Supposedly someone asked, "Would it be legal to use a drone to kill an American citizen in the United States while he is sitting peacefully at a sidewalk restaurant?" Of course the answer to that stupid question is no. Why not ask, "Would it be legal for the US Air Force to shoot down an American airliner filled with our citizens, over the United States?" Again the clear answer is no, but it almost happened on 9/11.
Where do republicans find these imperceptive and thickheaded people?
Here CSM, maybe this will help you...
Probably the same place the Democrats found this guy?
Subject: Brain Transplant
-- In the hospital the relatives gathered in the waiting room, where a family member lay gravely ill. Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber.
'I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news,' he said as he surveyed the worried faces. 'The only hope left for your loved one at this time is a brain transplant.
It's an experimental procedure, very risky, but it is the only hope . Insurance will cover the procedure, but you will have to pay for the BRAIN.'
The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news. After a time, someone asked, 'How much will a brain cost?'
The doctor quickly responded, '$5,000 for a Democrat's brain; $200 for a Republican's brain.'
The moment turned awkward. Some of the Democrats actually had to 'try' to not smile, avoiding eye contact with the Republicans.
A man unable to control his curiosity, finally blurted out the question everyone wanted to ask, 'Why is the Democrat's brain so much more than a Republican's brain?'
The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the entire group. 'It's just standard pricing procedure. We have to price the Republicans' brains a lot lower because they're used."
"...maybe this will help you..."
T was a publicity stunt. Rush Limbaugh called him a hero...
"...Democrats found this guy?..."
Whoever he is, he is not an "upcoming" leader of the party and a "hero."
Common,you have opened a real can of worms. For every Rand Paul example you use there are going to be more than enough "where did they find this guy,Democrats."
Joe Biden,Reps Pelosi,Meeks,Jackson,Sen Reid,Jesse Jackson Sr and Jr,our very own Claire and of course Charlie Rangle. And I didn't even mention BHO.
Where are the supposed "progressive"Democrats on this? What happened to those guys? So it's not okay to kill Americans with drones who are not "suspected of terrorism" (won't even dip into that loaded combination of words today) in the US. But it's okay to use drones to spy on Americans, kill Americans with drones in foreign countries, invade sovereign nations' airspace and kill and spy on their citizens with drones...does that about cover it?
Love watching the old neocon Republicans like McCain and Graham agree with the old neocon Democrats again. Even Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are abandoning the SS Neocon.
Rush Limbaugh called him a hero...-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 8:23 AM
Another quote from Rush Limbaugh? I swear you quote and research that guy more than anyone on here.
Here's one from Hillary Clinton attacking Obama: ""He (Obama) continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods" or this one "Shame on you, Barack Obama".
When Common starts a thread with a title like that, he is showing his ignorance and bias. And no Common, I don't care who said it first. Do you have to parrot everything you hear?
Dug,I asked the Limbaugh haters a number of times when and on what radio station they listen to him. Is his show on locally? No one will answer and I would sure like to listen to what they hate.
When Eric Holder hemmed and hawed and would not answer the drone question directly,that scared me.
If I was put in the situation to decide to sacrifice a hundred people to save thousands and had maybe one minute I would probably do it. Would I regret it? Absolutely. If I didn't,would I regret it? Absolutely. There is no right answer.
I believe this argument all goes back to what is torture. Is it better to pour some water in a terrorists throat or vaporize him and everyone around him?
Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist. Would Eric Holder drop a bomb on him while he's having a slice and a beer.
What others are saying about Rand Paul....
"Of course the answer to that stupid question is no." So why wasn't the answer 'no'?
"I swear you quote and research that guy more than anyone on here."
As usual some don't pay much attention to details or read what is linked.
The very first reply is where limbaugh was quoted. But then, not much is expected of some...
But then, not much is expected of some...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 12:29 PM
And you're working to prove that statement.... Eh?
"In the letter, Holder said "It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. "
Where is the fallacy in this reply? Had McVeigh been spotted, alone, on the road to Oklahoma City, and an armed drone were available, why should it not have been used?
When all your debate and logic is effectively countered, what's left but to call the opposition stupid?
"Do you have to parrot everything you hear?"
Repeating a quote has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you have realized that lately conservatives have said so many "stupid" things that even the republicans have noticed and spoken out against them.
"...left but to call the opposition stupid?"
You might want to look back and check who is "calling the opposition stupid" it is the republicans themselves. I just pointed it out.
You do quote and reference him more than anyone. Last time I said this you got all twisted and challenged me to prove it. I quickly found 10 posts where you reference or quote him.
As usual facts disturb you deeply. Especially those facts from your own posts - kinda like being "Stalked-by-my-own-words". There's a pattern here with liberals. Obama included.
What's to read? I read your post - "Rush Limbaugh called him a hero. Enough said". Are you running from this?
And here's another quote from Illinois democrat Angela Michael - "There's a war on women...waged by men...Obama leads the attack."
Last time I checked these statements came from people within Obama's party. So how does Rush Limbaugh's words mean anything about Rand Paul? Means nothing. Is this all you have?
"...is innocent until proven guilty."
Does that mean that if someone is ready to set off a bomb, we have to let him do it before stopping him?
"Had McVeigh been spotted, alone, on the road to Oklahoma City, and an armed drone were available, why should it not have been used?"
Common, how would they have known what McVeigh was up to.? If they had spotted a truck carrying fertilizer and they used a Drone on it and it turned out to be a farmer getting ready to fertilize his fields.... then what? Besides that, McVeigh is ancient history in today's world.
I suppose if the sky starts falling it would be OK to use a drone on the party responsible.... right? Or, maybe instead we could just send Obama out to extend his arms and hold it up instead.
Where is the fallacy in this reply? Had McVeigh been spotted, alone, on the road to Oklahoma City, and an armed drone were available, why should it not have been used? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 12:36 PM
You're hung on on republicans quoting republicans. How about that Hillary quote "Shame on you Barack Obama" or the "war on women" quote from a democrat against Obama? Those attacks must make you wither!
Regarding McViegh, apparently you don't know the difference between the US Armed Forces and state/local law enforcement. You are melding further into the liberal all-things-federal movement.
So which are the stupid ones now, the consevatives or the repulicans?
"Does that mean that if someone is ready to set off a bomb, we have to let him do it before stopping him?"
Not with the military if I recall the constitution correctly.
You might want to look back and check who is "calling the opposition stupid" it is the republicans themselves. I just pointed it out.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 12:43 PM
One man that I know of made the statement Common and you have been parroting it ever since.
Polly wanna cracker??
"Not with the military if I recall the constitution correctly.'
That's exactly my point. Everyone agrees that actions like drone strikes in the US are illegal and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, if a military drone attack against Timothy McVeigh were the single method of successfully carrying out his plan, then it probaly would and should have been done.
Senator Paul appears to be seeking support for a future political campaign, and that's his right. Making a senseless filibuster only for publicity, is dumb. With this approach he'll have as much success as his father did.
oops... please add "preventing him from" between "of" and "successfully"
Rand Paul's drone filabuster lasted longer than the entire Senate debate on invading Iraq.
How the times have changed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 8:09 AM
No that is a commander that is well disciplined. I would have fell out of my chair laughing.
Common, No, not everyone agrees that actions like drone strikes in the US are illegal and unconstitutional. If that were true the subject of your thread, the stupid question would have been answered with a simple no instead of trying to answer "what's apropriate. That's kinda the same as what you said: ["then it probaly would and should have been done."]
You cited Holder's letter where he said "It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. "
I would like to know where in the constitution a president has that athority. Unless that is somewhere included in later amendments or somewhere in the Patriot Act, I think your asseverate of stupid may be due to a loss of that DST hour and the three hours lack of sleep resetting all three digital clocks! :)
"...where in the constitution a president has that athority."
How about "provide for the common defence."
As conservatives are fond of saying. "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."
I'm sure you are very aware that the probability of our ever needing "the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States" is close to zero.
The probability of Senator Paul wasting everyone's time on childish questions for purely political purposes is close to 100.
Had McVeigh been spotted, alone, on the road to Oklahoma City, and an armed drone were available, why should it not have been used? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 12:36 PM
As a resident of Oklahoma at that time. They had no clue who Tim McVeigh was or what he was up to. You should very seriously consider changing your screen name. You prove just about every post that commonsensedoesntmatter.
"That's exactly my point. Everyone agrees that actions like drone strikes in the US are illegal and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, if a military drone attack against Timothy McVeigh were the single method of successfully carrying out his plan, then it probaly would and should have been done."
A rather silly hypothetical concept. There was no advance notice that Mr. McVeigh was planning the attack and, had they had such notice, there would most likely have been many opportunities to prevent it.
However, methinks if a drone strike were conducted against an American citizen driving a truck down the highway, which the government proclaimed ex post facto was a pre-emptive strike against a known terrorist, there would have been some more than enough justifiable conspiracy theories, regardless of which party was in power when the strike was carried out. Was he actually a terrorist? Was the truck really full of explosives, or was it just a bunch of b******t? If they knew he was a terrorist and was acquiring the components to build a bomb and blow up a federal building, why did they not attempt to stop him in a manner that would have permitted a trial?
As it is, there was no actionable information beforehand on Mr. McVeigh, and there are still conspiracy theories galore. The unconstitutional trial didn't help, in my humble opinion, nor the fact the federal government leaned on the State of Oklahoma to drop their demand to have a constitutional state-court trial.
"...was no actionable information beforehand on Mr. McVeigh..."
I know that at least you understand what a hypothetical example is, some of the others, I'm not too sure about.
For them, (ref: "...no clue who Tim McVeigh was or what he was up to.") hypothetical examples are ones that did not really take place; they're imaginary cases, used only to illustrate what could have happened.
"I know that at least you understand what a hypothetical example is, some of the others, I'm not too sure about."
Try to not be so condescending and superior acting, because a superior intellect you have yet to demonstrate.
But, your entire thread is hypothetical, since it begins with a question that was 'supposedly' asked, which you then attribute automatically to a Republican.
I Googled the question, in quotation marks, and did not find it attributed to Mr. Paul, or anyone else for that matter (other than yourself). I even shortened the quotation merely to "sitting peacefully at a sidewalk restaurant?", and still found no reference. Thus, it occurs to me that it was you who asked the question, and then tried to attribute it to Mr. Paul, or some other Republican, while referring to the questioner as 'stupid'.
Is this some sort of self-flagellation?
I seem to recall, however, that the movie 'Real Genius' included the use of the space-based laser system to kill a person who was sitting peacefully at a sidewalk restaurant, though my memory could be a bit cloudy there. To the best of my knowledge, that movie was not written by Republicans, though it could be said the movie itself questioned the morality of such a system, though it did not ask directly whether that authority rested with the President. That film, produced in 1985, would have been attributing the question to then-President Reagan, had it asked the question. If anything, the film rather challenged the morality of the 'Star Wars' concept, and the idea of using space-based weapons.
"Supposedly someone asked, "Would it be legal to use a drone to kill an American citizen in the United States while he is sitting peacefully at a sidewalk restaurant?" Of course the answer to that stupid question is no. Why not ask, "Would it be legal for the US Air Force to shoot down an American airliner filled with our citizens, over the United States?" Again the clear answer is no, but it almost happened on 9/11.
"Where do republicans find these imperceptive and thickheaded people?"
"Whoever he is, he is not an "upcoming" leader of the party and a "hero"."
And this 'supposed someone' is an "upcoming" leader of the Republican Party, and a "hero"?
Methinks, if you wanted to brand Mr. Paul with a stupid question, you could at least have found one he actually asked...
Then why is it that his "filibuster" came to an end when he received a very obvious from the start "no" answer.
"Then why is it that his "filibuster" came to an end when he received a very obvious from the start "no" answer."
To what question did he received the 'very obvious' "no" answer? It certainly wasn't the one you claim someone supposedly asked....
The filibuster came to end because of the limits of physical endurance. However, we also have to ask why Mr. Holder elaborated on his answer if is was 'very obvious' that it was "no" from the start...
"In a letter to Paul Thursday afternoon, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil.
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no," the three-sentence letter stated.
"In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, Paul said he was satisfied with the response.
"I'm quite happy with the answer," the Republican senator from Kentucky said. "I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer."
From the same link:
"Earlier this week, Paul took issue with Holder's recent admission, in which he said he could envision a scenario where a drone strike would, in fact, be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil.
"While Holder said it's never been done before and he could only see it in an extraordinary circumstance, Paul said he was disturbed by the idea that an American citizen would lose his or her rights while within the country's borders.
"Holder narrowed the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder on whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"After first saying it would be "inappropriate," Holder attempted to clarify his answer by giving a firm "no."
"But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a separate letter to Paul sent earlier this week, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical."
Methinks the use of the word 'inappropriate' leaves open a number of possibilities that 'illegal' or 'unconstitutional' might have clarified from the start.
"Senator Paul says in his op-ed:
When I asked the president, "Can you kill an American on American soil?" it should have been an easy answer. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, "no."
That is the answer he got. The politics involved is the only thing that delayed and onfuscated the clear clear and obvious reply.
"Try to not be so condescending..."
I can try harder, but some make is extremely difficult.
"That is the answer he got."
Only after the filibuster...
Prior to the filibuster, the answer he got was 'it would be inappropriate'...
I wonder how the Right to Bear Arms figures into tasers . -- Posted by Dissident. on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 11:41 AM
Apparently the only thing that would matter is if they came with a "clip". If so then they must be a threat to all human kind...
"...because a superior intellect..."
That's your opinion and you are always entitled to it. One caution would be to not connect "intellect" with agreeing with your opinion.
That's your opinion and you are always entitled to it. One caution would be to not connect "intellect" with agreeing with your opinion.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM
As I said earlier Common, you still have not demonstrated anything superior in intellectual material. Innuendos,Fabricated Statements, Suggesting the government might have blown up Timothy McVeigh, when they had no idea what he was up to etc. etc.. The list could go on from your past posts. Not to mention we did not have the Drone program in McVeigh's day.
And it is a pretty big stretch to assume that most Posters on here do not know what "Hypothetical" means.
More evidence of a lack of a Superior Intellect.
Common, A well executed tactic on your part, I almost forgot what subject you were losing on before the "stupid questions" diversion.
Since you clearly know what hypothetical means, why all of this...
"Innuendos,Fabricated Statements, Suggesting the government might have blown up Timothy McVeigh, when they had no idea what he was up to etc. etc.."
commonsensematters: At least Rand Paul stood up for something he believes in more of them out there in Congress need to do the same instead of worrying about the next election show leadership step forward I know that is hard to do these days as you might offend some one. But look at the shape we are in almost a complete dysfunctional nation and were broke we are playing this make believe game and refuse to face reality.
commonsensematters: At least Rand Paul stood up for something he believes in -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 1:06 PM
Yes. I get tired of the herd mentality of politicians. If Obama doesn't want something then Harry Reid refuses to let it be considered in the Senate. There is no independence between the executive branch and the Senate. The "balance" of power is compromised with this bunch.
"Since you clearly know what hypothetical means, why all of this..."
Because Common, it was a poor and useless comparable.
Let me give you one equally as useless.
What if the Trojans had hit the Greeks 'Trojan' Horse in the Arse with a Drone after pulling it into the City of Troy instead of waiting for nightfall when the Greeks came out to defeat them.
Lack of knowledge in both cases allowed an atrocity to be committed.
Yes Common I know the story is mythology. So is a portion of yours.
''In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed.''
''I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.''
''The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.''
''The Cambridge police acted stupidly.''
''It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing.''
''I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances.''
''The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.''
''Now, what we're doing, I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.''
''Why can't I just eat my waffle?''
''I'm also very pleased that this week we are going to be able to announce $70 million in additional spending -- $70 billion, excuse me, in additional spending for 'Iron Dome.' This is a program that has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for Israeli families. It is a program that has been tested, and has prevented missile strikes inside of Israel.''
"Folks, I can tell you I've known eight presidents, three of them intimately."
"Look at what they value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. He said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains."
"I promise you, the president has a big stick. I promise you."
"I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. ... When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That's me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway."
"An hour late, oh give me a f**king break."
"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."
"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened."
"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."
"A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States -- Barack America!"
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."
Would those two people that you quote be from the Party of Dumb.... or the Party of Dumber?
I think someone needs to point out to Common that when you have Dumb and Dumber in the top two offices in the Country... it is kind of hard to refer to the opposing party as the Party of Stupid.
"What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget... we're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."
"Well, the good news is our emissions are way down because of the recession."
"We used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We're the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad."
"millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They're impossible to find and don't exist."
"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy."
"I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like "You know what this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail I'm not staying, so that's why he left."
"Isn't it a little racist to call it Black Friday?"
"I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill ... What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?'"
"We know that no one person can succeed unless everybody else succeeds."
"Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."
"The Republican health care plan: don't get sick ... The Republicans have a back up plan in case you do get sick ... This is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly!"
"every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs."
"African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do."
"This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything."
"There is no terrorist threat. Yes, there have been horrific acts of terrorism and, yes, there will be acts of terrorism again. But that doesn't mean that there's some kind of massive terrorist threat."
"We're seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn't ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there's a lot of tundra that's being held down by that ice cap."
"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."
"Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, 'Thank God, I'm still alive.' But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again."
"We'd like to avoid problems, because when we have problems, we can have troubles."
"Eight more days and I can start telling the truth again"
"The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs."
"I am clearly more popular than Reagan. I am in my third term. Where's Reagan? Gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Michael Dukakis no less."
"A zebra does not change its spots."
"I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up."
"The harsh fact of the matter is when you're passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
"If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq."
"I'm going to be honest with you -- I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system. Is it a government-run system?"
"Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing...uh, um...Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies."
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
"We were basically held up in raising the debt ceiling until they got all of those budget cuts they demanded. We didn't raise any revenue, and they didn't close any tax loopholes. I believe the Democratic Party and the President of the United States should not have backed down. We should have made them walk the plank."
"I was amazed. I really was. I didn't say anything to anybody. I just watched-the Republicans were out there-they were having a great time. They were laughing, they were waving the American flag, they were egging them on, and I thought that was outrageous behavior. I really did."
"We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines."
"If you call it a riot, it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion."
"The President is a liar. Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief."
"I would argue that the president doesn't have this authority even if an american is engaged in combat on American soil."
I would say you are correct. If actual combat is occurring, then the rules of engagement are in effect, whether that battlefield be on United States soil or not. However, in the absence of pitched battle, methinks the Constitutional extension of protections to traitors, or rather to suspected traitors, would be in effect.
By 'rules of engagement' I refer the possibility that the traitor may be killed during actual conflict, whether war be declared or not, permissible to save lives in resposne to an immediate threat. This would not preclude drone strikes, though I still think their application would be difficult to justify.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 2:35 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 2:40 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 3:03 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 3:19 PM
So you found large numbers of dumb quotes from politicians on the internet. Senator Paul added another, what's your point?
"...what's your point?"
"Where do [Democrats] find these imperceptive and thickheaded people?"
If Mr. Paul's question (which was actually asked, as closely as it was asked to your 'supposed' quote, by Sen. Ted Cruz, not by Mr. Paul) makes the Republicans the 'Party of Stupid Questions', what then do all those Democrat statements make their party - the Party of Stupid Comments?
The question has been defended by some Democrats, who agree that it needs to be asked. Does that also make the Democrats a party of stupid questions, via their complicity in the question?
I would argue that the president doesn't have this authority even if an american is engaged in combat on American soil. See Art 3 Sec 3.
-- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 4:21 PM
When did a little thing like the Constitution ever get in the way of what BHO wants to do before?
"The question has been defended by some Democrats..."
None of them wasted 13 hours in a senseless filibuster. And the entire issue has been pertty well beaten to death...
And the entire issue has been pertty well beaten to death... -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 7:11 PM
Kinda skipped over that filibuster didn't you? The entire issue was addressed only after the filibuster. If he didn't filibuster, Holder, Obama, et al would have continued to filibuster their answer. He forced their hand with a legal, constitutional approach - filibuster.
None of them wasted 13 hours in a senseless filibuster. And the entire issue has been pertty well beaten to death...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 7:11 PM.
Wasted? I don't think so. Caused Obama, through Eric Holder, to cry 'Uncle.
"None of them wasted 13 hours in a senseless filibuster. And the entire issue has been pertty well beaten to death..."
It took a 13 hour filibuster to get a simple 'no' answer to a question to which you agree the only answer is, and should always have been 'no'.
If you think it was a waste of time, I trust you didn't watch it. If Mr. Ryan wanted to spend his time that way, oh, well, it was his time to waste. At least he stayed on topic. I seem to recall Sen. Robert Bird, of the party you don't think is stupid, just read from the dictionary when he filibustered.
I guesss stupid is as stupid does...
"Will Americans be satisfied with the use of drones if 50 civilians are killed for each person targeted?"
If it saves just one life, it'll be worth it, no? :(
"...50 civilians are killed for each person targeted?"
That is not what the report says. It said by some unspecified criteria, only 2% of the targets were considered "high value." The executive summary does not identify how this percentage was computed or who decided which targets qualified as "high value."
By the way data was gathered, the report would naturally be biased.
Common, You defend your party of stupid questions by pointing out the waste of 13 hours as if something important or constructive was not done because of the filibuster.
Nothing in that respect was was going to get done anyway because of the over reaction to a snow storm.
"And the entire issue has been pertty well beaten to death..."
Is that your way of saying you have been beaten again? May be time to start another diversionary thread of accusing the accusers.
Don't ya just love what you learn with further education! ;)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 10:59 PM
"Naturally be biased"
Now there is something Common excels at, and should have no trouble understanding.
Wheels, I recently found a envelope from Nielson in the mailbox. It had a dollar and a survey inside asking what I think about today's TV. My answer, I think will be inspired by this thread as TV and government interacts with us as if we are all pretty stupid. :)
I look at that as if you are $1 richer and whatever you give em for answers is fair. I usually did not bother even responding to those kinds of surveys. Figured anybody mailing me a dollar unsolicited wasn't all that smart anyway.
I agree, probably figuring a dummy like me will respond with my info so that a bunch of other people can send me offers I can't refuse.
Back to somewhat of the subject that has been discussed here, the partys of dumb and dumber are still driving the cart toward the cliff while arguing about who's the better driver.
I'm still thinking about BC's comment based on a redbone hound's false call..someone say it ain't true! ;)
He's probably right about the politicians not being stupid, but the followers sure are.
We never owned one... but I have more respect for a red bone hound than to compare him to s politician. I'll have to remember to tell BC tomorrow that he ought to be ashamed of himself.
Most of our dogs were pretty much the Heinz 57 breed.
I simply pointed out that Senator Paul conducted a foolish errand. To try to make an issue of something that has a virtual zero probability of happening is a clear exercise in futility. The fact that so many on SO rushed to his side in defense of nothing, is a pretty conclusive and expected sign of conservative bias.
Beaten? In what world? The harangues and rudeness do not bother me in the least, and neither does it surprise me when the source is taken into account
My identifying bias in the drone report is a separate question. When the interviews were conducted with Afghani and Pakistani Taliban, their adherents and supporters, what kind of a picture would you expect to be painted. The 2% statistic is contradicted in the executive summary and the claim that "...50 civilians are killed for each person targeted ," is flat wrong. This type of misinformation is one significant reason why so little attention is paid to most of the unwarranted criticism here.
Old John I got $5 from them and a little book to keep record of what we watch. I guess they didn't research enough and see that I'm not good at record keeping. So I spent it on Pepsi and popcorn for the kids and I while we watched TV.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 11, 2013, at 7:11 PM
I just checked at the top of the thread and looks like it was started by you. So are you beating the dead horse some more or retreating?
"...more or retreating..."
Definitely not. The point's been made, Senator Paul's filibuster was a waste. Now all that comes up here, is whining by the losers.
I suppose it would be 'whining' to point out that William Proxmire (D-Wis) held the floor for over 16 hours in 1981 filibustering to block an increase in the debt ceiling.
How did that work out for his party, the party that now wants to argue the Presidnet should have unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling as he sees fit?
To try to make an issue of something that has a virtual zero probability of happening is a clear exercise in futility. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 6:30 AM
And here we have the liberal argument. It's ok to support major constitutional violations - like killing civilian Americans with the US Armed Forces on American soil with no trial - as long as "something has a virtual zero probability of happening".
So go ahead and violate the constitution because they won't likely ever do it. The slippery slope of authoritarianism. I'm sure there were a lot of Hitler admirers who thought the same thing because you know he was a good talker. Women loved him! Who cares if he takes away your rights. What harm could he do?
Scary. I can't imagine someone so in-the-tank for a man. Take the Obama posters off your bedroom wall and take a break.
I suppose, at one time or another, Mr. Edison was told he was wasting time trying to make light using electricity.
Solon was probably also told he was wasting his time to invent a system of self-rule. To be sure, and by Commonsensematter's standard, Solon wasted his time, since the 'Father of Democracy's democratic system failed and was replaced by tyranny a short while later.
"All great ideas began as heresies." Or, perhaps, as wastes of time...
"All great ideas began as heresies."
I would dispute the "all," but would agree with "many." Unfortunately, Senator Paul missed the "many" mark this time.
"...William Proxmire (D-Wis) held the floor for over 16 hours."
Bill Proxmire was a great senator from my home state, but he probably wasted his time with that effort too. Maybe someday members of Congress might discover that working together at compromise solutions is the way to get things done, such as reducing the deficit and balancing the budget.
"...ok to support major constitutional violations - like killing civilian Americans..."
As usual, you are not only off base, you're out of the ball park. No one has said "it's OK."
"Maybe someday members of Congress might discover that working together at compromise solutions is the way to get things done, such as reducing the deficit and balancing the budget."
They've had over 200 years to figure that out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The sequester was a compromise. Now, one side wants to undo that compromise.
Nor can you compromise with someone who brings nothing to the table. I've pointed this out before. If one side wants all of what the other has, and the other side 'compromises' and only gives them half of what they have, what did they earn through the compromise? A delay until the other side comes after the rest?
Shall I cut~n~paste Holder's answer about domestic drone use again ? -- Posted by Dissident. on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 10:54 AM
You'd be wasting your time. Common can only read his and Obama's own words. He somehow misses Holders statements - or can't comprehend them.
Common - you said it was a waste of time because it was "an issue of something that has a virtual zero probability of happening is a clear exercise in futility". Sounds like your OK with their position to kill Americans with drones as long as there's zero probability of that happening.
As I've always said - kudos to you for the endless defense of someone you so admire. Even abused children cry when you take them away from their parents. And an abused dog is usually always still loyal. I get it. You're just on the wrong side of the argument. Answer this question:
Do you believe that President has the authority to launch a drone strike with US Armed Forces on a Civilian American on American soil? Simple question. Simple answer. Holder couldn't answer it and I think you can't either.
"The point's been made, Senator Paul's filibuster was a waste."
No, your "point" was soundly rejected as nothing more than your typical far left wing looney logic. Faulty logic.
You are not the last word on your "dead horse" of a suggestion that Senator Rand wasted his time. He did not wast his or anyone's time. He provided a valuable service in getting a two bit dictator to admit, through a 'second' that his power is not without end.
At least one politician has the makings of a leader in Washington. Not to short change the others who stepped in to lend a hand. Some of them show potential.
Or this one, which is where the original question originates, I believe:
"How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American
"Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible father."
"Simple question. Simple answer."
But that was Yemen, and this is America, right?
"Simple question. Simple answer." No. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 11:42 AM
If you would have been the US Attorney General Senator Paul would not have held a filibuster and we wouldn't be discussing it.
"If one side wants all of what the other has..."
That describes the Ryan plan. All spending reductions laid on the middle class and no balance as far as revenue increase.
The President is willing to go with a balanced approach which defines compromise.
"...Senator Paul would not have held a filibuster..."
I doubt that. The question was a red herring, the filibuster was to gather publicity.
"and no balance as far as revenue increase."
You have a very short memory Common. Revenue was increased in January. All we are waiting for is some meaningful cuts in spending, which Obama is not going to do unless he is dragged kicking and screaming to the table. Like a spoiled child.
The question was a red herring, the filibuster was to gather publicity.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 11:50 AM
Why didn't Holder say "no"? As Dissident said, do you need his words cut and pasted again?
"That describes the Ryan plan. All spending reductions laid on the middle class and no balance as far as revenue increase."
Spending cuts mean that the government spends less of money it does not have, mostly on those who want monies that belong to someone else. Ergo, nothing to compromise.
"The President is willing to go with a balanced approach which defines compromise."
No, the President wants to take more of what one side 'the rich' have to give it to those who want it, while taking nothing from those who would be the recipients of such largess.
What are they bringing to the table? Are you saying that, by cutting the amount of monies that belong to someone else they will receive, they are sacrificing?
"Are you saying that, by cutting the amount of monies that belong to someone else they will receive, they are sacrificing?"
I would say having to make a decision between a big screen TV or a new couch is definitely making a sacrifice for the deadbeats. Could be that the springs sticking through the fabric on the old couch really bothers some people when they watch TV while their supporters work.
"...do you need his words cut and pasted again?"
Yes. Specifically where he says unequivocally that "it is OK to kill Americans in America."
The next Fillibuster we need to have is over Benghazi. We need to force an answer out of Barack Hussein Obama instead of allowing him to stonewall us.
Not debating if or not we should be there.... but, if we are going to send our people into dangerous places, we need to provide for their protection. We are becoming the laughing stock of the world.
Stephen Preston, the general counsel for the CIA, spoke in 2010 at Harvard and proclaimed that the CIA is not bound by the rules of war. Since the drone strikes against Americans are justified on the grounds that the targets are combatants, the administration argues that the rule of law does not apply.
John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, defended the drone strikes as being "legal, ethical, and wise" in announcing that the government had, in fact, been using drones against specific targets.
How the administration can argue that it is both legal and ethical, while his adminstration claims it is independent of both federal and military law, is puzzling to me. Perhaps someone can explain that...
Fox news and Wheels (aka McCain) holding presidents accountable since Jan 20, 2009.
-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 3:29 PM
I'm not aware that anyone has mentioned or linked Fox News in this thread.
In case you haven't been paying attention, Mr. McCain was coming down on Mr. Obama's side, opposing Mr. Ryan's filibuster.
In case you haven't been paying attention -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 3:36 PM
Apparently lefty turns sources (MSNBC/Rachel/Ed Schultz, Huffington Post) didn't say so. Therefore lefty didn't hear it.
"...holding presidents accountable since Jan 20, 2009."
But somebody has to do so. We sure can't count on the 'mainstream' press to inform us...
So cute Lefty.... can't you come up with some real issues instead of personal attacks?
"How did McCain get into the debate ? What are you trying to post ?"
Confuses me as well... I have never been a McCain fan. Only voted for him in 2008 because I recognized Obama for what he is.... an 'Empty
Suit' as early as 2007.
Would McCain have been better than Obama Jan 20 2009? You betcha, we would not have Obamacare right now. The Democrats would never have passed it with their majority in both houses if a Republican had been in the White House.
McCain sealed the deal for me, along with that other idiot, Lindsey Graham when they criticized Senator Rand Paul for his filibuster.
Go Rand Paul... if we have to have a government let's have one with a little integrity.
In the letter, Holder said "It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. "
Yes, as asked before, where does he say unequivocally that "it is OK to kill Americans in America."
"...where does he say unequivocally that "it is OK to kill Americans in America."
It's right there after the part where Mr. Paul asked: "Would it be legal to use a drone to kill an American citizen in the United States while he is sitting peacefully at a sidewalk restaurant?"
Why does commonsense continually embarrasss himself in public?
I think it is tremendously funny how these guys fall over themselves trying make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of Senator Paul's filibuster.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 6:53 PM
Yes. The Attorney General of the US wavering and refusing to give a direct answer to the killing of Americans on American soil by the US Armed Forces is making a silk purse out of a sows ear.
As Spaniard said - ask Jose Padilla and Anwar al Alaki about that.
The issue here was created by Barack Obama and Eric Holder, not by Rand Paul.
Still have not seen any such quote. You lose again.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Mar 12, 2013, at 8:29 PM
A clever spin tactic. Change the question. Where did anyone - but you - say he unequivocally said it is OK to kill Americans in America? Where did anyone say "unequivocally" ?
The issue is when asked a simple outright question he didn't unequivocally say no. He himmed. He hawwed. He did *not* give a "no" answer. He gave a maybe answer. And you supported it with your "an issue of something that has a virtual zero probability of happening". You sound OK with drone attacks on Americas here but only because they probably wont' happen. Sounds just like Holder's answer.
BC, It might be time to bring bulldogs into the comparison. They tend to never give up?
Sometimes a redbone makes the mistake of letting a 'coon lure him into the water but a good one will make a dive for dry land.
Common, You're out in the deep water on this one! :)
Still have not seen any such quote. You lose again.
I haven't seen one either. So why did you make it up? No one but you ever said he "unequivocally said anything". Are you dreaming up stuff again? I think you're referring to Dis's statement not mine - you're confused. You're logic makes as much sense as this:
Common - where did Barack Obama ever say that he would steal from a bank? Where? Prove that he said that. Prove that he unequivocally said he would steal from a bank. Loser!
Anyone can make stuff up like you. It just looks bad.
"...where did (President)Barack Obama ever say that he would steal from a bank?"
He did not.
Where did anyone but you say "unequivocally"?
They did not.
Dissident I think poor old CSM has contracted "forum vertigo." They have spun so much that they are dizzy and have no clue which way is up. If you go to a physical therapist they can put your rocks back in your head where they belong.
Common is having a tough time trying to get out of what he got into.
"...attacking "stupid people" is finally dead."
Only after you realize that there was never any "...attacking "stupid people..." It was simply a matter of pointing out that Senator Paul wasted time on a senseless, and yes, frankly "stupid" filibuster and question. Nothing was ever said or intimated about him being "stupid."
So now it is "dead."
Nothing stupid about Senator Paul's filibuster. It caused the Obama White House to cry uncle and admit they did not have the power they were attempting to grab. Maybe now Americans will NOT have to worry about being put to death by the "Good King Obama's" decree.
"...did not have the power they were attempting to grab."
Attempting to grab what?
"...Americans will NOT have to worry about being put to death..."
Where do you find this kind of foolishness?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Mar 13, 2013, at 8:52 PM
Not at this point when Obama has had to publicly admit he does not have the power to send a drone after an American on American soil.
Do you believe he has the authority and the power necessary to kill Americans on foreign soil that are merely suspected of working against the United States... but never tried in a court of law. Where is the part about being judged by a jury or their peers? Get your head out of it and start thinking like an American again instead of an OW.
We are intent on having foreigners tried in an American court but do not want to give suspected Americans the same benefits. BS is what that is.
"...this kind of foolishness..."
Why in the world would you, or anyone, believe that the President has the intent, reason or cause to "send a drone after an American on American soil?" There is no reason or justification for doing that. If you really believe that, then you are paranoid.
As for drone use in a hostile Middle East environment, it is a reasonable alternative to sending in our military and risking their lives unnecessarily.
I have an idea how you think, but I am secure in the knowledge that the American court system is strong enough to allow "...foreigners (to be) tried in an American court."
I don't know where your head is and don't care, but it would be beneficial if you were to "...start thinking like an American..." instead of some irrational SO personage obsessed with criticizing things you don't fully want to understand.
"I don't know where your head is and don't care,"
Common, I think most of us have a pretty good idea where your head is.
I do not trust Obama. He lies worse than Bill Clinton ever did and I remember someone say Bill would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.
I realize politicians lie for a career but some are over the top.
Well, there he goes again. It is not that the use of drones against Americans on American soil isn't likely or that you can't imagine the president wanting do such, it is about the fact that it is not supported by our contitution nor our national morality.
Some claim it all imperative to try enemy combatants in federal courts, denounce waterboarding and then support the authority to kill America citizens without due process via drone attacks. That logic I can't understand.
Some appear to believe that Obama should have 'King Like' power, because they feel he is infallible. What ever he would do is right and just.
If the Germans would have been a little more "paranoid" during the time of the buildup to World War II a considerable loss of life and human misery may have been prevented.
"...logic I can't understand."
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 10:18 AM
It is very obvious that you can't understand logic, and sadly you get so little help from the SO friends.
Why in the world would you, or anyone, believe that the President has the intent, reason or cause to "send a drone after an American on American soil?" There is no reason or justification for doing that. If you really believe that, then you are paranoid. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 5:36 AM
The Q&A exchange (again for Common's deaf ear):
Senator Cruz: "Does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, who doesn't pose an imminent threat, to be killed by the U.S. government?"
Eric Holder: "I do not believe that -- again, you have to look at all of the facts. On the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical, I would not think that in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate because--."
Senator Cruz: "General Holder, I have to tell you that I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, that you are unable to give a simple one-word, one-syllable answer: no."
Cruz's question would have been stupid on it's face except for the fact that he suspected Obama/Holder felt the constitution allowed this. Holder couldn't give a "no" answer and avoided the "no" for quite some time. Why couldn't he say "no"?
Common will spin anything. Remember - Obama said "I will cut the deficit in half in my first term" and is now headed to double it. And common voted for him twice. What is posted here matters ZERO to common. NOTHING - absolutely nothing - can shake his loyalty away from "the man".
Common and his thread kind of reminds me of something I once saw in a TV program or movie, can't remember.... but there was this box setting there and ever so often you would hear this voice.
"Help!"............ "Please Help!"............. "Please Help Me Out Of This Box!"............................
-- Posted by Rick..... on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 11:56 AM
Thank you! I'll try to remember you next time I get invited to a Trivia Night somewhere. :-)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 10:52 AM
So be a friend and help me out.
Every man's logic is logical to him, but that doesn't mean it's understandable... so give it another try and display your logic once again for those that may have missed it.
"Holder couldn't give a "no" answer and avoided the "no" for quite some time. Why couldn't he say "no"?"
Maybe he had to ask Obama first.
Spaniard Wrote: "All of these power grabbing practices start out as harmless little "memos" from the DOJ and the White House counsel.
And this has nothing to with party. Its about expanding power." I think your onto something there.
I think David Limbaugh might agree, he wrote a whole book about the Clinton justice department, [Absolute Power] but it applies to other administrations as well.
"...couldn't he say "no"?"
It is also possible that, since the answer "no" is so obvious, that the Attorney General thought he might have been asked a "trick question," and was understandably reluctant to reply without giving it more thought.
Only after the filibuster. Ergo, the filibuster was not a waste of time.
"It is also possible that, since the answer "no" is so obvious, that the Attorney General thought he might have been asked a "trick question," and was understandably reluctant to reply without giving it more thought."
It appears only to have been obvious to you.
The thought was what will Obama want me to say?
It may be time to go back for guidence and quit relying on that logic that Old John's to dumb to understand. :)
It is also possible that, since the answer "no" is so obvious, that the Attorney General thought he might have been asked a "trick question." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 4:55 PM
If you were to ask me this question common I could answer it two ways. The question: "Dug, would you ever assault, rape and kill the members of family".
Eric Holders answer: "I do not believe that -- again, you have to look at all of the facts. On the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical, I would not think that in that situation I would do such a thing, however..."
Dug answer: - "NO!".
I'm sure you still don't get it.
Apples and oranges again. No one is talking about assault, rape and killing in America.
The drone question was asked in the context of the son of a renegade citizen being killed by a drone strike. Therefore the answer was cautious. Moreso than necessary in my opinion, but I understand the reasoning.
When the question was clarified the answer was no.
Clarified? Did someone clarify it for him?
Or did he have to seek clarification for the correct answer from the great clarifier?
Cautious as if someone might not appove?
Where have they gone, the men that would speak for themselves?
What about the pollution 15,000 drones will create. Have the left wingnuts forgotten their mission is to save the planet from global warming?
Commons says..... Help! Lemme out of this damned box I put myself in!!
No one is talking about assault, rape and killing in America. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 6:28 PM
What do Obama/Holder's drones shoot? Chocolate doughnuts? I thought drones killed - and the question was clearly about "American" drones.
Is the alternative to drone attacks in America assualt and rape?
Just allow the drones to protect you from assault and rape, we promise you can give up your weapons and no one will get hurt. We only want to protect you!
There must be a part of "no" that some on SO either don't want to understand, or for some unknown reason are incapable of understanding.
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."
Signed, me and Eric
And that's all there is to it.
And that's all there is to it. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Mar 14, 2013, at 9:35 PM
For the 10th time - that was *after* the filibuster.
Man-love - it's strong!
Common is now trying to turn it around and make it look as if the question changed. Nice try Common.
Figuratively speaking, Senator Paul had to put his foot on Obama and Holder's throat and make them cry Uncle before he got the "NO". Senator Paul shamed the two of them in front of the entire nation and that is what is stuck in your craw Common.
You guys have to be living in a fantasy world somewhere in outer space, maybe on the back side of the planet limbaugh.
Perhaps you are aware of the action that Senator Paul's filibuster was against. Whether you know or not, it was to block approval of Brennan as the head of the CIA. Guess who's in charge of the CIA today.
The "filibuster was exactly that. Filled with BS and a complete and total bust. Most of the rest of the country recognized it as a comedic publicity grab. Senator Paul's childish behavior was the brunt of jokes across the board. Even a fellow party members called him one of the Senate's "wacko-birds."
The failed effort did not do damage to anyone and no one was made to "cry Uncle." Senator Paul embarrassed himself totally and will likely bring up the bottom of the next republican field of losing presidential candidates.
And as mentioned several times before, your petty insults don't bother me in the least. But this really does conclude my participation in this thread. Feel free to continue ranting, but I'm not going to waste my time with further clarifications and corrections to your delusions.
Thanks for your attention. Hopefully you learned something.
Sounds rather bitter for someone who supposedly won...
Is there such a thing as a 'sore winner'?
More references to limbaugh...
I rather think closing White House tours and cancelling veterans benefits as a "comedic publicity grab".
All I've learned from your posts is just how deep someone can worship another human. Again, it's scary. I now understand fully how many of the worlds massive genocides and wars happen with complicity.
Someone offered to pay the costs of the White House Tours if the President would allow them to resume, but he still says 'no'. It's all for show, it's not really about the costs.
"...just how deep someone can worship another human."
If that's what you really believe, then you can only be considered a complete and total fool.
No bitterness, just common sense.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
"Sorry, I couldn't resist."
I knew that. I couldn't resist luring you back. That makes about the third time you've been done with this thread... ;)
"You guys have to be living in a fantasy world somewhere in outer space, maybe on the back side of the planet limbaugh."
We can't let you leave this thread until you also throw in the obligatory Fox News reference. All 'independent thinking' Democrats have to repeat the Limbaugh/Fox mantra to show that they are free thinkers...
From today's 'Speak Out'
"A scientific study just completed shows that headers -- hitting a soccer ball with your head -- slows cognitive reaction time."
Wonder if Common played soccer??
If that's what you really believe, then you can only be considered a complete and total fool. No bitterness, just common sense. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Mar 15, 2013, at 9:23 AM
Your words betray you. Very bitter indeed.
No bitterness? "fool", "stupid", "thickheaded", "dumb". Another cookie-cutter liberal. And the continuous limbaugh quotes and references! Obama is the best gun sales person in the US. And liberals like you keep Rush Limbaugh on the air waves. Too funny!
Common has left the building!!!
Guess he is off nursing his bruised ego.... let's hope his ego is slow in healing and we don't have to listen to any Obama Worshipping for a spell anyway.
I don't think we should get out because the UN says so.... I think we should get out because we should not be the policemen of the world. And then get out of the UN as an added benefit.
If we are truly protecting US interests in Pakistan and they are our allies then the Pakistanis should be giving us permission and if they will not, then cut off their American dollars.
Wheels, If I am not mistaken we are paying Pakistan big money to chase down terrorists, many of the same they aide and abet against us.
We should have chased the dwindling number of terroist all out and openly into Pakistan with or without their consent as we did in Afganistan. Instead they have grown in numbers and regrouped across the border.
I think that makes twice in the past week I've found myself in agreement with Spaniard.
I'm waiting for the sky to fall....
"I don't think its the UN that turned us into the policemen of the world."
That makes three times...
Who are you and what have you done with the real Spaniard?
Have a good weekend, all!
"These compilations of charts and data are not budgets at all. They are just props in the Budget Follies of 2013. Not one of the long-term visions sketched out in these plans will actually be realized."
Most budgets, from household budgets to government ones, are that way.
Families oftentimes plan their expenses to the penny, with a roadmap to comfortable retirement and college for the kids. And then the furnace breaks...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Mar 17, 2013, at 9:08 AM
While an unexpected expense can blow a budget.... what ever happened to the 'Rainy Day' fund people at one time budgeted for so there was money for unexpected expenses?
In my opinion our priorities are out of order... we budget for luxuries ahead of necessities, which should include a 'Rainy Day' fund.
"While an unexpected expense can blow a budget.... what ever happened to the 'Rainy Day' fund people at one time budgeted for so there was money for unexpected expenses?"
Apparently, since our government has bought into the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, they figure there'll be very little rain and thus little need for a raindy day fund.
Seriously, once the furnace breakdowns become routine, you have to budget in the furnace repair or the money for a new furnace. In the case of our government, however, they keep acting surprised everytime the broken furnace costs them money...
"In my opinion our priorities are out of order... we budget for luxuries ahead of necessities, which should include a 'Rainy Day' fund."
The logic there is that the people will always be willing to 'chip in' to fund the necessities, but less so the luxuries. Thus, they pay the luxuries first and, when they run out of money, complain that they need more money to pay for the necessities.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Mar 18, 2013, at 7:07 AM
Precisely, and like I said.... our priorities are out of order. How do we fix that? Appears to me that is where we need to start.
"Precisely, and like I said.... our priorities are out of order. How do we fix that? Appears to me that is where we need to start."
I'm afraid it has become ingrained into our society. For instance, many who seek assistance from government and private charities spend their own money on 'luxuries' such as cell phones and tattoos, because they know they will not be refused the necessities because of the 'compassion' of others.
We can only begin to turn it around if we begin to educate our youth on their financial responsibility to themselves, and on the distinction between necessities and luxuries. We also need to educate them on the immorality of requiring others to pay their own lawfully-incurred bills and obligations in the absence of honest need.
In other words, we need to reintroduce 'shame' into the system. Those seeking assistance they do not need should be made to feel some level of shame for doing so, rather than a sense of entitlement thereto. When I was a young man, there was a sense of such shame. Our efforts to promote the 'self esteem' of those seeking handouts has all but erased that.
In today's society, people not only feel no shame about asking other people to pay their own bills, they demand it and insist that it is a right. Methinks we've lost the current generation because of it. Unless we begin to reintroduce shame, we'll continue to lose future ones, as well.
I do not know whether our government's attitude in this regard is a reflection of society's, or whether society's attitude in this regard was instilled by government. I tend to think it is the latter, because the government's insistence on doling out 'entitlements' seems to predate the majority's demand for them, but I could be mistaken.
Methinks our government officials preyed upon society's hidden greed to fulfil, under the false name of compassion, the desire to have ourselves unburdened by the need to sacrifice our luxury to the basic fulfilment of necessity. By providing the so-called 'safety net', government has provided many - perhaps now the majority - with the means to have the monies stolen from others to pay for their necessities freeing their own finances to be spent on the luxuries.
The morality of this is reinforced by the government's own spending patterns, which mandates certain spending, and then using shortfalls in those mandates to justify demands for more monies to cover them. In order to win over the votes for those additional revenues from the majority of voters, our legislators promise to take that additional revenue from persons other than them. The citizens, no longer encumbered by shame for voting to steal from other people to satisfy their own wants, perpetuate this theft-based system.
"The 1st time is shame on them , the 2nd time is shame on us...."
The shameful part is that we let them shame us into supporting a shameful system based on having the majority vote to steal from the minority. The proverbial three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
This is why we need a well-armed sheep: to ensure that our republican system does not develove into a pure democracy (i.e., mob rule).
"President Barack Obama's defense to Democratic senators complaining about how little his administration has told Congress about the legal justifications for his drone policy: Dick Cheney was worse.
"That's part of what two senators in the room recounted of Obama's response when, near the outset of his closed-door session with the Senate Democratic conference on Tuesday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) confronted the president over the administration's refusal for two years to show congressional intelligence committees Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memos justifying the use of lethal force against American terror suspects abroad.
"Obama recently allowed members of those panels to see the memos, but only after senators in both parties threatened to hold up the confirmation of John Brennan as Central Intelligence Agency director. Brennan was confirmed last week, but lawmakers not on one of the intelligence panels are still being denied access to the memos and several are steamed over being frozen out.
"In response to Rockefeller's critique, Obama said he's not involved in drafting such memos, the senators told POLITICO. He also tried to assure his former colleagues that his administration is more open to oversight than that of President George W. Bush, whom many Democratic senators attacked for secrecy and for expanding executive power in the national security realm.
"This is not Dick Cheney we're talking about here," he said, according to Democratic senators who asked not to be named discussing the private meeting.
"Two Obama administration officials, who asked not to be named, confirmed Rockefeller raised the drone oversight issue with the president at the session. The White House had no comment on Obama's alleged reference to the former vice president.
I reckon, since the Democrats also asked the question, they would seem to be party to the party of stupid questions. More importantly, as head of that party, Mr. Obama has made them the party of stupid answers.
Obama has never grown out of the childish state where everything is comparable to how his siblings act.
Of particular insterest is that he only opened those memos to viewing after the filibuster, which was about such things. Yet Commonsensematters claims the filibuster accomplished nothing. This would seem to show otherwise.
Regarding the original 'stupid question', in which Commonsensematters asks:
"Why not ask, "Would it be legal for the US Air Force to shoot down an American airliner filled with our citizens, over the United States?"
There is a difference between targeting and assassinating a specific individual, and shooting down a vessel which poses an immediate threat to the United States. Clearly, a person, citizen or otherwise, "sitting peacefully at a sidewalk restaurant" is not posing an immediate threat to the United States. If he were, for example, dialing an remotely-detonated explosive device on his cell phone, then he is not "sitting peacefully" by any defintion. Even if he were the plotter of an ongoing threat, unless he were actively taking part in it by his presence at the restaurant, which would mean he was not "sitting peacefully", the assassination would be just that, an assassination and not a response to an immediate threat.
An airliner full of people being flown headlong towards a building would constitute an immediate threat, and shooting it down regardless of the nationality of its occupants, woudld be justifiable. Shooting down an airliner which was "flying peacefully" between cities would not.
Mr. Obama chose to target the son of an American national who was sitting at a roadside café in Yemen. When asked about it, the White House's repsonse was that "He should have had a more responsible father." But the Constitution clearly says that "... no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." If the only known crime of the targeted youth was that his father, killed two weeks earlier, was a traitor, then Mr. Obama's targeting of him would certainly seem to be a claim of 'corruption of blood'.
Of course, since we're not talking about Dick Cheney here, we're supposed to accept that Mr. Obama had recourse against the youth that justified the killing, and that he simply is not at liberty to explain it to us. Somehow, I don't see Dick Cheney getting away with this, but we're not talking about him, are we?
"...sitting at a roadside café in Yemen."
That's the difference. Would it be worth American lives to invade Yemen so he could be arrested and brought to trial?
"That's the difference. Would it be worth American lives to invade Yemen so he could be arrested and brought to trial?"
Would it be too difficult to explain what immediate threat a 16-year-old sitting at a roadside café in Yemen posed to society other than to claim he had an irresposible father?
Is bad upbringing now sufficient cause to justify assassination by our government?
"Would it be worth American lives to invade Yemen so he could be arrested and brought to trial?"
Do you really think an invasion of Yemen would be needed to arrest a 16-year-old? If our drones can find him, so could our Seal Teams, could they not?
Of course, there's always the possibility of asking Yemen to arrest him for us. Or has Mr. Obama given up on diplomacy?
"...what immediate threat a 16-year-old sitting at a roadside café in Yemen..."
I have no idea. Perhaps the target was someone else. Personally I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it has nothing to do with targeting Americans in America.
"I have no idea. Perhaps the target was someone else. Personally I don't think it was the right thing to do, but it has nothing to do with targeting Americans in America."
Are you so sure? The drones do not appear to understand the concept of borders, nor of citizenship. The administration was slow to answer the question proposed, which means they likely consider it a possibility. Currently, it appears to be entirely at the whim of the president, who apparently feels no obligation to justify his choice of targets to anyone.
Targeting Americans overseas is just a first step.... once that becomes generally acceptable, watch them move on to targeting Americans in America.
We are sitting idly by while the President targets Americans overseas who are not proven guilty of anything and meanwhile protects a Muslim gunman who infiltrated the military and killed Americans at Fort Hood.
Put some more drones in the sky and paint Allahu Akbar on the side of them.
"Are you so sure?"
"The drones do not appear to understand the concept of borders..."
But the operators do.
And what makes you so sure? Mr. Obama hesitated to answer the question. Mr. Holder has said he would not rule it out. There seems to be no basis for your surety.
"But the operators do."
The administration says it could consider their use when arrest or capture is unlikely. Does that mean they could use drones in a Waco-like scenario? What about Ruby Ridge? What would prevent the government from employing them in such instances?
It would likely have saved the government a lot of money and embarrassment if they could have employed them at Ruby Ridge. Had Mr. Weaver not lived to tell his story, not lived to sue the government, then we'd have been left to believe that he was just another anti-gun nut taking up arms agains his country, and not an innocnent man the government tried to entrap in order to force him to turn spy for them. It's a good thing for us Mr. Clinton didn't have them.
But, of course, this is not Bill Clinton we're talking about here.
"because "the government is us"."
He's never heard of the tyranny of the masses?
The thing Mr. Obama is either unaware or unconcerned with is the fact that, if we accept that government has the authority to make such strikes against Americans on American soil, it doesnt' matter that we are not now talking about Dick Cheney, it's that the authority would exist for every president from the time we acknowledge it until something is done to repeal it.
Thus, even if Mr. Obama were pure as the drivne snow, as he seems to think he is, the next president or the one after that may well not be. Who knows, it could even be Dick Cheney some day. Ergo, if we allow that such an authority exists, such an acknowledgement would very likely come back to haunt us at some point...
"...if we accept that government has the authority to make such strikes against Americans on American soil..."
Why would anyone "accept" that premise. I don't and do not believe the administration does either.
"I don't and do not believe the administration does either."
So, you think Mr. Holder was lying when he said he wouldn't rule it out?
"Group Aynonmous have already solved this -- they have cracked the FBI and CIA websites already in the not so distant past . Plus Northrup's data-base as well."
So have the Iranians. Or has that been forgotten?
"A line drawn in the ground ..."
No. I line drawn on paper. Most borders are not defined on the ground. If they were, the drones might be able to recognize them.
Another Obama gem delivered to an audience in San Francisco last night. He now tells his liberal lemmings that the Newtown shooting was done with a fully automatic weapon:
"Now, over the next couple of months, we've got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly."
As mentioned here numerous times he is so out of touch with reality and a clown in a circus. He wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. I expect more photoshopped pictures of him shooting a gun tomorrow. And his followers melt at every word.
"...immediate threat to the United States. If he were, for example, dialing an remotely-detonated explosive device on his cell phone..."
"So, you think Mr. Holder was lying when he said he wouldn't rule it out?"
Maybe he was referring to your example...
Is there anything Obama could do to lessen the adoration of his followers?
"Maybe he was referring to your example..."
So, now you're not ruling it out. Make up your mind...
Posting a comment requires free registration: