Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Rand Paul.... you been warned but people don't care


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:09 AM

You are going to regret the day when the gov't reserve the right to kill US citizens or allow collateral murder to stop a "suspected" terrorist or want to be terrorist

I can't believe that a president much less someone who wins a NObel Peace prize would ever allow such powers to be on the books

Considering the gov't never have a define clear cut description of what a terrorist actually consist of. Where the word terrorist is use so liberally anyone can be labeled as one

#2 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:23 AM

Are you threatening Rand Paul?
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#3 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:04 AM

I don't know anything can be precieved as a threat these days...

Hey that kid that bit his sandwich into looking like a gun.... got expelled from school...:applause:

#4 Blaster man

Blaster man

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:15 AM

You are going to regret the day when the gov't reserve the right to kill US citizens or allow collateral murder to stop a "suspected" terrorist or want to be terrorist

I can't believe that a president much less someone who wins a NObel Peace prize would ever allow such powers to be on the books

Considering the gov't never have a define clear cut description of what a terrorist actually consist of. Where the word terrorist is use so liberally anyone can be labeled as one


Something tells me you don't know your American history if you think this is the first time that the government has killed citizens illegally.

#5 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:56 AM

He won't be taken seriously until he ditches the perm

#6 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:25 AM

Welcome back shocker!
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!

#7 Jruth

Jruth

    No trite shit crew gamer bro

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:30 AM

I still don't think that's a perm.

Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#8 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:49 AM

I was glued to C-SPAN all night. I was disappointed more senators did not show up to debate him. Durbin was about the only person pushing back.

If Rand Paul does run in 2016, it'll probably be the first time I vote for a Republican presidential candidate.

#9 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:06 AM

Welcome back shocker!

I see his name as the thread creator, yet I see no post, odd.:lol:
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

#10 joeboosauce

joeboosauce

    Snarf! Get in the...

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:12 PM

At least Paul forced a clarification, or rather backpedal, from the Obama admin's asserion that it has the legal right to murder US citizens on US soil at will. Oh yeah, and they (paraphrasing) "of course, won't use this."

I have major issues with Rand (besides his namesake) but I supported him in this move. Too bad he didn't filibuster the nomination of this scumbag Brennan. At least he brought attention to the issue of drones.
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#11 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

Well Paul only force a clarification, that the gov't won't murder you if you aren't in "armed" combat against the USA

Now if you are "armed" I am pretty sure you and everyone within your vicinity is fair game.

The USA didn't have a problem murdering a 16yr old american boy to kill his father tho... So you get the message

#12 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:40 PM

At least Paul forced a clarification, or rather backpedal, from the Obama admin's asserion that it has the legal right to murder US citizens on US soil at will. Oh yeah, and they (paraphrasing) "of course, won't use this."

I have major issues with Rand (besides his namesake) but I supported him in this move. Too bad he didn't filibuster the nomination of this scumbag Brennan. At least he brought attention to the issue of drones.


Yah, I'm not a huge Rand Paul fan, but this filibuster had bi-partisan support, and made Holder have to say, No, of course we won't use drones to kill Americans! -Not that I trust a damn thing Holder says, but at least he's on record now. As an Oregonian, our democratic senators are a couple of the most non-party platform guys in the Senate. I love it. Wyden is a champ, and Merkeley is on his way.

#13 granturismo

granturismo

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:05 PM

But bi partisan politics aside. What Rand Paul did was highlight an issue that would have flew under the radar for many a casual viewer of news/politics, he was a credit to his country and he stood up for what he believed in and what he believed to be right.

#14 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:08 PM

But bi partisan politics aside. What Rand Paul did was highlight an issue that would have flew under the radar for many a casual viewer of news/politics, he was a credit to his country and he stood up for what he believed in and what he believed to be right.


You're assuming that non-political junkies even care. Hell, even self-described political junkies have problems conceptualizing and articulating the issues surrounding drones as seen in the two threads here. Half the talk is about bullshit like "principles" and the rest is regarding who qualifies for being droned. Being against the droning of US citizens that have committed no crimes is one of the most basic an uncontroversial stances any politician can take. It's like saying that we shouldn't be beating our kids for breathing or wiping their ass after taking a shit.

He stood around talking for 13 hours? Good for him. We could've used that bullshit the second Obama got elected instead of the Republicans crying wolf for the last 4 years. That way, we'd have front row seats to see how they've been rendering the government impotent and obstructing Obama at every turn. But he doesn't get any credit from me by taking the safest bet in the house.
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!

#15 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:21 PM

I wonder - if it's such a safe and "no brainier" of a stand, why is it pulling teeth to get the Obama administration to address it?
"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."

#16 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:51 PM

http://thehill.com/v...t-mccain-graham

I'll give him credit for not just getting in line with the rest of the GOP. Then again at the same time, that's line giving someone credit for being sane.
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

#17 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:54 PM

I wonder - if it's such a safe and "no brainier" of a stand, why is it pulling teeth to get the Obama administration to address it?


perhaps they incorrectly assumed that a US senator didn't need things explained to him like he was a child.

#18 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:55 PM

perhaps they incorrectly assumed that a US senator didn't need things explained to him like he was a child.


I don't think that's fair to say. Holder's earlier statements were wishy washy and full of opportunities to claim loopholes. It makes for great politics for Paul and the others to support the filibuster due to the drone issue, but I do think some of the less self-aggrandizing politicians that supported him are worthy of compliment. They say it's a big issue to them, it IS a big issue to me, so anything they do to make the general public at least think about it, is a win for me.

#19 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:38 PM

MOST of the US SENATORS could give two shits about us as the people, they will all do their own thing while finding new ways to control us.

Paul brought up many points but it was all dismissed, which is a huge mistake.

It boggles my mind how we we started with the Patriot Act 1, 2, 3 etc etc, to allowing what basically amounts to a sexual assault in order to get in a plane, and now in 10 years we have reach the point where the gov't can legally just send a unarmed drone to kill you.

WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PEOPLE......

While the other thread had bunch of gun nuts ramblings on, I can't help but maybe they might be right in their fear ...

#20 Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 12:12 AM

perhaps they incorrectly assumed that a US senator didn't need things explained to him like he was a child.


The institution doing the explaining drone bombs hospitals, schools, funerals, and weddings. Oh, and they murdered a 16 year old American citizen because his dad (also an American citizen) wasn't politically correct. So yeah, they need to explain it as though they're talking to a child.

At least Paul forced a clarification, or rather backpedal, from the Obama admin's asserion that it has the legal right to murder US citizens on US soil at will. Oh yeah, and they (paraphrasing) "of course, won't use this."

I have major issues with Rand (besides his namesake) but I supported him in this move. Too bad he didn't filibuster the nomination of this scumbag Brennan. At least he brought attention to the issue of drones.


That's what his 13 hour thing on Wednesday was, a filibuster of Brennan's nomination.

Edited by Feeding the Abscess, 09 March 2013 - 12:38 AM.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

#21 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:59 AM

The institution doing the explaining drone bombs hospitals, schools, funerals, and weddings. Oh, and they murdered a 16 year old American citizen because his dad (also an American citizen) wasn't politically correct. So yeah, they need to explain it as though they're talking to a child.

.


1.) that doesn't even make sense.

2.) that's NOT what Paul's filibuster was about.

3.) Stop listening to Alex Jones...It's not good for you

#22 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:59 AM

the only thing Paul did right was showing how great talking filibusters are....it's good theatre

#23 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:39 AM

the only thing Paul did right was showing how great talking filibusters are....it's good theatre


So then what was Wyden's (D-OR) speech during the filibuster for? He's a senior senator who doesn't need the press for a run at President in 2016. I think you're drastically underestimating the impact. I don't think it was the greatest thing since a founding father speech, but he had one, very specific point that he wanted clarification on, and he forced Holder's hand to state when they wouldn't use a drone strike on a US citizen on American soil. It brought the idea prominently onto the public stage, and actually used the appropriate platform to get the point across. It would have been nice if Reid, or that pathetic wretch Lindsey Graham stepped up in a leadership role and demanded clarification, but they're gutless cowards.

I'm most impressed by Wyden in all of this, but thankful of Paul for organizing it.

#24 Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:24 AM

1.) that doesn't even make sense.

2.) that's NOT what Paul's filibuster was about.

3.) Stop listening to Alex Jones...It's not good for you


1. If the government is going to assassinate American citizens abroad, has wholesale murdered Native Americans in its past, and is currently slaughtering foreign peoples every day in a global war on terror, it's a legitimate question to ask if it will use drone strikes on people it deems to be enemy combatants - the term used to describe Anwar Al-Awlaki - here in the U.S.

2. Then why did he bring up Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son?

3. Glenn Greenwald has written dozens of articles on the government's drone program. You should read more of him. It'll be good for you.
Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

#25 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 09 March 2013 - 12:09 PM

Paul did seem to have one 'question' that needed to be answered before he ended the filibuster: can Americans be targeted by predator drones while they're on American soil?

He did talk about other things but the condition of ending his filibuster seemed to be hinged on that one question being answered. And needing to take a wicked piss.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#26 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

1. If the government is going to assassinate American citizens abroad, has wholesale murdered Native Americans in its past, and is currently slaughtering foreign peoples every day in a global war on terror, it's a legitimate question to ask if it will use drone strikes on people it deems to be enemy combatants - the term used to describe Anwar Al-Awlaki - here in the U.S.

2. Then why did he bring up Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son?

3. Glenn Greenwald has written dozens of articles on the government's drone program. You should read more of him. It'll be good for you.



sure but what does any of that have to do with explaining things like a child would understand?

Paul mentioned a lot of things during the speech but (as noted) it was about one issue. As said by Paul

" No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court". I personally would removed the words "by a drone" but hey, that's just me.

Clearly Paul seems okay with drones being used as intended on foreign soil on suspected terrorists. He's called for the use of drones on the border. If he wants more oversight-THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE NOMINEE BRENNEN HAS SAID HE WANTS TO DO. Move it from the CIA to DOD. If it was about due process- he didn't need drones to start the conversation. If it was about action- where is the legislation (although he did introduce after the fact)


One ridiculous, sensationalized, unlikely, "hasn't even come close to happening" issue. And as soon as the White House clarifies it further for him. Paul fucking rolled over! Some hero.

I've read Greenwald but that doesn't mean I need to worship him.

#27 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:39 PM

So then what was Wyden's (D-OR) speech during the filibuster for?


He agreed with the question being raised. What I am saying is that there are real and legit questions about due process in this country / drone use worldwide/ executive powers. But the Venn diagram of these issue was such a tiny silver, it hardly had any real meaning at all.

#28 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:47 PM

And as soon as the White House clarifies it further for him. Paul fucking rolled over!


Wasn't that what Paul wanted - clarification on the White House's stance?
"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."

#29 usickenme

usickenme

    I'm the a-hole

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:58 PM

Wasn't that what Paul wanted - clarification on the White House's stance?


Keep up. The post I was responding mentioned other issues like drone strikes on Americans outside the US. (i.e. al-awlaki and his son). Neither Holder or Paul mentioned this

#30 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:22 PM

Paul wanted, all along, the official stance from the White House regarding the use of drone strikes within US borders.

The White House clarified their stance.

If he then went on and asked about drone strikes outside the US, the chicken gallery would be clucking stuff about "moving the goal posts" and such. Maybe, one day, Paul will pull another stunt like this and ask for official policy on overseas drone strikes.
"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."