General Discussion

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)

8. Of course the fed. govt can do that. Pres. Kennedy did it ...

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:08 PM

Mar 2013

Lyndon Johnson did it. The citizens in the south were forced to accept integration and the civil rights of minorities.

The local and state governments did not cooperate, by the way. They were part of the problem.

It is the federal government's first duty to protect the country, whether the danger comes from outside or inside.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Drones are a distraction. Drones are peripheral to the question Paul is raising. [View all] Recursion Mar 2013 OP

Would We Allow A Cop To Come Up And Shoot Somebody In The Head Because Of Perceived Guilt ??? WillyT Mar 2013 #1

We do allow cops to shoot someone who is an imminent threat. randome Mar 2013 #9

True... And There Would Be A Thorough Investigation To Determine If The Shooting Was Justified... WillyT Mar 2013 #18

I agree we should have something similar in place for any use of force. randome Mar 2013 #22

Agreed !!! WillyT Mar 2013 #32

And those thorough investigations are almost always ended with a finding that the police condoleeza Mar 2013 #51

You might want to revise that quakerboy Mar 2013 #58

that has nothing to do with the drone argument. jazzimov Mar 2013 #11

Said The New Guy Who Meant To Say "Playing"... WillyT Mar 2013 #17

Thanks for pointing out my keyboard "misstroke" jazzimov Mar 2013 #37

Well Good For You !!! WillyT Mar 2013 #38

Kindly speak for yourself, please. WillyT may be a plain speaker, but his words are clear. Melinda Mar 2013 #52

The word "imminent" has been watered down so much that it has lost it's value. Arctic Dave Mar 2013 #2

And Such Evil Presidents, Sir, Will Act As They Will, Whatever Law Or Precedent There May Be The Magistrate Mar 2013 #3

I agree. The point is, its up to we the people not to elect Evil Presidents. That is the answer to stevenleser Mar 2013 #5

^^^There it is^^^Don't stay home and let others elect extremists^^^ freshwest Mar 2013 #21

But "We, the People" did not elect George W. Bush HoneychildMooseMoss Mar 2013 #45

The fact that it was close enough to steal is too close. stevenleser Mar 2013 #47

It was close enough to steal because of one state HoneychildMooseMoss Mar 2013 #50

No, several states were too close. Florida got the focus. NH, TN and NM were also close stevenleser Mar 2013 #64

Florida got the focus because it was the last state to be "decided" HoneychildMooseMoss Mar 2013 #66

When people make that argument about gun control here, they get smacked down Recursion Mar 2013 #6

Different Fields And Applications, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2013 #12

So let them do it without sanction in the law, outside the will of the people. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #48

Personally, Sir, I Recognize Arguments Of Necessity The Magistrate Mar 2013 #49

My point exactly. Those thoughts cannot occupy the same time and space with TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #53

No, Sir, Very Far From Your Poiint The Magistrate Mar 2013 #60

So it is back to no need for laws because those who will break them will break them regardless? TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #62

If You Cannot Follow The Point After Repetition, Sir, There is Nothing I Can Do The Magistrate Mar 2013 #63

No repetition will not move me toward the philosophy. Following and buying are not the same thing. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #67

replace drone strike with assassinate. bubbayugga Mar 2013 #4

And even "assassinate with the military" Recursion Mar 2013 #7

Actually, if you read the Act passed by the Congress jazzimov Mar 2013 #14

Uh, no. OnyxCollie Mar 2013 #42

nobody expects the spanish inquisition.. frylock Mar 2013 #43

Of course the fed. govt can do that. Pres. Kennedy did it ... Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #8

Kennedy and LBJ were enforcing Federal court orders Recursion Mar 2013 #10

There was a law, but no court orders specifically for the actions taken, Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #19

Not sure about Little Rock (and wasn't that Ike?) but the AL district court issued an order Recursion Mar 2013 #26

There were orders (laws) requiring AL to comply with Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #33

Each southern state had to have a post-Brown case filed in their Federal court district Recursion Mar 2013 #39

Have a quick, well-established review for such cases. randome Mar 2013 #13

We need clearer statements from Brennan, Holder, and Obama on this. reformist2 Mar 2013 #24

I doubt ANY statement will satisfy the likes of Paul. randome Mar 2013 #25

Bingo. That's exactly the issue. MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #15

It's even backwards in some ways: drones could be used pursuant to a court order Recursion Mar 2013 #16

+1000 darkangel218 Mar 2013 #54

And ProSense Mar 2013 #20

Exactly so. X_Digger Mar 2013 #23

Kennedy sent the national guard to enforce desegregation quaker bill Mar 2013 #27

Per the order of the US District Court of the Northern District of Alabama Recursion Mar 2013 #29

It is pretty clear that they could have shot people quaker bill Mar 2013 #56

K&R. It's the message, not the messenger, that's important. MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #28

Had the same message been delivered by a Democatic Senator in 2007 metalbot Mar 2013 #31

Paul said that Recursion Mar 2013 #40

Send in the drones. Common Sense Party Mar 2013 #30

EPIC! n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #36

Brilliant! whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #65

You should rethink your theory because ProSense Mar 2013 #34

Fairly certain it IS about drones. Zax2me Mar 2013 #35

Kent State SHRED Mar 2013 #41

That was the governor of Ohio Recursion Mar 2013 #44

I imagine the president has that responsibility bhikkhu Mar 2013 #46

It's the same problem that caused the War Powers Act treestar Mar 2013 #55

it is only Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #57

If bush were still President Paul would not filibuster and there would be no drone support here. Zax2me Mar 2013 #59

You don't think Paul would have filibustered Bush? Recursion Mar 2013 #61