What's new
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)

Then why was he beating around the bush when Cruz was directly asking him?
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.
I completely agree with this and he has been one of the main opponents of the drone program. The filibuster brought attention to the drone issue in general & cleared up what isn't clear with our overseas drone use.There is no denying our rights & liberties in general have been significantly stripped since 9/11. I understand some of it is warranted but it's starting to get out of control. Detaining people for unlimited amounts of time without charging them, warrant-less wire taps, TSA checkpoints, etc. We killed Bin Laden, most of Afganistan has been bombed, and yet they still want us to believe there is this organized AlQaeda network that constantly poses a threat to us. I think this is all part of the military industrial complex agenda. A war that last forever.

 
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!!!!
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.
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.’

:shrug:

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
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.
he was asked if they could kill an american in a cafe

he said that would not be appropriate

Cruz freaked out on the word appropriate

Holder said translate it to no, he was trying to say no

I like that Paul stood up for something he believes in. I just think he stood up for a tiny meaningless part of a larger issue

I'd like to see him stand up and get a debate over international drone use going

I am not trying to trash him, I just think what he was fighting about was kind of obvious. If he uses the attention to broaden the discussion I'd be much happier

 
Then why was he beating around the bush when Cruz was directly asking him?
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.
I completely agree with this and he has been one of the main opponents of the drone program. The filibuster brought attention to the drone issue in general & cleared up what isn't clear with our overseas drone use.There is no denying our rights & liberties in general have been significantly stripped since 9/11. I understand some of it is warranted but it's starting to get out of control. Detaining people for unlimited amounts of time without charging them, warrant-less wire taps, TSA checkpoints, etc. We killed Bin Laden, most of Afganistan has been bombed, and yet they still want us to believe there is this organized AlQaeda network that constantly poses a threat to us. I think this is all part of the military industrial complex agenda. A war that last forever.
I don't agree with this partI think the agenda is keeping us safe, but I agree we have to be careful what lines we cross to do that.

I think Obama and his administration are sincere in thinking these measures are required to keep us safe. I think Bush was before him as well.

 
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."

I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."
no it shouldn't have. Why do you think our policy on drone use is any different than our policy of dropping a missle on US soil?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."
no it shouldn't have.
So, you think there shouldn't be any transparency then in military policy. Gotcha.
 
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."
no it shouldn't have.
So, you think there shouldn't be any transparency then in military policy. Gotcha.
say what?
 
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."
:goodposting:
 
'Fennis said:
'Brady Marino said:
'Fennis said:
'xlledx said:
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."
no it shouldn't have.
So, you think there shouldn't be any transparency then in military policy. Gotcha.
say what?
You said that the question shouldn't have been answered at all. Therefore, when someone asks a questions about a policy, you feel it's best to rebuff that person.
 
'Fennis said:
'Brady Marino said:
'Fennis said:
'xlledx said:
This should have never been an issue. Holder should have just laughed and answered "No." Instead he didn't directly answer the question. That's when it became an issue. That's why Rand Paul filibustered. And because of that filibuster, the White House answered "No."I believe the Senator Minority Leader said it best when he said "Frankly, this question should have been answered a long time ago."
no it shouldn't have.
So, you think there shouldn't be any transparency then in military policy. Gotcha.
say what?
You said that the question shouldn't have been answered at all. Therefore, when someone asks a questions about a policy, you feel it's best to rebuff that person.
Fine it can be answered. Its a ridiculously stupid question.
 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate.

Thoughtful conservatives like Michael Medved are ripping into Paul- good for them.

 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate. Thoughtful conservatives like Michael Medved are ripping into Paul- good for them.
Rand Paul is a member of the Tea Party, therefore what he does is stupid?Seriously, what was so wrong about his filibuster? What problems did it cause, exactly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Quez said:
There is no denying our rights & liberties in general have been significantly stripped since 9/11.
I would deny that. Aside from having to take my shoes off to board a plane, I don't think I've been personally affected at all by any of the various security measures enacted since 9/11. That's not to say that I agree with all of them -- there are some that I would like repealed (like the kind that require banks to turn over financial information without informing you), but they're not particularly significant in and of themselves.
 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate.
When the President asserts that he has the authority to assassinate any American overseas who he deems a threat, and then raises the possibility of also killing Americans on US soil, I don't think it's paranoid or irrational for somebody to try to pin him down on exactly what it is that he thinks he can do unilaterally. The "drone" aspect is a red herring that should probably be dropped from the conversation, but otherwise it's a conversation that's apparently worth having.
 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate.
When the President asserts that he has the authority to assassinate any American overseas who he deems a threat, and then raises the possibility of also killing Americans on US soil, I don't think it's paranoid or irrational for somebody to try to pin him down on exactly what it is that he thinks he can do unilaterally. The "drone" aspect is a red herring that should probably be dropped from the conversation, but otherwise it's a conversation that's apparently worth having.
:goodposting:
 
'Quez said:
There is no denying our rights & liberties in general have been significantly stripped since 9/11.
I would deny that. Aside from having to take my shoes off to board a plane, I don't think I've been personally affected at all by any of the various security measures enacted since 9/11. That's not to say that I agree with all of them -- there are some that I would like repealed (like the kind that require banks to turn over financial information without informing you), but they're not particularly significant in and of themselves.
I would say it's not necessary for government to have actually violated one of your (previously held) rights in order for it to have been stripped. For example, if the government removed 5th Amendment protection, but hasn't yet compelled you personally to testify, it wouldn't be accurate to say government hadn't stripped you of one of your rights.
 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate. Thoughtful conservatives like Michael Medved are ripping into Paul- good for them.
Rand Paul is a member of the Tea Party, therefore what he does is stupid?Seriously, what was so wrong about his filibuster? What problems did it cause, exactly?
1.Not necessarily, but it's certainly a reasonable indicator.2. Absolutely nothing.3. None that I could see. As I wrote, it was the response that bothers me. Conservatives who should know better are cheering him on, because they honestly believe that the government presents a mortal threat to them. I regard this as the same as what the gun nuts are screaming about- it's paranoia of the highest order. It's the "Black Helicopter" guys all over again.
 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate.
When the President asserts that he has the authority to assassinate any American overseas who he deems a threat, and then raises the possibility of also killing Americans on US soil, I don't think it's paranoid or irrational for somebody to try to pin him down on exactly what it is that he thinks he can do unilaterally. The "drone" aspect is a red herring that should probably be dropped from the conversation, but otherwise it's a conversation that's apparently worth having.
Maybe it's a conversation worth having- on some level. But when you give credence to the New World Order/United Nations/Black Helicopter types, it's all out of proportion.
 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate. Thoughtful conservatives like Michael Medved are ripping into Paul- good for them.
Rand Paul is a member of the Tea Party, therefore what he does is stupid?Seriously, what was so wrong about his filibuster? What problems did it cause, exactly?
1.Not necessarily, but it's certainly a reasonable indicator.2. Absolutely nothing.3. None that I could see. As I wrote, it was the response that bothers me. Conservatives who should know better are cheering him on, because they honestly believe that the government presents a mortal threat to them. I regard this as the same as what the gun nuts are screaming about- it's paranoia of the highest order. It's the "Black Helicopter" guys all over again.
This makes no sense. There was nothing wrong with him filibustering in this manner, but when others approve of him doing so, that's wrong?I really think you're seeing things that aren't there due to your overwhelming hatred of certain groups.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate. Thoughtful conservatives like Michael Medved are ripping into Paul- good for them.
Rand Paul is a member of the Tea Party, therefore what he does is stupid?Seriously, what was so wrong about his filibuster? What problems did it cause, exactly?
1.Not necessarily, but it's certainly a reasonable indicator.2. Absolutely nothing.3. None that I could see. As I wrote, it was the response that bothers me. Conservatives who should know better are cheering him on, because they honestly believe that the government presents a mortal threat to them. I regard this as the same as what the gun nuts are screaming about- it's paranoia of the highest order. It's the "Black Helicopter" guys all over again.
This makes no sense. There was nothing wrong with him filibustering in this manner, but when others approve of him doing so, that's wrong?I really think you're seeing things that aren't there due to your overwhelming hatred of certain groups.
No you're not getting me. There is nothing wrong with what Paul did, and there is nothing wrong with people approving him.It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
People with power want more power. This is just a general fact of life. But look at America today vs when it was when it started. Over the course of time, the government has gotten more and more power and freedoms we once had are gone or limited today.So yes, I believe the people currently in power want more power. But where I differ from other party zealots is that this is true no matter which side you follow.
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
People with power want more power. This is just a general fact of life. But look at America today vs when it was when it started. Over the course of time, the government has gotten more and more power and freedoms we once had are gone or limited today.So yes, I believe the people currently in power want more power. But where I differ from other party zealots is that this is true no matter which side you follow.
Its such a tired cliche that the government has much more power today than it used to. Especially when, in the 1950s and 1960s, millionaires were being taxed something like 70%. Furthermore, do you think we have less free speech today than we did during World War I? During the McCarthy era? Did we have less personal freedom before the Warren court? Before Roe vs. Wade? Hogwash.We have more individual freedom in this country now than we have ever had before.
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
People with power want more power. This is just a general fact of life. But look at America today vs when it was when it started. Over the course of time, the government has gotten more and more power and freedoms we once had are gone or limited today.So yes, I believe the people currently in power want more power. But where I differ from other party zealots is that this is true no matter which side you follow.
We have more individual freedom in this country now than we have ever had before.
:lmao:
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
People with power want more power. This is just a general fact of life. But look at America today vs when it was when it started. Over the course of time, the government has gotten more and more power and freedoms we once had are gone or limited today.So yes, I believe the people currently in power want more power. But where I differ from other party zealots is that this is true no matter which side you follow.
Its such a tired cliche that the government has much more power today than it used to. Especially when, in the 1950s and 1960s, millionaires were being taxed something like 70%. Furthermore, do you think we have less free speech today than we did during World War I? During the McCarthy era? Did we have less personal freedom before the Warren court? Before Roe vs. Wade? Hogwash.We have more individual freedom in this country now than we have ever had before.
Word.Who cares about due process when our personal freedoms are at an all time high.
 
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...

 
It really bothers me that so many conservatives (and a few progressives as well) consider Paul a hero after this stunt. It makes me nervous that this sort of paranoia seems to be growing in this country- it takes us further away from rational debate.

Thoughtful conservatives like Michael Medved are ripping into Paul- good for them.
Rand Paul is a member of the Tea Party, therefore what he does is stupid?Seriously, what was so wrong about his filibuster? What problems did it cause, exactly?
1.Not necessarily, but it's certainly a reasonable indicator.2. Absolutely nothing.

3. None that I could see.

As I wrote, it was the response that bothers me. Conservatives who should know better are cheering him on, because they honestly believe that the government presents a mortal threat to them. I regard this as the same as what the gun nuts are screaming about- it's paranoia of the highest order. It's the "Black Helicopter" guys all over again.
First, why are the Progressives like Van Jones cheering on Paul? Is it also because Van Jones and these other Progressives honestly believe the government presents a mortal threat to them? If you believe that the Progressives are supporting Paul on principles other than fear, then why do you not believe Conservatives may be doing the same?Second, is thoughtful defined by whether the person agrees with you?

 
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law whatever the law is, the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for prolonged detention.)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use national security letters to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the governments actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as Orwellian. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.

 
Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.
I do agree that the Internet and social media do greatly reduce the chance of tyranny because competing ideas can get out and people can coordinate mass protests. As we're seeing in Syria, though, it still helps if you can bring some firepower to overthrow tyranny. Gaddafi would probably still be in power too if the population relied solely on peaceful mass protests rather than armed rebel forces.
 
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.
He voted against NDAA
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
It's not that this government will set up a dictatorship but who knows 50-100 years down the road. Yes, there is a small minority that believe it is happening right now, so what. Stop lumping them all in as Tea Party/Conservatives. Stop watching MSNBC.
 
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.
He voted against NDAA
Great, I appreciate his position on that. While wearing his libertarian clothes he has said he is against gay marriage, he's against legalization of marijuana, he against real immigration reform, he's against ending drone programs, he against closing Gitmo, hes was against the Islamic Center near Ground Zero, hes against abortion rights.
 
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturle...nd-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law "whatever the law is," the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as "Orwellian." (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.
He voted against NDAA
Great, I appreciate his position on that. While wearing his libertarian clothes he has said he is against gay marriage, he's against legalization of marijuana, he against real immigration reform, he's against ending drone programs, he against closing Gitmo, hes was against the Islamic Center near Ground Zero, hes against abortion rights.
Right, there is barely a high ranking politician that actually is for gay marriage, legalized weed, reforming immigration, ending drone programs, closing Gitmo, abortion rights, and foreign assassinations. Is that because they are just crooked evil guys or is it because that is how the people vote and those beliefs would be career suicide?
 
It's not wrong, but it bothers me. It bothers me because I don't want to see this particular viewpoint gain popularity. There's nothing "wrong" with the viewpoint, apart from the fact that I strongly disagree with it.
What viewpoint? That we should be worried about things like this and the NDAA having the potential for abuse later on?
The belief that the current government of the United States is desirous of setting up a dictatorship. This is the underlying implication behind much of the support for Paul, particularly among conservatives of a certain type- the same ones who believe the government is out to steal their guns, impose socialism, bring about the New World Order, etc.
It's not that this government will set up a dictatorship but who knows 50-100 years down the road. Yes, there is a small minority that believe it is happening right now, so what. Stop lumping them all in as Tea Party/Conservatives. Stop watching MSLSD.
Fixed that for you!Al Sharpton is the bomb I tell ya :lmao:

 
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.
The populace of every nation on the planet, now and throughout history, cares more about domestic affairs than foreign affairs. It's human nature to care more about issues that have a direct impact on you. It's certainly not unique to Paul's followers, and politicians play to the issues they think will win votes. I wish the last part wasn't always so, but that's what happens in democracies where politicians almost always put their political survival ahead of national long term interests.Maybe Paul personally cares less about some foreigner getting dusted than he does about an American potentially getting dusted. I think that would also hold true for most people, Americans as well as other nationals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturle...nd-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law "whatever the law is," the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as "Orwellian." (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.
He voted against NDAA
Great, I appreciate his position on that. While wearing his libertarian clothes he has said he is against gay marriage, he's against legalization of marijuana, he against real immigration reform, he's against ending drone programs, he against closing Gitmo, hes was against the Islamic Center near Ground Zero, hes against abortion rights.
Right, there is barely a high ranking politician that actually is for gay marriage, legalized weed, reforming immigration, ending drone programs, closing Gitmo, abortion rights, and foreign assassinations. Is that because they are just crooked evil guys or is it because that is how the people vote and those beliefs would be career suicide?
Valid point. It just really bothers me this is the issue he takes a stand on. For me (but clearly not for many people), it is such a non issue.
 
Ive heard a few people say it was a stupid question. Well, despite your opinion on the existentence of stupid questions, let me remind you that it took a month and a half for that stupid quesion to get an appropriate answer. It should have taken a second and a half.

Next, do not have so much faith in your government. Please. Google the "Family Jewels" released by the CIA. And remember, three Americans were killed overseas by the US for being suspected of terrorism. They were not engaged in combat. They did not recieve a trial. Please do not have so much faith in your government.

Also, Ive heard a lot of misinformation regarding Rand Paul. I suggest some of you Google Rand Paul on the issues. You'll find his voting record, and not message board hearsay.

Finally, I agree that America is moving in the right now. When it started out you had to be a white male 21 year old land owner. Theres the American Holocaust. Lincoln suspending habeus corpus. FDR throwing Americans in internment camps. Vietnam.

America has never been perfect, and the same holds true today. But we never lost sight of our ideal. And I believe were closer to that ideal, however far we may still be, then we have ever been before.

'Merica!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thoughtful conservatives, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Medved, continue to attack Paul, but it's not doing much good. The Republican base, eschewing all common sense, seems to love this guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the nomination next time around. We are seeing the revolt of the Tea Party, and they're taking over.

What especially galls me is when the media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He is a product of the wackos who have taken over the libertarian movement in the last 10 years or so. He doesn't represent the traditional libertarian movement in this country- in it's heyday, libertarians were moderate, thoughtful, fiscal conservatives and social liberals, guys like Barry Goldwater, with none of the extremist paranoia that guys like Rand Paul spread, and none of the Tea Party populism either. What a joke.

 
Thoughtful conservatives, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Medved, continue to attack Paul, but it's not doing much good. The Republican base, eschewing all common sense, seems to love this guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the nomination next time around. We are seeing the revolt of the Tea Party, and they're taking over.What especially galls me is when the media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He is a product of the wackos who have taken over the libertarian movement in the last 10 years or so. He doesn't represent the traditional libertarian movement in this country- in it's heyday, libertarians were moderate, thoughtful, fiscal conservatives and social liberals, guys like Barry Goldwater, with none of the extremist paranoia that guys like Rand Paul spread, and none of the Tea Party populism either. What a joke.
Paul has been pretty roundly applauded for his efforts here by everyone but staunch conservatives, yet it somehow demonstrates how he is really an out-of-touch whacko on the matter.Your obsession with blaming anything and everything on the Tea Party is bizarre.
 
I love how you guys laugh at me for that statement, and yet you have nothing to contradict it.

Freedom of speech? Take a look at the restrictions during World War I and World War II, and during the McCarthy era. Take a look at government enforced censorship of books, movies, and television all the way up to the 1970s, and then tell me we have less freedom of speech today. Then when you're done, take a look at the difference that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made to our society in less than 10 years. Social media is a far better deterrent to future government tyranny than private ownership of guns will ever be.

Freedom of body? Look at the internment of Japanese Americans, and tell me it could happen today. Look at the laws before Miranda, and the restrictions on women prior to Roe vs. Wade. It's not even close.

So what "freedoms" are there that we used to have that we don't have anymore? The freedom to own slaves? To discriminate? Well, there's that...
Not exactly responsive to your question, but the best I could find on short notice. From George Washington University law profesor Jonathan Turley 1/15/12:http://jonathanturle...nd-of-the-free/

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free...

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law "whatever the law is," the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as "Orwellian." (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
Those are all real threats and happening now. None are ridiculous hypotheticals. But Paul wont do anything about them, because his base doesn't give two ####s about renditions and foreign assassinations. But mention building a freeway from Mexico to Canada and look out.
He voted against NDAA
Great, I appreciate his position on that. While wearing his libertarian clothes he has said he is against gay marriage, he's against legalization of marijuana, he against real immigration reform, he's against ending drone programs, he against closing Gitmo, hes was against the Islamic Center near Ground Zero, hes against abortion rights.
Right, there is barely a high ranking politician that actually is for gay marriage, legalized weed, reforming immigration, ending drone programs, closing Gitmo, abortion rights, and foreign assassinations. Is that because they are just crooked evil guys or is it because that is how the people vote and those beliefs would be career suicide?
Valid point. It just really bothers me this is the issue he takes a stand on. For me (but clearly not for many people), it is such a non issue.
I have read the first letter Holder sent to Paul and, while not affirming the right, Holder made it pretty clear it wasn't something he was prepared to take off the table.Once that happened I don't see how it could be thought of as a non-issue.

 
Thoughtful conservatives, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Medved, continue to attack Paul, but it's not doing much good. The Republican base, eschewing all common sense, seems to love this guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the nomination next time around. We are seeing the revolt of the Tea Party, and they're taking over.What especially galls me is when the media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He is a product of the wackos who have taken over the libertarian movement in the last 10 years or so. He doesn't represent the traditional libertarian movement in this country- in it's heyday, libertarians were moderate, thoughtful, fiscal conservatives and social liberals, guys like Barry Goldwater, with none of the extremist paranoia that guys like Rand Paul spread, and none of the Tea Party populism either. What a joke.
You are nuts.
 
Thoughtful conservatives, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Medved, continue to attack Paul, but it's not doing much good. The Republican base, eschewing all common sense, seems to love this guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the nomination next time around. We are seeing the revolt of the Tea Party, and they're taking over.What especially galls me is when the media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He is a product of the wackos who have taken over the libertarian movement in the last 10 years or so. He doesn't represent the traditional libertarian movement in this country- in it's heyday, libertarians were moderate, thoughtful, fiscal conservatives and social liberals, guys like Barry Goldwater, with none of the extremist paranoia that guys like Rand Paul spread, and none of the Tea Party populism either. What a joke.
Paul has been pretty roundly applauded for his efforts here by everyone but staunch conservatives, yet it somehow demonstrates how he is really an out-of-touch whacko on the matter.Your obsession with blaming anything and everything on the Tea Party is bizarre.
:goodposting:
 
Thoughtful conservatives, such as Bill Kristol and Michael Medved, continue to attack Paul, but it's not doing much good. The Republican base, eschewing all common sense, seems to love this guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the nomination next time around. We are seeing the revolt of the Tea Party, and they're taking over.

What especially galls me is when the media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He is a product of the wackos who have taken over the libertarian movement in the last 10 years or so. He doesn't represent the traditional libertarian movement in this country- in it's heyday, libertarians were moderate, thoughtful, fiscal conservatives and social liberals, guys like Barry Goldwater, with none of the extremist paranoia that guys like Rand Paul spread, and none of the Tea Party populism either. What a joke.
That would be pretty great.Please save us Rand Paul, you're our only hope.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top