Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XV

[Marvolo]

I agree with your sentiments, Marvolo. Yet, at the same time, I've got a fear of people with grudges getting into power and abusing the drones. Unfounded and irrational?

edit: I mean using the drones against people in the States.

This government has always been about checks and balances. Install checks and balances and we do not have to worry about a president maliciously using it against the innocent. Congress is just too damn lazy and too partisan too set down and think up a smart plan for drone use in the States.

 

[craigdbfan]

Predator drones being used in American soil against Americans is a very scary thing to think about. The innocent casualties (collateral damage) that could (would) be inflicted is sickening regardless of who they're going after.

 

[enterthemadness]

Drones keep our soldiers safe in war.

Soldiers can keep themselves safe. And before you jump all over me, when you join the service, you should know the risks. However, now other countries are gonna have drones and they don't like us, and our drone policy isn't very good...which is why I say drones are worse than Nukes.

I will say to you, it's gonna get to a point where we will be at war with someone and it be our troops and drones and whatever vs the other country's troops, drones, and whatever.

Um, Paul has also bought attention to the matter. Trending on Twitter earlier and lots of press on-line from MSM and Indie sites.

 

[enterthemadness]

Ball is in the WH court. Rand will allow a vote to happen in the morning on Brennan becoming the CIA Director if he gets a answer in writing on drone use.

Which may be...well...who knows, probably not anytime soon.

 

[Marvolo]

Predator drones being used in American soil against Americans is a very scary thing to think about. The innocent casualties (collateral damage) that could (would) be inflicted is sickening regardless of who they're going after.

As opposed to the casualties of a dirty bomb going off that the target is threatening to set off.

Soldiers can keep themselves safe. And before you jump all over me, when you join the service, you should know the risks. However, now other countries are gonna have drones and they don't like us, and our drone policy isn't very good...which is why I say drones are worse than Nukes.

I will say to you, it's gonna get to a point where we will be at war with someone and it be our troops and drones and whatever vs the other country's troops, drones, and whatever.

Um, Paul has also bought attention to the matter. Trending on Twitter earlier and lots of press on-line from MSM and Indie sites.

Drones keep our soldiers from being forced into certain situations, and our drones can get targets that a ground assault can't. Its the 21st century and we have the most advanced military in the world. The days of sending in thousands of troops to be slaughtered by our enemies should be behind us. Strategic airforce strikes should be the way to go on foreign soil.

 

[enterthemadness]

As opposed to the casualties of a dirty bomb going off that the target is threatening to set off.



Drones keep our soldiers from being forced into certain situations , and our drones can get targets that a ground assault can't.

I don't want my rights taken away for the sake of the greater good. Basically, once you give up a civil liberty, good luck getting it back.


I am anti-drones 100%. Anti-Nukes 100%. Rand Paul is in favor of drone use to help out our military overseas.

However, I've said that other countries have Nukes...other countries are getting Drone technology. So I'm in the minority.

 

[Marvolo]

I don't want my rights taken away for the sake of the greater good. Basically, once you give up a civil liberty, good luck getting it back.


I am anti-drones 100%. Anti-Nukes 100%. Rand Paul is in favor of drone use to help out our military overseas.

However, I've said that other countries have Nukes...other countries are getting Drone technology. So I'm in the minority.

No one is taking your rights away. But we should have a plan in place in case of a worse case scenario. Sending in a ground assault to take out a terrorist in the States could cost many lives where-as a missle from a drone could take him out with very minimal loss of life.

 

[enterthemadness]

No one is taking your rights away. But we should have a plan in place in case of a worse case scenario. Sending in a ground assault to take out a terrorist in the States could cost many lives where-as a missle from a drone could take him out with very minimal loss of life.

Drone Policy in America includes spying, so that is taking my right away from me. My Privacy. You do know by 2015, or 2020, that the FAA has to make room for a few thousand drones in our skies. Unarmed drones. And police forces, colleges want them. I, however, do not.

 

[Marvolo]

Drone Policy in America includes spying, so that is taking my right away from me. My Privacy. You do know by 2015, or 2020, that the FAA has to make room for a few thousand drones in our skies. Unarmed drones. And police forces, colleges want them. I, however, do not.

You have privacy in your home. When you are in public you are in public and a drone is no more taking your rights than google earth or a security camera.

 

[enterthemadness]

You have privacy in your home. When you are in public you are in public and a drone is no more taking your rights than google earth or a security camera.

What about my backyard? Can't some drones have technolocy to see through houses to see what is going on inside?

 

[Marvolo]

What about my backyard? Can't some drones have technolocy to see through houses to see what is going on inside?

With current tech the most they could see in your house would be heat signatures, and that is pushing it. There is so much heat running through your house that discerning you from your surrounding would be difficult. There are already laws in place to stop illegal spying so you needn't worry about it from the government.

Most tech is already on the civillian market, and theoretically civillians can get into your privacy as easily if not easier than the government can. In the next 10-15 years with the continued tech advancements and interconnnectivity of poeple I expect our boundaries to become even smaller. Civillians will be more in your business than the government is right now. If you're really paranoid you can block these intrusions.

 

[enterthemadness]

The Filibuster....went bust, it end at over 12 1/2 hours. Little bit past that mark.

Awwwwwwww.

 

[Marvolo]

Ol McCaine gave Paul a bit of his mind:

WASHINGTON -- One of the Senate's leading hawks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), took to the Senate floor Thursday to fire back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), saying the Kentuckian's rant against extrajudicial drone killings was "simply false."

Quoting extensively from a Wall Street Journal editorial that mocked Paul, McCain also argued that Paul had belittled the growing use of drones to kill terrorism suspects by invoking the name of Jane Fonda and suggesting a drone could have killed her when she was a Vietnam War protester.

Paul took to the floor Wednesday for nearly 13 hours, hoping to pressure the White House to declare whether or not it might use a drone to strike an American citizen in the United States.

McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, was not impressed.

"I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday," McCain said. "I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.

"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."

McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."

The Wall Street Journal editorial he quoted was even more scathing, declaring, "Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on Washington. The filibuster filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship."

The editorial also complained that Paul should not be shocked that the United States might kill a citizen by drone strike within its own borders, arguing that the Obama administration is well within its rights to kill enemies of the country, wherever they may be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/rand-paul-john-mccain-filibuster_n_2829358.html

 

[enterthemadness]

Well, we got a answer...and...


http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=735

Sen. Paul's repeated correspondence to President Obama's nominee to be CIA director, John Brennan, was finally answered today, in part, with the following response from Attorney General Eric Holder: "'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."

It a 'NO'.

Now of course what does combat mean? Well, it clearly doesn't mean protesting out in the streets, cause that isn't combat. But it's a good answer is leaves me happy.

 

[Marvolo]

Well, we got a answer...and...


http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=735



It a 'NO'.

Now of course what does combat mean? Well, it clearly doesn't mean protesting out in the streets, cause that isn't combat. But it's a good answer is leaves me happy.

It was always a no. This filibuster was pointless.

 

[Ant-manic]

Soldiers can keep themselves safe. And before you jump all over me, when you join the service, you should know the risks. However, now other countries are gonna have drones and they don't like us, and our drone policy isn't very good...which is why I say drones are worse than Nukes.

I will say to you, it's gonna get to a point where we will be at war with someone and it be our troops and drones and whatever vs the other country's troops, drones, and whatever.

Um, Paul has also bought attention to the matter. Trending on Twitter earlier and lots of press on-line from MSM and Indie sites.

so if we stopped using drones then the other side would too?

 

[enterthemadness]

It was always a no. This filibuster was pointless.

It can not be a vague answer. It has to be yes or no. Rand got a answer. It was a no.

so if we stopped using drones then the other side would too?

No, probably not. While I am 100% anti drone, it's going to be awfully hard to convince others to not use drones, when we use them on other countries. Hell, you can buy a unarmed drone today for $700 I saw the other night on CBS or ABC News...they have a camera......and can go up to 1,000 feet in the air.

I wonder when a student film maker will make a movie using only a drone with a camera attached to it? Eh...Eh...-_- eh.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/drones-sky-122302.htm

^ I have a few issues with the above in the link. But FAA has until end of Sept 2015 to clear the skies for Drones. One of the issues is I don't like drones being used to monitor traffic cause, lets be honest...everybody goes over the limit by 5 miles. It's called 'flow of traffic' and you stop tail gating me you-- well, ya get idea.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It was always a no. This filibuster was pointless.

It wasn't always a "No." For the longest time various cabinet officials have been stating how the President can use his war powers to combat terrorism on American citizens and now Rand Paul has forced them to say a flat out "No" because it made them look bad. Really, really bad. Like lower than the Bush Administration in terms of bad.

 

[Victarion]

Is anyone surprised that John McCain called out Rand for the fillibuster?

 

[NickNitro]

Speaking of filibusters I found this little gem. Could you image talking for this long?

The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's Strom Thurmond. Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Senate historians say.

 

[Schlosser85]

That's quite a determined racist.

 

[Kelly]

Speaking of filibusters I found this little gem. Could you image talking for this long?

The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's Strom Thurmond. Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Senate historians say.

I've read excerpts from that filibuster....quite interesting....

 

[Marvolo]

It wasn't always a "No." For the longest time various cabinet officials have been stating how the President can use his war powers to combat terrorism on American citizens and now Rand Paul has forced them to say a flat out "No" because it made them look bad. Really, really bad. Like lower than the Bush Administration in terms of bad.

I never thought the president would bomb his own people without cause. That cause being an absolute extreme one of an american performing an act of terrorism on US soil requiring him to jump through hoops and red tape. Nothing has ever given me reason to think that he would do it for ****s and giggles whenever he pleases. It doesnt matter what cabinet officials say. Where do people come up with this stuff? Its like they forget the checks and balances this country has. And it looks like Rand only did this to get the Lib party media attention.

 

[Kelly]

I never thought the president would bomb his own people without cause. That cause being an absolute extreme one of an american performing an act of terrorism on US soil requiring him to jump through hoops and red tape. Nothing has ever given me reason to think that he would do it for ****s and giggles whenever he pleases. It doesnt matter what cabinet officials say. Where do people come up with this stuff? Its like they forget the checks and balances this country has. And it looks like Rand only did this to get the Lib party media attention.

Maybe he truly believes what he is saying?

I understand that people have a very skewed view of politicians, and few if any trust them....I'm one of those people, I am very leary of politicians....but I don't necessarily AUTOMATICALLY write them off as being out for attention, in the pocket of whomever, or all the other things we say....He isn't a Boehner, or a Reid, or a Bachmann where we have watched them for a long time and know exactly where they are coming from. For some reason, I really believe he believes what he says, and did this solely because of that reason. He just doesn't have enough of a history at this level to really speculate. Now, I may be saying something totally different in a few years....but from hearing him talk about this and other things....I may not always agree with it, but I can't really question his sincerity at this point.

 

[enterthemadness]

Not exactly excited at this. Cause, ya know, I'm a 3rd Party guy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/libe...amentally-changed-the-republican-party-2013-3

But basically it goes on to say Libertarians may rise up in the GOP. -_- wrong party to be in imho.