The "Stay Classy, Obama" Thread

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Brennan_Hearing

Brennan might as well have been at a tea party. What little Senator Wyden was able to ask him was obviously responded to coyly — albeit inconsistently — by Brennan.

Obama maybe couldn't safely choose Brennan some time back due to his ties with torture during Bush years, but I guess enough time has passed that he can easily get away with it now.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...licy-paul-filibustering-cia-pick-brennan?lite

Instead of asking stupid questions about Libya, this is what Republicans should have been doing all along. Drone policy and actual trials for enemy combatants should have been a priority a long time ago. Mitt Romney should have beat up Obama on this, GITMO, and areas of the war such as this.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that's assuming Romney had differing opinions than Obama on those things, which he didn't.
 
I was going to say, they could only beat him up over it if their own opinions differed, which I doubt they do. Drone attacks and GITMO are probably the few things republicans like about what he's done.
 
I rescind my praise of Rand Paul. Hardball played him making some rant about power and Hitler during it. Republicans make sure that any time you praise them that you end up with egg on your face.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We'll see on the left, sure.

On the right, we'll see hand wringing and deep enjoyment of holding a man to a standard of accountability that they never afforded the prior President while he was in office. In 2013, it's easy to say that Bush overstepped legal boundaries, that the PATRIOT Act stripped us of constitutional protections, military tribunals were antithetical to American ideals of justice, Guantanamo Bay should be closed, etc.

But if you're smiling because people are holding Obama to task in 2013 for this, ask yourself where you were, what you were doing, and who you voted for in 2000, 2004, and 2008.[/QUOTE]

My children didn't vote for any of this.....yet people will point fingers and blame the other party like little ignorant children because they are towing the party line behind them.

The truth is Bush was terrible....Obama is worse. I don't limit my thoughts to one party when saying to myself that certain things these guys do is wrong.
 
[quote name='lowgear26']
The truth is Bush was terrible....Obama is worse. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps if I was only voting on drone usage...but I wasn't.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I rescind my praise of Rand Paul. Hardball played him making some rant about power and Hitler during it. Republicans make sure that any time you praise them that you end up with egg on your face.[/QUOTE]
A person who is wrong once can never be right again?
 
[quote name='lowgear26']The truth is Bush was terrible....Obama is worse.[/QUOTE]

ehh... I don't know. I can think of some things that Obama has facilitated that I'm glad to see. I really struggle when it comes to Dubya.

Pure policy-wise, they're both terrible... And if we go by what they say vs. what they do, I'd totally say that Obama is the biggest chump (which is what irks me the most... I'd rather have a guy punch me in the face and say he hates me than have him say I'm his best friend, then punch me)... but pure policy-wise? Naw, I give that turd-trophy to Bush.
 
[quote name='usickenme']In Paul's case, yes[/QUOTE]

Yup. This is the probably the first and only time I can think that I have ever heard him say something I agree with, and instead of making a principled and impassioned speech that clearly illustrates his point, he goes off the handle. This whole Obama is a tyrant and wants to overthrow America and become a king shit is mind blowing. I just wish that these nut jobs would live in the real world and stop with the crazy bullshit they feed their party. He had a good point, and sabotaged himself to get points with his base.

And before anyone says he didn't say that, yeah he didn't say that, but he said that. Kind of like how people who aren't racist claim that Obama was born in Kenya.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Yup. This is the probably the first and only time I can think that I have ever heard him say something I agree with, and instead of making a principled and impassioned speech that clearly illustrates his point, he goes off the handle. This whole Obama is a tyrant and wants to overthrow America and become a king shit is mind blowing. I just wish that these nut jobs would live in the real world and stop with the crazy bullshit they feed their party. He had a good point, and sabotaged himself to get points with his base.

And before anyone says he didn't say that, yeah he didn't say that, but he said that. Kind of like how people who aren't racist claim that Obama was born in Kenya.[/QUOTE]

Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald
Yes, Rand Paul - like all politicians (eg Obama) - holds some awful views. You're not marrying him. Just supporting him *on these issues*.
 
Yeah it's really coming off as " I hate the fact that Obama has drones".

I wonder if Paul is okay with individual states having drones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to wonder, given that the right has drastically overeacted to nearly every action Obama has taken, what is there left to say if any of it was true? I mean the guy is already a socialist dictator from Kenya in the same vein as Hitler, what would there be left to accuse him of being were he actually any of those things?
 
Who cares if he's right, he's not one of us, that means he's wrong! Same old tribalism I've come to expect.

Thank god that someone was brave enough and determined enough to take this opportunity to finally have this discussion in a meaningful way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='usickenme']Yeah it's really coming off as " I hate the fact that Obama has drones".

I wonder if Paul is okay with individual states having drones.[/QUOTE]

i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg


edit: Btw, Sanders did it better because at least he actually discussed the issue rather than using filler from old movies to take up time.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Did you miss the part where they were essentially debating Dick Durbin?[/QUOTE]

Who is "they" and what do you think the parties were "debating?"
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Who cares if he's right, he's not one of us, that means he's wrong! Same old tribalism I've come to expect.

Thank god that someone was brave enough and determined enough to take this opportunity to finally have this discussion in a meaningful way.[/QUOTE]

If you could indulge me as to the reason Paul took to the floor to discuss drones, please.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Who cares if he's right, he's not one of us, that means he's wrong! Same old tribalism I've come to expect.

Thank god that someone was brave enough and determined enough to take this opportunity to finally have this discussion in a meaningful way.[/QUOTE]


please it is not a meaningful discussion *, it's a charade. An interesting, cool-to-see charade but one none-the-less. Sure I agree with Paul's position (and wow, he really went out on a ledge for that one) but that doesn't mean I give him a pass for taking it on Now, or the genesis of the whole thing (talk about tribalism), or that fact that while he is "defending" this particular freedom he is happily willing to sell a dozen other freedoms off to corporate interests. Once again the GOP is more concerned with imaginary threats than real problems.

It's so transparent.


Maybe that's okay to you. I ain't that easy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone who thinks the Pauls are genuinely concerned about this country is kidding themselves. They're concerned that the country isn't what they think it should be, that's it. They won't be happy until the union is destroyed and we're a loose group of states completely independent from one another.

That family is a joke in and of itself, even their own party laughs at them most the time.
 
If you object to drones, why can't you support the fact that someone is criticizing them, regardless of who it is? Do you ignore/not vote for politicians who you don't agree with 100%?
 
[quote name='usickenme']or that fact that while he is "defending" this particular freedom he is happily willing to sell a dozen other freedoms off to corporate interests. Once again the GOP is more concerned with imaginary threats than real problems.
[/QUOTE]

What has he voted for that gave away my freedom to a corporate interest?
 
[quote name='IRHari']If you object to drones, why can't you support the fact that someone is criticizing them, regardless of who it is? Do you ignore/not vote for politicians who you don't agree with 100%?[/QUOTE]

He is conditioned to think that X is good and Y is bad and doesn't have the think on his own ability to differentiate. Which is why the majority of his posts are +1s to myke or dohdough's posts.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If you object to drones, why can't you support the fact that someone is criticizing them, regardless of who it is? Do you ignore/not vote for politicians who you don't agree with 100%?[/QUOTE]
Of course I support the fact that he's criticizing drone use, I don't support his likely motives for it, however. In other words, I don't believe Paul is some white knight crusading against the unethical use of drones. He's either using this stunt to get some attention for himself, or just as an avenue of attack against an administration he'll never agree with in the first place. Add to that, his main concern is drone use against Americans, he doesn't seem extremely concerned about how many other innocent non-Americans have been killed by them.

It just seems disingenuous to me. Someone in direct opposition to the administration is criticizing them, wowzers.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What has he voted for that gave away my freedom to a corporate interest?[/QUOTE]

poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was he is willing to sell out your health, safety, opportunity and well being over his naive devotion of free markets. Yeah, he will fight against drones dropping bombs on your head but if you get cancer and your insurance company drops you...he's ok with that.

additionally he is very much against reproduction rights and clearly wouldn't be willing to stand up for civil rights.

also

http://www.scribd.com/doc/129147170/Senator-Rand-Paul-Second-Letter

Holder's one word response to Rand ridiculous question about bombing regular americans
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']If anyone thinks that Rand Paul is doing this only for personal gain is a fool. Obviously they have not payed attention to elder Paul.[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul isn't as principled as most think and Rand Paul is riding the ideological and political coattails of his father and is even less principled. Ron Paul isn't above greasing the wheels of Congress for his son and anyone would be a fool to think that there isn't any politiking going on considering that this is the elder Paul's last term.
 
[quote name='usickenme']clearly wouldn't be willing to stand up for civil rights.[/QUOTE]

He's openly expressed his thorough distaste for the 14th amendment (despite being a "Constitutionalist"), so it's not truly a matter of unwillingness, but overt hostility.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He's openly expressed his thorough distaste for the 14th amendment (despite being a "Constitutionalist"), so it's not truly a matter of unwillingness, but overt hostility.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. He wanted to amend an amendment as it was created for children of slaves, but he disagreed with illegal immigrants having kids that automatically became citizens. It was a fair point of view.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Ron Paul isn't as principled as most think and Rand Paul is riding the ideological and political coattails of his father and is even less principled. Ron Paul isn't above greasing the wheels of Congress for his son and anyone would be a fool to think that there isn't any politiking going on considering that this is the elder Paul's last term.[/QUOTE]

Ron Paul was one of the most principled politicians of our lifetime. Obviously what happened during the last election was to help his son, Rand, become more popular among the GOP. Last night's fillibuster changed that and now he is his own man. These two fight for liberty and I will do my best to support them. Also Ron Paul is not in congress anymore.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Ron Paul was one of the most principled politicians of our lifetime. Obviously what happened during the last election was to help his son, Rand, become more popular among the GOP. Last night's fillibuster changed that and now he is his own man. These two fight for liberty and I will do my best to support them.[/quote]
Principled and dogmatic are two different things. He's the latter.

The only reason why he was able to do what he did was because he got permission from the party leadership. He's no more his own man than any Kennedy in office right now.

The only "liberty" those two are interested in are strictly for white males and anyone else can get fucked. Anti-federal power!=MOAR FREEDUMZ on the state level.

Also Ron Paul is not in congress anymore.
Click to expand...
Got me there, but he's far from powerless.
 
No shit , Paul didn't need a CIA nomination to talk about due process disappearing..,its happens everyday to the poor and minorities


Call me when he spends 13 hrs on people that aren't him
 
[quote name='usickenme']if anyone ignores your qualifier "only", they are also a fool.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, not only for personal gain, no. They'd also be a fool to think he's doing it only out of genuine concern for the public. Randy is trying to make a name for himself as well.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Principled and dogmatic are two different things. He's the latter.

The only reason why he was able to do what he did was because he got permission from the party leadership. He's no more his own man than any Kennedy in office right now.

The only "liberty" those two are interested in are strictly for white males and anyone else can get fucked. Anti-federal power!=MOAR FREEDUMZ on the state level.


Got me there, but he's far from powerless.[/QUOTE]I highly doubt he needed permission from leadership for this, especially when McCain and Graham attacked him this morning. -Obviously what he is doing right now helps him politically but to be so convinced that he does this only for personal gain is again foolish.

You liberty comment completely baffles me. I hope I am just too sleepy to understand it.

What is your point about Ron Paul? He is retired and he attends liberty events, what is the problem with that?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I highly doubt he needed permission from leadership for this, especially when McCain and Graham attacked him this morning. -Obviously what he is doing right now helps him politically but to be so convinced that he does this only for personal gain is again foolish.[/quote]
McCain and Graham are the Republican congressional leadership? Since when? The Republicans are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Rubio will never pull in the Hispanic/Latino vote, the brand is poisoned for blacks and Asians, instead of going with "easy" stuff like equal rights and privileges for the LBGT community, they're doubling down, and do I even need to mention abortion? Paul is just another "young" face. If this was Paul going "maverick" he'd be done as a senator. That means he'll be a lame duck and removed from any committees he's on. Not to mention that when he's up for re-election, he'll get primaried and have his campaign funding pulled.

You liberty comment completely baffles me. I hope I am just too sleepy to understand it.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you should stop using it like a deus ex machina.

What is your point about Ron Paul? He is retired and he attends liberty events, what is the problem with that?
Click to expand...
"Liberty events?" Are libertarians the only ones that own that term or something?:rofl:

My point is that he still has influence. Just because someone stops being a senator doesn't mean they lose it. It wasn't a tough comment to understand. I have no idea what speaking at events has to do with what I said.
 
[quote name='usickenme']No shit , Paul didn't need a CIA nomination to talk about due process disappearing..,its happens everyday to the poor and minorities


Call me when he spends 13 hrs on people that aren't him[/QUOTE]

Isn't he against the drug war, unlike Obama?
 
Ron Paul is probably the most principled polictian you'll find. And someone said he's not as principled as people think. I mean really? It seems it's the first reaction to spin something into a negative. the 13 hr rand paul drone thing is about drones, bringing up or claiming he's selfish wouldn't do it about other things, or he's against this and that is just so irrelevant and avoiding the subject at hand not to mention mostly untrue what is being blurted around.
 
I like how libertarians distrust politicians until one actually labels themselves a libertarian, then somehow they're cool. We can discuss drone use, but I'm not going to ignore my instincts telling them that this isn't completely altruistic.
 
Being against drone strikes on US citizens isn't exactly something I'd call a radical, principled stand.

I'm like, against bad stuff and stuff.
 
While I do wish more of our politicians would make similar stands, it is true that this should be a no brainer. I mean who is ok with drone strikes against people in America? Anyone? I get that he just wanted a guarantee, but this was a lot of political theater as well.
 
[quote name='Clak']While I do wish more of our politicians would make similar stands, it is true that this should be a no brainer. I mean who is ok with drone strikes against people in America? Anyone? I get that he just wanted a guarantee, but this was a lot of political theater as well.[/QUOTE]
With an increasingly militarized police force, it makes sense to want/have drones that can kill people. If anything, Paul may seemingly be against all drone strikes directed at US citizens as an exercise of federal power, but he'd have no issue with state governments using them. Now that would be consistent with his ideology. As for to non-US citizens, he'd probably say, fuck'em.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Being against drone strikes on US citizens isn't exactly something I'd call a radical, principled stand.

I'm like, against bad stuff and stuff.[/QUOTE]

Ask people how they feel about the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Alwaki
 
[quote name='dohdough']With an increasingly militarized police force, it makes sense to want/have drones that can kill people. If anything, Paul may seemingly be against all drone strikes directed at US citizens as an exercise of federal power, but he'd have no issue with state governments using them. Now that would be consistent with his ideology. As for to non-US citizens, he'd probably say, fuck'em.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, if it was the state of whatever employing drones, that'd be state's rights. Like I said earlier, he doesn't seem too concerned about the other non-U.S. innocent citizens killed.
 
[quote name='dohdough']McCain and Graham are the Republican congressional leadership? Since when? The Republicans are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Rubio will never pull in the Hispanic/Latino vote, the brand is poisoned for blacks and Asians, instead of going with "easy" stuff like equal rights and privileges for the LBGT community, they're doubling down, and do I even need to mention abortion? Paul is just another "young" face. If this was Paul going "maverick" he'd be done as a senator. That means he'll be a lame duck and removed from any committees he's on. Not to mention that when he's up for re-election, he'll get primaried and have his campaign funding pulled.
[/QUOTE]
They are the senior senators in the GOP, they influence the leadership more than you think. Did you know Mitch McConnel bet against Rand Paul and was using his power to make he would lose the first time Rand ran for senator? Rand Paul is currently the most principled senator aside from Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. They are playing politics and therefore picking their issues carefully. Just because sometimes they are playing along does not make them sell outs. Oh and Rubio.. well he is just a tool.


Then maybe you should stop using it like a deus ex machina.
Click to expand...
Could you explain on wtf are you talking about? From the start please.


"Liberty events?" Are libertarians the only ones that own that term or something?:rofl:

My point is that he still has influence. Just because someone stops being a senator doesn't mean they lose it. It wasn't a tough comment to understand. I have no idea what speaking at events has to do with what I said.
Click to expand...
The reason why I called them Liberty events is because that is what they are called. Libertarians attend these. Really do not see what you find amusing.

Yes, Ron Paul has influence. I do not see your point. Why did you bring this up at all? I never questioned his popularity or influence. Now my point is that both Pauls are great politicians and only brought positive change during their years in office.
 
[quote name='dohdough']With an increasingly militarized police force, it makes sense to want/have drones that can kill people. If anything, Paul may seemingly be against all drone strikes directed at US citizens as an exercise of federal power, but he'd have no issue with state governments using them. Now that would be consistent with his ideology. As for to non-US citizens, he'd probably say, fuck'em.[/QUOTE]

Could you provide any evidence that supports that statement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top