General Discussion

Comrade_McKenzie

(2,526 posts)

72. You seem to have a problem with being a Democrat...

Reply to woo me with science (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 01:37 PM

Mar 2013

And our Democratic President.

Why the fuck are YOU allowed to stand at what is supposed to be a Democratic website?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Eric Holder states obvious, Rand Paul uses it to troll gullible liberals [View all] geek tragedy Mar 2013 OP

The problem is the openness of interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances" napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #1

That power has always been there. You can't have an interpretation geek tragedy Mar 2013 #2

I made this post a few minutes before you posted: napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #8

I think that is the key. We the people are supposed to screen the crazies out. Not elect them. stevenleser Mar 2013 #9

Yep. If there's a military, the power to abuse it exists. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #10

He didn't say that though, did he? He didn't say "We've always had the authority to kill people HiPointDem Mar 2013 #12

He wasn't asked about "preemptive targeted assassination." geek tragedy Mar 2013 #15

That's not the only problem. The language of that letter is not specific enough to rule out HiPointDem Mar 2013 #11

How many hypotheticals was he supposed to run through? geek tragedy Mar 2013 #13

I read his first paragraph, thanks. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #14

perhaps he should have simply ruled out preemptive assassination, period. much clearer and to the HiPointDem Mar 2013 #17

Problem is, that wasn't the question that was asked. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #20

It's the context of Paul's question, as the US is presently doing targeted, preemptive HiPointDem Mar 2013 #24

"Overseas" is an important distiction jeff47 Mar 2013 #31

I think it makes for a political trap. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #18

no president has ever had any trouble 'acting in an actual catastrophe' & little trouble making HiPointDem Mar 2013 #22

That danger has existed since 1789. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #57

Holder's statement does not rule out preemptive assassinations of americans in the US. That's HiPointDem Mar 2013 #61

So by not saying something he said the opposite? Nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #62

If your aim is to rule something out categorically, you do that. If your aim is to leave the door HiPointDem Mar 2013 #63

His intent was to say as little as possible. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #64

It's what the Pauls do: ProSense Mar 2013 #3

What kind of range do drones have? NightWatcher Mar 2013 #4

The question was more general--whether the President had the authority geek tragedy Mar 2013 #6

The question isn't just about drones jeff47 Mar 2013 #26

Hell, GWB could have order military jet fighters to shoot down the planes that flew into the WTC. Lint Head Mar 2013 #5

Exactly. Paul's question was idiotic. nt geek tragedy Mar 2013 #7

yes; but could he have ordered drones to kill the 911 plotters before the fact is actually the HiPointDem Mar 2013 #19

No, that's not the question. That's not what Paul geek tragedy Mar 2013 #21

that's the context of paul's question, as the US is presently using preemptive drone strikes against HiPointDem Mar 2013 #23

That wasn't Paul's question. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #25

= 'we reject the use of force -- in cases where law enforcement is the best means to stop a HiPointDem Mar 2013 #27

Yes, in the circumstances of an attack, not to preempt an attack. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #32

'force necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of an attack' can = forestalling HiPointDem Mar 2013 #35

Except for the part where they said that they explicitly reject the use geek tragedy Mar 2013 #41

except they *didn't* say that; they left the door open for droning. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #42

You told me you read this part: geek tragedy Mar 2013 #46

Holder wrote an intelligent response to an idiot. ProSense Mar 2013 #29

And "overseas" is a very important distinction jeff47 Mar 2013 #28

it's not a very important distinction at all. do you have a problem with the fact that no russian HiPointDem Mar 2013 #30

It is important because it limits the options of the President. jeff47 Mar 2013 #36

are we at war against yemen? HiPointDem Mar 2013 #38

We're at war with the Al Queda aligned groups in Yemen. jeff47 Mar 2013 #39

Are we at war with YEMEN? You required a declaration of war for the russians to drone us. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #40

If the Russians were at war with the NRA, jeff47 Mar 2013 #43

and how about if the russians declared war against the aspca? or the naacp? how would you HiPointDem Mar 2013 #44

It's legal. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. jeff47 Mar 2013 #47

Really? Because those words aren't anywhere in the letter Rand Paul wrote onenote Mar 2013 #33

other words that are not in the letter = a categorical refusal of the right to do preemptive strikes HiPointDem Mar 2013 #34

Then Rand Paul should have asked if the President had the authority geek tragedy Mar 2013 #49

You are correct in that Holder did not answer the geek tragedy Mar 2013 #50

Why haven't you accepted Rand Paul into your heart? Robb Mar 2013 #16

!!! Tarheel_Dem Mar 2013 #37

K&R!!! freshwest Mar 2013 #56

Because a drone strike against American citizens would have thwarted Pearl Harbor. WilliamPitt Mar 2013 #45

Perhaps you should re-read Paul's question. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author Purveyor Mar 2013 #51

+1 EOM Purveyor Mar 2013 #52

Headlines-Eric Holder for US Supreme Court. Simply the best. Rand Paul indicted for treason. graham4anything Mar 2013 #53

Just what we need on the court another corporate sell out n/t dflprincess Mar 2013 #55

My only worries about the drone program is making sure... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #73

Fuck Paul. Fuck drones. Fuck Holder. think Mar 2013 #54

+1 forestpath Mar 2013 #58

Agreed. davidthegnome Mar 2013 #65

As you may have guessed think Mar 2013 #66

Not offended at all. davidthegnome Mar 2013 #67

Finally a post that makes sense. Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #68

"Like." hay rick Mar 2013 #59

He states that prevention of terrorist attacks within the US is the job of law geek tragedy Mar 2013 #60

What a steaming load of apologist bullshit. woo me with science Mar 2013 #69

Lying about what I wrote and then piling on with insults geek tragedy Mar 2013 #70

You seem to have a problem with being a Democrat... Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #72

For anyone siding with REPUBLICAN Rand Paul, I suggest this: Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #71

Oh for fuck's sake. woo me with science Mar 2013 #74