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 66
    More: Amusing, Rand Paul, John McCain, Republican, dorms, filibusters, senior senator, laws of war, online social networks  
•       •       •

2596 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-08 06:23:44 PM
9 votes:

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 04:13:11 PM
8 votes:
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 06:12:18 PM
6 votes:

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 06:46:01 PM
5 votes:

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 06:29:56 PM
5 votes:

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 05:40:07 PM
5 votes:

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 03:47:56 PM
5 votes:

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 05:46:43 PM
4 votes:

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 07:22:59 PM
3 votes:

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 06:50:15 PM
3 votes:

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 06:49:30 PM
3 votes:

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 06:21:27 PM
3 votes:

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 08:36:40 PM
2 votes:

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 07:30:29 PM
2 votes:

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 07:26:47 PM
2 votes:
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 07:25:31 PM
2 votes:

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 07:10:53 PM
2 votes:
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 07:05:15 PM
2 votes:

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 07:01:14 PM
2 votes:

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 07:01:12 PM
2 votes:

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 06:56:25 PM
2 votes:

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 06:34:39 PM
2 votes:
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 06:24:51 PM
2 votes:
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 06:08:52 PM
2 votes:

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 05:45:49 PM
2 votes:
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 05:19:18 PM
2 votes:
...says the man who completely sold out to the worst elements of the GOP.
2013-03-08 01:46:01 PM
2 votes:
Can I get an "Oh SNAP!" from the con-gregation?
2013-03-09 10:56:04 AM
1 votes:

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 08:21:28 AM
1 votes:

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 07:20:02 AM
1 votes:

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 03:27:57 AM
1 votes:
Funny thing about libertarians: I keep getting older, they stay the same age.
2013-03-09 12:40:34 AM
1 votes:

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 12:28:27 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-08 10:14:53 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:52 PM
1 votes:

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 09:32:27 PM
1 votes:

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 09:15:23 PM
1 votes:

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 08:47:11 PM
1 votes:
img48.imageshack.us

Sure thing, John...
2013-03-08 08:44:56 PM
1 votes:

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


This can't possibly be a serious question.
2013-03-08 08:18:42 PM
1 votes:

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 08:13:20 PM
1 votes:

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 08:12:21 PM
1 votes:

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 07:42:09 PM
1 votes:
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 07:25:05 PM
1 votes:

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 07:22:59 PM
1 votes:
www.catholic.com
2013-03-08 06:58:37 PM
1 votes:

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 06:57:47 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:28 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:48 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:42 PM
1 votes:

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 06:07:19 PM
1 votes:
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 06:01:01 PM
1 votes:

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 05:47:43 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:49 PM
1 votes:

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 05:31:40 PM
1 votes:
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 05:24:27 PM
1 votes:

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 05:14:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:10:35 PM
1 votes:

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


www.jamesrocchi.com
2013-03-08 05:08:07 PM
1 votes:
actually, no he doesn't welcome to the base people like you created, McCain
2013-03-08 04:48:29 PM
1 votes:
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 04:38:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:20:46 PM
1 votes:
Senator McCain...I bet he was something 50 years ago.
2013-03-08 04:13:30 PM
1 votes:
As if his selection of Palin wasn't a political stunt.
2013-03-08 04:09:34 PM
1 votes:
Good point about knowing what you're talking about before speaking. You should try it sometime, John.
2013-03-08 01:57:15 PM
1 votes:
BENGHAZI.
2013-03-08 01:49:30 PM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report