Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sen. Rand Paul is Giving a Genuine Filibuster

86 posts in this topic

Posted

Yea we should probably throw due-process out the window and blow the dude and everything around him to pieces on a hunch.

Agreed. With you I mean.

Americans get a trial by jury.

The exceptions are rare such as the fugitive cop killer in CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Remember the guy who stole the tank a few years ago and drove it down main street? What if it was loaded with ammunition and he was killing people and a hell fire armed drone was the only weapon that could get to him fast enough to prevent him from killing more people?

If the Union army had drones, should they have been allowed to take out Robert E. Lee or other Confederate commanders?

Why does it even matter if its a drone or some other type of military weapon? If a government agency such as the FBI takes out a armed group with an Armored Personnel carries, like so many police groups use these days, is that ok?

A guy with a tank "could" be considered something other than a non combatant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yea we should probably throw due-process out the window and blow the dude and everything around him to pieces on a hunch.

I never said it was a hunch, in fact I specifically said he was doing it. Let's pretend he was coming to blow up the school where your kid was.

There could be a lot of ways to stop him, but he could then blow up a lot of cops. Maybe your brother is one of those cops. You are going to stop him and kill him anyways since hes not going to peacefully surrender - does it matter if we stop his truck with a drone or with a bunch of meat armed with guns?

It's all hypothetical, highly unlikely, and if you would actually listen to what was said on the subject, you would realize that they are talking about a crazy like this scenario and nothing else.

No I don't like the idea. No I don't think it's going to happen. No I don't want my leaders lying to me and telling me there would be no scenario this could not happen.

When 9/11 happened, we had no idea who was taking over those planes. If we had a drone armed with air to air missiles loitering around Manhattan, would we have let the planes crash into the towers instead of shooting them down because the people who took them over might have been American citizens?

It's a very grey area, and this area existed long before drones became available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Og Im sorry 9/11 was caused by the Jews, Dubya and the Freemasons, never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A guy with a tank "could" be considered something other than a non combatant

The point is though that it would be using a military weapon on a US citizen on US soil, and would be one of those extreme circumstances that the administration mentioned in which it would be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Part of the rub though, besides the American soil part was that they could have used it on non combatants. It was just waaaaay too wide open. When questioned about using it on a non combatant, the administration said, "we don't intend to", or "we haven't yet". Just too vague for such an important thing as new weapon systems or war systems being used on citizens. Finally, today, the administration said NO rather than all the vague crap. Took them only 6 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

lol ron paul voted for the aumf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Part of the rub though, besides the American soil part was that they could have used it on non combatants. It was just waaaaay too wide open. When questioned about using it on a non combatant, the administration said, "we don't intend to", or "we haven't yet". Just too vague for such an important thing as new weapon systems or war systems being used on citizens. Finally, today, the administration said NO rather than all the vague crap. Took them only 6 weeks.

There was never any real possibilty that the current administration or any foreseeable future administration would use military technology on noncombatants. And should some dictatorship come to power in the future, one that might use military weapons on non combatants, then they are likely to ignore a statement from this administration, or any legislation that might be passed preventing useage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Trying to block King Barack's CIA nominee until the drone strike policy is clarified. Been speaking about 2 hours now, changing subjects every 2-3 minutes. I guess he'll have to go pee sooner or later.

http://www.washingto...tion-cia-direc/

And 13 hours later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The Kings nominee got approved and Rand Paul had something to put on his fund raising letters, so it's all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul said on Fox Business Network. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

rand paul is a conman, much like his father

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Rand is a fuging pussy sellout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites