Three Cheers for Rand Paul (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

 

[Fennis]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

Rand Paul's fillibuster wasnt about lack of congressional oversight on assassinations.

 

[timschochet]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

Oh BS. Even if that were a worthy subject for debate (and I agree in theory it is) to act like this is a pressing threat, with real immediate consequences for the public, is to play into the worst paranoid fears of the Birther/gun nut/black helicopter types. Are these really the ones we want taking over the Republican party? Really?

 

[DrJ]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

Oh BS. Even if that were a worthy subject for debate (and I agree in theory it is) to act like this is a pressing threat, with real immediate consequences for the public, is to play into the worst paranoid fears of the Birther/gun nut/black helicopter types. Are these really the ones we want taking over the Republican party? Really?

Are they actually fiscally conservative? I'd like actual fiscal conservatives to have some say in the party, not the fake fiscal conservatives that you love.

 

[timschochet]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

Oh BS. Even if that were a worthy subject for debate (and I agree in theory it is) to act like this is a pressing threat, with real immediate consequences for the public, is to play into the worst paranoid fears of the Birther/gun nut/black helicopter types. Are these really the ones we want taking over the Republican party? Really?

Are they actually fiscally conservative? I'd like actual fiscal conservatives to have some say in the party, not the fake fiscal conservatives that you love.

No. They are not fiscally conservative, and IMO, neither are you. Not as I understand the term, anyhow.

 

[timschochet]

No. They are not fiscally conservative, and IMO, neither are you. Not as I understand the term, anyhow.

I want to clarify this in case anyone gets confused about my statement here:A fiscal conservative is, generally speaking, someone who believes that, all things being equal, the private sector runs more efficiently with less government involvement rather than more, and that, all things being equal, the private sector runs things more efficiently than does the government. A fiscal conservative attempts to apply these principles to the economic and political situation, which generally means lower taxes and less regulation are preferable to higher taxes and more regulation, and shrinking the size of government is generally preferable to growing the size of government.

But there is more, and this is the part guys like Dr. J (and Rand Paul, for that matter) seem to miss: a conservative is someone who believes that rapid, forced change is never good- because it leads to chaos, which is the opposite of what the conservative is attempting to promote. Thus, confronted with already existing large government spending, a true conservative will want to find ways to shrink it thoughtfully, over time, but will be opposed to sudden slashes in spending, and ESPECIALLY be opposed to percentage cuts in spending which don't pay attention to specifics. The randomness of percentage cuts, such as we are seeing with the sequester, and which are proposed in much greater proportions by Tea Party types, should be an anathema to any true fiscal conservative. In fact, if the choice is between these sort of immediate spending cuts and simply maintaining the status quo, a fiscal conservative will generally be in favor of maintaining the status quo, even indefinitely, with the idea that rapid forced change is always negative.

Basically the conservative motto is: slow down; let's think about this carefully. Or at least it was, before radicals took a hold of the GOP.

 

[Joe T]

No. They are not fiscally conservative, and IMO, neither are you. Not as I understand the term, anyhow.

I want to clarify this in case anyone gets confused about my statement here:A fiscal conservative is, generally speaking, someone who believes that, all things being equal, the private sector runs more efficiently with less government involvement rather than more, and that, all things being equal, the private sector runs things more efficiently than does the government. A fiscal conservative attempts to apply these principles to the economic and political situation, which generally means lower taxes and less regulation are preferable to higher taxes and more regulation, and shrinking the size of government is generally preferable to growing the size of government.

But there is more, and this is the part guys like Dr. J (and Rand Paul, for that matter) seem to miss: a conservative is someone who believes that rapid, forced change is never good- because it leads to chaos, which is the opposite of what the conservative is attempting to promote. Thus, confronted with already existing large government spending, a true conservative will want to find ways to shrink it thoughtfully, over time, but will be opposed to sudden slashes in spending, and ESPECIALLY be opposed to percentage cuts in spending which don't pay attention to specifics. The randomness of percentage cuts, such as we are seeing with the sequester, and which are proposed in much greater proportions by Tea Party types, should be an anathema to any true fiscal conservative. In fact, if the choice is between these sort of immediate spending cuts and simply maintaining the status quo, a fiscal conservative will generally be in favor of maintaining the status quo, even indefinitely, with the idea that rapid forced change is always negative.

Basically the conservative motto is: slow down; let's think about this carefully. Or at least it was, before radicals took a hold of the GOP.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

Oh BS. Even if that were a worthy subject for debate (and I agree in theory it is) to act like this is a pressing threat, with real immediate consequences for the public, is to play into the worst paranoid fears of the Birther/gun nut/black helicopter types. Are these really the ones we want taking over the Republican party? Really?

There's really no reason for anybody to express concern about US citizens being assassinated by their own government as long as it doesn't affect them personally?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Basically the conservative motto is: slow down; let's think about this carefully. Or at least it was, before radicals took a hold of the GOP.

And yet, when somebody says "Hey, you know what guys, we should really slow down and think carefully about this whole killing-Americans-without-trial thing," you're first in line to call him a paranoid nutjob. Go figure.

 

[timschochet]

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.

This isn't even really about libertarianism. If there is one thing that all of us should be able to agree on, it's that the government should face a very high level of scrutiny when it claims the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process. That's not a crazy position, and it's not some nutty hypothetical that would never actually come up in practice. It's the only reasonable position and such assassinations have actually been carried out with minimal oversight. You're the one that's out to lunch on this.

Oh BS. Even if that were a worthy subject for debate (and I agree in theory it is) to act like this is a pressing threat, with real immediate consequences for the public, is to play into the worst paranoid fears of the Birther/gun nut/black helicopter types. Are these really the ones we want taking over the Republican party? Really?

There's really no reason for anybody to express concern about US citizens being assassinated by their own government as long as it doesn't affect them personally?

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.) But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

 

[Short Corner]

Basically the conservative motto is: slow down; let's think about this carefully. Or at least it was, before radicals took a hold of the GOP.

And yet, when somebody says "Hey, you know what guys, we should really slow down and think carefully about this whole killing-Americans-without-trial thing," you're first in line to call him a paranoid nutjob. Go figure.

A lot of people, unable to put down the pom-poms, sticking to their red-team vs blue team mentality, exposing themselves here.Funny how Meved and McCain are now thoughtful conservatives for disagreeing with Paul. Wonder what the thoughts are on liberals agreeing with him (Stewart, Maddow, Uygar.)

 

[timschochet]

Basically the conservative motto is: slow down; let's think about this carefully. Or at least it was, before radicals took a hold of the GOP.

And yet, when somebody says "Hey, you know what guys, we should really slow down and think carefully about this whole killing-Americans-without-trial thing," you're first in line to call him a paranoid nutjob. Go figure.

That's not why I called him paranoid. As I just noted, he said quite a bit more than that.

 

[timschochet]

Basically the conservative motto is: slow down; let's think about this carefully. Or at least it was, before radicals took a hold of the GOP.

And yet, when somebody says "Hey, you know what guys, we should really slow down and think carefully about this whole killing-Americans-without-trial thing," you're first in line to call him a paranoid nutjob. Go figure.

A lot of people, unable to put down the pom-poms, sticking to their red-team vs blue team mentality, exposing themselves here.Funny how Meved and McCain are now thoughtful conservatives for disagreeing with Paul. Wonder what the thoughts are on liberals agreeing with him (Stewart, Maddow, Uygar.)

I have a lot of respect for Steeart and Maddow, not so much for Uygar. I haven't watched them on this issue, but I'm betting they separate real concern over this topic from the paranoid fears of the Tea Partiers.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

I've admittedly not followed this whole thing very closely, but isn't the main reason to believe that it wouldn't happen because the government has better alternatives to counteract any threat from the guy living in Michigan?

 

[timschochet]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with anything you wrote. (Which is in unusual for me because I generally agree with you more often than not.) The use of drones for assassination in general is an important moral question, far more so than the rarer concern regarding American citizens. Your characterization of al-Awaiki's being targeted is not one I share; he was a terrorist. The use of drones on political opposition in the USA is not a legitimate concern.

 

[squistion]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

No, that really it isn't that much of a leap at all, there really is conceptually no difference, just moving the location.

 

[timschochet]

And BTW, the reason that drones are different from poison or a hit team is because innocent people within a close distance to the target get injured or killed.

 

[timschochet]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

No, that really it isn't that much of a leap at all, there really is conceptually no difference, just moving the location.

Except that it would never happen here. Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.Besides it makes no sense. We use drones in places that our armed services can't reach. How could that scenario ever apply to the USA? It's absurd.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And BTW, the reason that drones are different from poison or a hit team is because innocent people within a close distance to the target get injured or killed.

Hit teams sometimes kill innocent people too. And anybody who's ever seen The Princess Bride knows that poisoning doesn't always go as intended. The issue of "collateral damage" isn't binary; it's a continuum with "precision sniper shot" on one extreme and "all out nuclear strike" on the other extreme. And besides, this is a dodge. Is it it okay for the government to assassinate people without trial? If so, under what specific circumstances? Get those questions answered first, and then we can talk about means.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.

Why? You can't even bring yourself to agree that there's anything wrong with this, and you're calling Rand Paul a nut for saying that it would be wrong.

 

[squistion]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

No, that really it isn't that much of a leap at all, there really is conceptually no difference, just moving the location.

Except that it would never happen here. Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.

And they said internment of American citizens could never happen here - until it did with the Japanese in WWII and Roosevelt wasn't impeached and the SCOTUS backed him up. With the wrong person in power this could happen and a thread to national security justification would be given for the action (remember there is not even any prior judicial review for this type of action nor are there any type of due process considerations). Yes this is extremely unlikely, but the mechanism should not be in place to allow it.

 

[timschochet]

And BTW, the reason that drones are different from poison or a hit team is because innocent people within a close distance to the target get injured or killed.

Hit teams sometimes kill innocent people too. And anybody who's ever seen The Princess Bride knows that poisoning doesn't always go as intended. The issue of "collateral damage" isn't binary; it's a continuum with "precision sniper shot" on one extreme and "all out nuclear strike" on the other extreme. And besides, this is a dodge. Is it it okay for the government to assassinate people without trial? If so, under what specific circumstances? Get those questions answered first, and then we can talk about means.

You raise important questions, worth discussing. In truth I've not sure how I feel about this issue: I see both sides and haven't made up my mind. And collateral damage caused by drones is a little more serious than hit teams or poison and also worth discussing. But the use of drones against political opposition in the USA is not a serious concern, not worth discussing.

 

[Joe T]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

No, that really it isn't that much of a leap at all, there really is conceptually no difference, just moving the location.

Except that it would never happen here. Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.

And they said internment of American citizens could never happen here - until it did with the Japanese in WWII and Roosevelt wasn't impeached and the SCOTUS backed him up. With the wrong person in power this could happen and a thread to national security justification would be given for the action (remember there is not even any prior judicial review for this type of action nor are there any type of due process considerations). Yes this is extremely unlikely, but the mechanism should not be in place to allow it.

You sound like an extremist Tea Party loon.

 

[squistion]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

No, that really it isn't that much of a leap at all, there really is conceptually no difference, just moving the location.

Except that it would never happen here. Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.

And they said internment of American citizens could never happen here - until it did with the Japanese in WWII and Roosevelt wasn't impeached and the SCOTUS backed him up. With the wrong person in power this could happen and a thread to national security justification would be given for the action (remember there is not even any prior judicial review for this type of action nor are there any type of due process considerations). Yes this is extremely unlikely, but the mechanism should not be in place to allow it.

You sound like an extremist Tea Party loon.

The progressive left and the far right occasionally agree on some issues.

 

[timschochet]

That's not what I wrote. Of course it's a concern. (Actually, the morality of the use of drones for the purpose of assassination is an important moral question, regardless of who the target is.)

The use of drones is immaterial. The issue is whether the government should be able to assassinate US citizens without a trial. The fact that the government uses drones to achieve this end as opposed to poison or a hit team or whatever is beside the point.

But you don't express this concern by pandering to the fear of the crazies. Rand openly wondered what would prevent the President from using drones to silence political opposition in the USA. That's the sort of nonsense question you hear from the gun nuts.

This doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. The reason why the government assassinated al-Awlaki was because he was propagandazing for a hostile ideology. If you can kill a guy for doing that when he's living oversees, why it is such a stretch to worry that the government might be tempted to do the same to a guy living in Dearborn?

No, that really it isn't that much of a leap at all, there really is conceptually no difference, just moving the location.

Except that it would never happen here. Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.

And they said internment of American citizens could never happen here - until it did with the Japanese in WWII and Roosevelt wasn't impeached and the SCOTUS backed him up. With the wrong person in power this could happen and a thread to national security justification would be given for the action (remember there is not even any prior judicial review for this type of action nor are there any type of due process considerations). Yes this is extremely unlikely, but the mechanism should not be in place to allow it.

Sorry but the whole question of "mechanism" is also absurd, because if a POTUS were crazy or evil enough to order the use of drones in the USA in order to kill his opponents, no law is going to prevent him. This whole discussion is sheer fantasy, except for gun nuts who are always going off about tyranny right around the corner.

 

[squistion]

Except that it would never happen here. Any President who ordered such a strike against political opposition (not terrorists) would be immediately impeached.

And they said internment of American citizens could never happen here - until it did with the Japanese in WWII and Roosevelt wasn't impeached and the SCOTUS backed him up. With the wrong person in power this could happen and a thread to national security justification would be given for the action (remember there is not even any prior judicial review for this type of action nor are there any type of due process considerations). Yes this is extremely unlikely, but the mechanism should not be in place to allow it.

Sorry but the whole question of "mechanism" is also absurd, because if a POTUS were crazy or evil enough to order the use of drones in the USA in order to kill his opponents, no law is going to prevent him. This whole discussion is sheer fantasy, except for gun nuts who are always going off about tyranny right around the corner.

The question is whether the law allows this and potentially it does.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Not looking good for Timmay

 

[Stinger Ray]

Not looking good for Timmay

 

[timschochet]

Not looking good for Timmay

I like that.

 

[Rich Conway]

So, this is the thread where we've confirmed that timschochet's hatred of all things Tea Party has finally driven him insane?

He's contradicted himself so many times in this thread that I can't even keep track.

 

[Brady Marino]

So, this is the thread where we've confirmed that timschochet's hatred of all things Tea Party has finally driven him insane?

He's contradicted himself so many times in this thread that I can't even keep track.

Finally? Where have you been since last year?

 

[B-Deep]

The president could still order Seal Team 6 to take an American Citizen out. Or order an Air strike on American soil.

Those have still not been addressed by Rand Paul.

 

[timschochet]

So, this is the thread where we've confirmed that timschochet's hatred of all things Tea Party has finally driven him insane?He's contradicted himself so many times in this thread that I can't even keep track.

Where have I contradicted myself? I must be too insane to remember.

 

[Brady Marino]

So, this is the thread where we've confirmed that timschochet's hatred of all things Tea Party has finally driven him insane?He's contradicted himself so many times in this thread that I can't even keep track.

Where have I contradicted myself? I must be too insane to remember.

Sig-worthy.

 

[xlledx]

According to a recent poll, 31% of Americans say its constitutional for the President to assassinate Americans suspected of terrorism. The question left out if the American was in America or not.

But here's a quote directly from the poll:

22.! Next,!do!you!think!it!is!constitutional!or!

unconstitutional!for!the!president!of!the!United!

States!to!order!the!killing!of!American!citizens!

who!are!suspected!of!being!terrorists?

! Constitutional....................................................31%

! Unconstitutional...............................................57%

! DK/Refused........................................................12%

! Total.................................................................100%

Sorry for the formatting!

Here's a pdf of the entire poll:

http://reason.com/assets/db/13620384648046.pdf

Here's where I found the poll:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/rand-paul-is-not-alone-57-percent-think

 

[Short Corner]

According to a recent poll, 31% of Americans say its constitutional for the President to assassinate Americans suspected of terrorism. The question left out if the American was in America or not. But here's a quote directly from the poll:22.! Next,!do!you!think!it!is!constitutional!or!unconstitutional!for!the!president!of!the!United!States!to!order!the!killing!of!American!citizens!who!are!suspected!of!being!terrorists?! Constitutional....................................................31%! Unconstitutional...............................................57%! DK/Refused........................................................12%! Total.................................................................100%Sorry for the formatting!Here's a pdf of the entire poll:http://reason.com/assets/db/13620384648046.pdfHere's where I found the poll:http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/rand-paul-is-not-alone-57-percent-think

That is scary.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

According to a recent poll, 31% of Americans say its constitutional for the President to assassinate Americans suspected of terrorism. The question left out if the American was in America or not. But here's a quote directly from the poll:22.! Next,!do!you!think!it!is!constitutional!or!unconstitutional!for!the!president!of!the!United!States!to!order!the!killing!of!American!citizens!who!are!suspected!of!being!terrorists?! Constitutional....................................................31%! Unconstitutional...............................................57%! DK/Refused........................................................12%! Total.................................................................100%Sorry for the formatting!Here's a pdf of the entire poll:http://reason.com/assets/db/13620384648046.pdfHere's where I found the poll:http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/rand-paul-is-not-alone-57-percent-think

That is scary.

This poll is just a trick to distract you from the fact that Rand Paul is the really villian here.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

There are too many details left out that need addressing.

 

[matuski]

I'm starting to think they do this intentionally so we never get to hear a reasonable voice argue against these clearly "gray area" topics. They let these people come out and rile up the crazies, thereby destroying the credibility of someone who might actually have a legitimate argument, and a reasonable approach to a solution.

Birthers, anti-Obama Care, Gun Rights, Immigration.... the list is endless. Perhaps something useful could come from these issues, but we can never get there with these embarrassing tactics. Obama has these people eating out of his hands and couldn't possibly do a better job of discrediting them than what they do to themselves.

Where is the reasonable opposition? These drones are flat out scary, and I don't want these nutjobs representing this concern.

 

[timschochet]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

And this post pretty accurately sums up Tim and his stereotypes to a T:

This happens on both sides, but I notice that liberals tend to ridicule the assumed motivations behind conservative views rather than arguing the view itself.

[*]If I have reservations about abortion it's because I'm a religious nutjob (I'm not).

[*]If I oppose amnesty and support strengthening U.S. borders it's because I'm an ignorant racist (I'm not).

[*]If I believe that stricter gun control laws won't curb gun violence it's because I am a violent redneck that is prepping to protect my country from Obama's agenda (I've never even touched gun).

When you create a ridiculous caricature that represents opposing views it's easy to attack that caricature and ignore the views. There are plenty of non-religious, non-racist, non-gun-toting conservatives that are interested in discussing actual issues rather than stereotypes.

 

[timschochet]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

And this post pretty accurately sums up Tim and his stereotypes to a T:

This happens on both sides, but I notice that liberals tend to ridicule the assumed motivations behind conservative views rather than arguing the view itself.

[*]If I have reservations about abortion it's because I'm a religious nutjob (I'm not).

[*]If I oppose amnesty and support strengthening U.S. borders it's because I'm an ignorant racist (I'm not).

[*]If I believe that stricter gun control laws won't curb gun violence it's because I am a violent redneck that is prepping to protect my country from Obama's agenda (I've never even touched gun).

When you create a ridiculous caricature that represents opposing views it's easy to attack that caricature and ignore the views. There are plenty of non-religious, non-racist, non-gun-toting conservatives that are interested in discussing actual issues rather than stereotypes.

I think that post has some points to make. I don't believe it applies to me....or you, for that matter.

 

[Joe T]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

And this post pretty accurately sums up Tim and his stereotypes to a T:

This happens on both sides, but I notice that liberals tend to ridicule the assumed motivations behind conservative views rather than arguing the view itself.

[*]If I have reservations about abortion it's because I'm a religious nutjob (I'm not).

[*]If I oppose amnesty and support strengthening U.S. borders it's because I'm an ignorant racist (I'm not).

[*]If I believe that stricter gun control laws won't curb gun violence it's because I am a violent redneck that is prepping to protect my country from Obama's agenda (I've never even touched gun).

When you create a ridiculous caricature that represents opposing views it's easy to attack that caricature and ignore the views. There are plenty of non-religious, non-racist, non-gun-toting conservatives that are interested in discussing actual issues rather than stereotypes.

Spot on.

 

[Jewell]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

And this post pretty accurately sums up Tim and his stereotypes to a T:

This happens on both sides, but I notice that liberals tend to ridicule the assumed motivations behind conservative views rather than arguing the view itself.

[*]If I have reservations about abortion it's because I'm a religious nutjob (I'm not).

[*]If I oppose amnesty and support strengthening U.S. borders it's because I'm an ignorant racist (I'm not).

[*]If I believe that stricter gun control laws won't curb gun violence it's because I am a violent redneck that is prepping to protect my country from Obama's agenda (I've never even touched gun).

When you create a ridiculous caricature that represents opposing views it's easy to attack that caricature and ignore the views. There are plenty of non-religious, non-racist, non-gun-toting conservatives that are interested in discussing actual issues rather than stereotypes.

Spot on.

No, I disagree that the list is spot-on. If the list were to be spot-on, it would also have Tim's currently most used jibe, anti-intellectual, as a catch for all other categories where a Conservative disagrees with Tim.

 

[timschochet]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

And this post pretty accurately sums up Tim and his stereotypes to a T:

This happens on both sides, but I notice that liberals tend to ridicule the assumed motivations behind conservative views rather than arguing the view itself.

[*]If I have reservations about abortion it's because I'm a religious nutjob (I'm not).

[*]If I oppose amnesty and support strengthening U.S. borders it's because I'm an ignorant racist (I'm not).

[*]If I believe that stricter gun control laws won't curb gun violence it's because I am a violent redneck that is prepping to protect my country from Obama's agenda (I've never even touched gun).

When you create a ridiculous caricature that represents opposing views it's easy to attack that caricature and ignore the views. There are plenty of non-religious, non-racist, non-gun-toting conservatives that are interested in discussing actual issues rather than stereotypes.

Spot on.

No, I disagree that the list is spot-on. If the list were to be spot-on, it would also have Tim's currently most used jibe, anti-intellectual, as a catch for all other categories where a Conservative disagrees with Tim.

Most conservatives who disagree with me are.not anti-intellectual. I don't consider you to be. But there is an anti-intellectual strain currently within the conservative movement, epitomized by the Tea Party, and I won't pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[squistion]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

There are too many details left out that need addressing.

In particular (from the article):

The House Democrats were particularly concerned that the memo appeared to have no defined geographic boundaries, did not identify officials with the authority to approve so-called “kill-lists,” provided a vague definition of feasible, and used a broad definition of “imminent threat.”

 

[Joe T]

Those crazy gun-nut-job tea-partiers are at it again.

Oh wait

Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Keith Ellison....yeah I'd be proud. They have more in common with you than you might think. They start from the other side, but their approach is about the same. Suprised Maxine Waters wasn't on the list...

And this post pretty accurately sums up Tim and his stereotypes to a T:

This happens on both sides, but I notice that liberals tend to ridicule the assumed motivations behind conservative views rather than arguing the view itself.

[*]If I have reservations about abortion it's because I'm a religious nutjob (I'm not).

[*]If I oppose amnesty and support strengthening U.S. borders it's because I'm an ignorant racist (I'm not).

[*]If I believe that stricter gun control laws won't curb gun violence it's because I am a violent redneck that is prepping to protect my country from Obama's agenda (I've never even touched gun).

When you create a ridiculous caricature that represents opposing views it's easy to attack that caricature and ignore the views. There are plenty of non-religious, non-racist, non-gun-toting conservatives that are interested in discussing actual issues rather than stereotypes.

Spot on.

No, I disagree that the list is spot-on. If the list were to be spot-on, it would also have Tim's currently most used jibe, anti-intellectual, as a catch for all other categories where a Conservative disagrees with Tim.

Hmmm. Good point. You got me on that one.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Three cheers indeed