General Discussion

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)

28. K&R. It's the message, not the messenger, that's important.

Reply to Recursion (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:04 PM

Mar 2013

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