Brady Marino
Footballguy
This is so awesome.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Three Cheers for Rand Paul (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dinsy Ejotuz
- Start date
How stupid he should just wait until Americans are fully conditioned to accept drone strikes here as they are in Nations we are not at war with. Stupid indeed.
Fennis
Footballguy
No one has the balls to stand up to real issue. Only fictional ones. If the fictional issue is such a concern, he should introduce legislation. you know being a legislator and all.
Nothing real about the US Attorney General answering yes when asked if the President could legally authorize deadly force on American soil against American citizens.It's all fiction until it happens. Then well if it does. Hey it was needed. ( unless a Bush is President ) then its all righteous outrage.
Quez
Footballguy
He trick me and the rest of America.'bigbottom said:'Quez said:
If one of the reasons you voted for Obama was because he wanted to repeal the Patriot Act, I would think that you would have been confident that he had in fact made repealing the Patriot Act one of his campaign issues.'Quez said:
Quez
Footballguy
The issue is that the legislation needs to catch up to the technology. There are many people, including Rand, that are against the ones going on in Yemen, Pakistan, etc. The problem is that it's all secret, so we don't know anything about the current strikes. They do however know that they are not always killing threats that are doing anything harmful. They just press a button and kill them, no matter where they are. No judge, no jury, just boom. Are they bad people? Probably, but what happens if they use the same practice here in the USA? So, they do have the balls to stand up to the "real issues" they just haven't gotten anywhere. That is why they are trying to stand up to this before it ever becomes an issue.
Technically, it's more difficult to get a wire tap on someone than it is to kill someone with a drone. That's pretty messed up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Widbil83
Footballguy
He's been there for like 7 hours ago.
Quez
Footballguy
Oh, I saw him tweeting supportive things hours ago, but didn't realize he had spoken.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
He won't stop until the domestic drone strikes stop.
shader
Footballguy
He's been the number one trending topic on twitter all day. Not easy to do
Fennis
Footballguy
All I'm saying is we're targeting and killing American citizens and their teen age sons now. Filibuster the CIA director over that.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Is this the one where he starts rambling on about Hitler?
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
On the Daily Show they showed him talking about dropping bombs on Jane Fonda.
oso diablo
Footballguy
of course, what he actually said was that while he didn't like Jane Fonda, he didn't think the govt should be authorized to rain bombs on her.
Short Corner
Footballguy
We already have.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
B-Deep
Footballguy
of course, this was evident from the start
Brady Marino
Footballguy
Senator John McCain today: "If Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts than fire up impressionable libertarian kids"
And the GOP wonders why they can't reach the younger generations. McCain is the mouthpiece for the old ways.
And the GOP wonders why they can't reach the younger generations. McCain is the mouthpiece for the old ways.
tom22406
Footballguy
McCain and Graham(who also got his panties in a bunch)need to just go away already.Out of date and out of touch.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
B-Deep
Footballguy
Does anyone in here really think the administration's position was that they could kill someone in a cafe with an armed drone?
I'd actually have thought more of this if it was about if overseas drone use should continue as it currently does
This seems like the administration was being just vague enough for Paul to read as vague and proceed with all of this. After an hour it was clear the administration was going to at some point just say no, it was clear to me that was what they had said in the morning
although if words are important, such that the original statement was parsed in this manner, why isn't the new one?
I see no definition of "engaged in combat" if someone is on a phone at a cafe with a terrorist who is acquiring goods that will be used for terror is that "engaged in combat"?
what does american soil mean? Could they use a drone on someone in american waters?
lets parse the crap out of this!!!!
I'd actually have thought more of this if it was about if overseas drone use should continue as it currently does
This seems like the administration was being just vague enough for Paul to read as vague and proceed with all of this. After an hour it was clear the administration was going to at some point just say no, it was clear to me that was what they had said in the morning
although if words are important, such that the original statement was parsed in this manner, why isn't the new one?
I see no definition of "engaged in combat" if someone is on a phone at a cafe with a terrorist who is acquiring goods that will be used for terror is that "engaged in combat"?
what does american soil mean? Could they use a drone on someone in american waters?
lets parse the crap out of this!!!!
bigbottom
Footballguy
Filibuster time!
Rand said this wasn't about a fear of Obama using Obama's policies. Think about things like the mention of general welfare in the constitution... it can still can be debated today. And whether you favor allowing a large government or small one that should worry you, because its up to the discretion of who is reading it. Rand got a written letter stating that Obama's policies can not be construed by latter presidents to allow for the drone bombing of non-combatant citizens, that's a pretty commendable task if you ask me.The AG quoted Paul's question and responded to it with a "no" answer. So if your looking for the meanings of the words you'd have to look to Rand, and I bet he'd be willing to clarify exactly what he meant.
timschochet
Footballguy
I only heard snippets, but damn he sounds as loony and paranoid as his dad.
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Run It Up
Footballguy
Pretty accurate.
quickhands
Footballguy
Next time a cop ambushes and kills someone. Let me know
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Tea Party meeting attendees are on notice. We will drone you.
Let me know when a Drone kills an innocent American on on American Soil!! If an American is on foreign soil with terrorist, I personally think that is fair game.I find this funny, that those that are supporting unlimited guns are also the ones that cry wolf on this. President Bush took more of our freedoms away than Obama has (at this pointi
oso diablo
Footballguy
wouldn't this fall under the Posse Comitatus Act? As in, no, it would not be allowed.
oso diablo
Footballguy
like what?
Patriot Act Down?? for one
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
He signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
Buddy Ball 2K3
Footballguy
Good thing Obama didn't extend this PoS legislation.
timschochet
Footballguy
I think Obama should just come out and say he's going to send drones after all gun owners because otherwise they will prevent him from imposing his desired one world United Nations dictatorship. They're on to him anyhow, so why not just admit to it?
jamny
Footballguy
I'm more concerned with our drone use around the rest of the world. We should not be able to fly a drone anywhere that we wouldn't be allowed to fly a manned military aircraft. We're setting a dangerous precident and will only have ourselves to blame when some other country sends a drone across our border to bomb something. We should be setting a higher standard of use for them.
B-Deep
Footballguy
holder had already answered nohe was asked could they kill a us citizen in a cafe, and he said it would not be appropriate to do that rather than arrest them
when cruz did not like that holder said no
Mr. Holder repeatedly said that it would not be appropriate to use lethal force rather than arresting the suspect, but Mr. Cruz said he was asking a “simple question” about its constitutionality, not its propriety. Finally, Mr. Holder said: “Translate my ‘appropriate’ to ‘no.’ I thought I was saying ‘no.’ All right? ‘No.’ ”
the letter reiterated what he had already said and what everyone knows
and latter presidents can still interpret their ability to act as they want, nothing that happened prevented that, unless paul intends to make ever incoming president write this letter and will filibuster until they do
just because Holder as AG for this administration said no does not in any way ensure the next AG for a different administration will say the same
Quez
Footballguy
Then why was he beating around the bush when Cruz was directly asking him?
B-Deep
Footballguy
that was dumb too. presidents and their peeps don't like to say they cannot do things.but in the end Holder changed his not appropriate to no, so he had already said exactly what the letter said. We all believe that was the law anyway.
I think Paul's issue is the drone program in general, but what he attacked was a boogeyman that did not matter much. I have doubts, myself, about if we should be killing people so indiscriminately around the globe. unfortunately those questions were not asked or answered.
Quez
Footballguy
This wasn't as cut & dry as you make it sound. If it was Paul would have been up there by himself not joined by other Republicans and Dems. Right now there are quite a few people that are supporting Rand for this.holder had already answered nohe was asked could they kill a us citizen in a cafe, and he said it would not be appropriate to do that rather than arrest them
when cruz did not like that holder said no
Mr. Holder repeatedly said that it would not be appropriate to use lethal force rather than arresting the suspect, but Mr. Cruz said he was asking a “simple question” about its constitutionality, not its propriety. Finally, Mr. Holder said: “Translate my ‘appropriate’ to ‘no.’ I thought I was saying ‘no.’ All right? ‘No.’ ”
the letter reiterated what he had already said and what everyone knows
and latter presidents can still interpret their ability to act as they want, nothing that happened prevented that, unless paul intends to make ever incoming president write this letter and will filibuster until they do
just because Holder as AG for this administration said no does not in any way ensure the next AG for a different administration will say the same
Similar threads
