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 226
    More: Amusing, Rand Paul, John McCain, Republican, dorms, filibusters, senior senator, laws of war, online social networks  
•       •       •

2597 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 5:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

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

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