Jump to content



Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

The "Stay Classy, Obama" Thread


  • Please log in to reply
428 replies to this topic

#121 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#122 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:00 PM

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%?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#123 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:02 PM

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.


What has he voted for that gave away my freedom to a corporate interest?

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#124 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:07 PM

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%?


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.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#125 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:36 PM

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%?

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#126 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:30 PM

What has he voted for that gave away my freedom to a corporate interest?


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.co...l-Second-Letter

Holder's one word response to Rand ridiculous question about bombing regular americans

#127 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:31 PM

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.

#128 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:35 PM

if anyone ignores your qualifier "only", they are also a fool.

#129 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:38 PM

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.

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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#130 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:52 PM

clearly wouldn't be willing to stand up for civil rights.


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.
Posted Image

#131 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 07 March 2013 - 10:25 PM

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.


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.

#132 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:46 AM

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.


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.

#133 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:18 AM

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.

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.

Got me there, but he's far from powerless.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#134 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:04 AM

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

#135 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:05 AM

if anyone ignores your qualifier "only", they are also a fool.

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#136 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:11 AM

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.

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?

#137 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:48 AM

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.

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.

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?

"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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#138 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:02 AM

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


Isn't he against the drug war, unlike Obama?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#139 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:32 AM

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.

#140 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:15 PM

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#141 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:38 PM

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.
Posted Image

#142 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:22 PM

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#143 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:06 PM

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.

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.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#144 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:29 PM

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.


Ask people how they feel about the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Alwaki
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#145 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:03 PM

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.

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.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#146 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:41 PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

#147 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:42 PM

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.


Could you provide any evidence that supports that statement?

#148 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:09 PM

I, too, would like to see some kind of source for the "Rand Paul wants states to have the right to kill American Citizens via drone attacks" that I keep seeing on here.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#149 CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

    Your New Nightmare!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:18 PM

I, too, would like to see some kind of source for the "Rand Paul wants states to have the right to kill American Citizens via drone attacks" that I keep seeing on here.


He said that he has no problem if a criminal robbing a liquor store gets killed by a drone strike as he flees the establishment.

Don't have a link, but that was one of the things he stated during his 12 hour critique on drones.

Posted Image


#150 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:28 PM

But we have a bill that we're going to come forward with that we're working on that would simply say that there has to be a - a real imminent, lethal threat, something you can see. Which then I think people could agree to that. Because it's not so much the drone that we object to. If some guy's robbing a liquor store two blocks from here and the policemen come up and he comes out brandishing a gun, he or she can be shot. They once again don't get Miranda Rights, they don't get a trial, they don't get anything. If you come out brandishing a weapon and people are threatened by it, you can be shot. So it's important to know what we're talking about. We're not talking about the guy coming out of the liquor store with a weapon. Even a drone could kill him if the FBI had drones. So my objection to drones isn't so much the technology. There may be a use in law - for law enforcement here. But there are also potential, great potential for abuses.


I think the key part of that was the "a real imminent, lethal threat" clause. It seems to me, from my understanding of Rand's rant (and no, I haven't read the entire thing, because... blah.) that he's more concerned with the unrestricted, unmonitored and unaccountable use of drones to kill American Citizens. In that same section of the rant I quoted above, he mentions the FBI killing the guy that's representing "a real imminent, lethal threat" - and the FBI isn't a state organization.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."