You don't like the bridge? Selling it already? You just bought it from me last month!!!

If Paul's "stunt" was pointless, why did Obama and Eric Holder fold under its pressure? They got caught up in trying to say it was OK for Obammy to kill people without due process and Paul called them on it. Good for Paul and thanks to him for sticking up for us real Americans.
 
2013-03-09 01:05:32 PM  

1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.


What about Christopher Dorner? Conspiracy theories aside, the only way cops could stop him was by killing him. Why would it have mattered if they did it with a drone or with guns? I certainly wouldn't have given a shiat either way, as long as they got the job done.
 
2013-03-09 02:43:48 PM  

peasants_are_revolting: 1derful: Infernalist: I think we can safely say that no one on here, aside from a few well known partisans, cares about this subject.  When you boil it down, you get the simple reality that the American people trust this President.

If that were really the case, the American people would be imbeciles beyond hope. The fact is that most Americans with all of their chromosomes should think it's a bad idea for anyone to kill them without due process. But the average guy doesn't have the time or inclination to read the white papers or follow the stories on the internet.

Most major media outlets aren't really covering what's happening. CNN spent more coverage on the fact that lions are carnivores than they did the filibuster.


Whether you believe that the executive does or does not have the power to order the assassination of U.S, citizens, it's an important debate that everyone should care about.

What about Christopher Dorner? Conspiracy theories aside, the only way cops could stop him was by killing him. Why would it have mattered if they did it with a drone or with guns? I certainly wouldn't have given a shiat either way, as long as they got the job done.


Aside from the implications of a missile strike on US soil, each Hellfire missile costs @$70,000. I can't envision state or local law enforcement ever using them.
 
2013-03-09 03:23:29 PM  

MattStafford: To continue,


What we all need right now in America is for you to whine about this some more.

Hostile actions against US Citizens happen every day in this country(without any form of due process), where a person is perceived to be a threat, and is  executed by some entity of the State, because he/she doesn't comply with the order of the State to surrender peacefully. And don't allState  armed entities now carry talon type bullets that do massive damage to the person being shot, which in itself a crime against, even most guilty parties, like a thief don't deserve to be shot with a round that fragments on impact a scatters through the body.

And BTW, Police forces  are now using drones for surveillance , which means  arming them is right around the corner. The Military use of drones is  the smaller of these potential threats. Wait until Sheriff Joe or that Cript Lady Governor from Arizona gets their hands on this technology.
 
2013-03-09 03:35:30 PM  
"Pimp hand"? More like "yells at cloud."

McCain can fulminate all he likes, nobody who matters gives a crap. Rand Paul was right.
 
2013-03-09 04:46:57 PM  

MasterThief: The second letter is an actual no. (A no to a slightly different question than was first asked, but still a no, and in writing.)

Yes, Paul was grandstanding. But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order. Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no." And fark McCain for complaining about it. Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do.



THIS. I like Ron Paul, and while his son is a handsome fella, he's also a butthead.

However, if the butthead is the only person in either party who will stick up for civil liberties, more power to him.
 
2013-03-09 05:09:56 PM  

cloud_van_dame: MasterThief: The second letter is an actual no. (A no to a slightly different question than was first asked, but still a no, and in writing.)

Yes, Paul was grandstanding. But when you get an evasive response to an important question, grandstanding is in order. Kudos to Paul for getting the actual "no." And fark McCain for complaining about it. Paul just did what McCain no longer has the spine to do.


THIS. I like Ron Paul, and while his son is a handsome fella, he's also a butthead.

However, if the butthead is the only person in either party who will stick up for civil liberties, more power to him.


Except in this case, he was "standing up to civil liberties" against a strawman that no one was advocating in the first place.
 
2013-03-09 05:34:24 PM  

jjorsett: "Pimp hand"? More like "yells at cloud."

McCain can fulminate all he likes, nobody who matters gives a crap. Rand Paul was right.


One guy is old and senile.  The other is young and crazy.  They'd make a great buddy cop movie.
 
2013-03-10 05:08:39 PM  

Lochsteppe: Empty Matchbook: Lochsteppe: regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.

Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea

THIS!!

For God's sake, people, RAND PAUL isn't riling up members of the base who'll think critically and make informed decisions, he's riling up members who'll be taken in by BS stunts and political posturing. You know, the kinds of people who champion RON PAUL while denying his obvious, gaping flaws.

"Paultard" is actually a medical condition.


Oh...oh I...I had no idea. I feel so bad now. Is there a charity I can donate?
 
2013-03-10 07:00:17 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Lochsteppe: Empty Matchbook: Lochsteppe: regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.

Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea

THIS!!

For God's sake, people, RAND PAUL isn't riling up members of the base who'll think critically and make informed decisions, he's riling up members who'll be taken in by BS stunts and political posturing. You know, the kinds of people who champion RON PAUL while denying his obvious, gaping flaws.

"Paultard" is actually a medical condition.

Oh...oh I...I had no idea. I feel so bad now. Is there a charity I can donate?


ronpaul-2012.org

GIVE ME MONEY!!!
 
2013-03-10 09:58:02 PM  
Yes, because it isn't as though Obama, firing up kids in their dorm rooms in 2006-7 had anything to do with his political success in 2008 and 2012.

Seriously McCain, you do realize that banking on people just swinging to the right when they hit 45 isn't working anymore, right?
 
2013-03-10 11:45:17 PM  

schrodinger: Empty Matchbook: Lochsteppe: Empty Matchbook: Lochsteppe: regindyn: Most of your party's membership will die off in the next 15 years, McCain.  Maybe getting some young blood isn't a terrible strategy.

Getting some smart new blood in an aging party: Good idea
Getting some fantastically, belligerently dumb new blood in an aging party: Potato idea

THIS!!

For God's sake, people, RAND PAUL isn't riling up members of the base who'll think critically and make informed decisions, he's riling up members who'll be taken in by BS stunts and political posturing. You know, the kinds of people who champion RON PAUL while denying his obvious, gaping flaws.

"Paultard" is actually a medical condition.

Oh...oh I...I had no idea. I feel so bad now. Is there a charity I can donate?

[ronpaul-2012.org image 600x125]

GIVE ME MONEY!!!


I'll get right on-waaaaait a miiinute!
 
Displayed 226 of 226 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report