General Discussion

Stinky The Clown

(68,951 posts)

58. Lets start over. What is it that you think I am arguing?

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 11:17 AM

Mar 2013

Do you think I am endorsing the use of drones? Or am I endorsing government killing of US Citizens? Or am I endorsing using drones to kill us citizens?

What, exactly, are you arguing with me about? To argue, we have to hold differing viewpoints. What do you think your viewpoint is and what do you think my viewpoint is?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the furor over drones? Even weaponized drones? [View all] Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 OP

+1 Buzz Clik Mar 2013 #1

Isn't a drone just a more modern Bay Boy Mar 2013 #2

A cynical statement Trajan Mar 2013 #3

Cell phones let assassins communicate the location of their targets. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #4

yes ... Trajan Mar 2013 #6

Is it not already lawful to spy on people who are in plain view? GodlessBiker Mar 2013 #8

but you can't just kill them without due process ThomThom Mar 2013 #38

Ask John Dillinger what he feels about this. cliffordu Mar 2013 #66

Because drones are the due-process-free weapon of choice. Sterile. Neat. DirkGently Mar 2013 #5

Most who die here prior to "due process" quaker bill Mar 2013 #18

Government sanctioned killings are a different topic from handgun murders. DirkGently Mar 2013 #20

I believe it is sanctioned when done in the process of law enforcement quaker bill Mar 2013 #22

Okay. And a fleet of anonymous flying murder robots will improve this how? DirkGently Mar 2013 #27

First quaker bill Mar 2013 #49

People are really starting to get nervous about technology applied to spying/killing Fumesucker Mar 2013 #7

We've had that capability with satellites for years. Decades, even. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #11

Satellites are truly significant investments of money, time and materiel Fumesucker Mar 2013 #14

so it's really all about the weed? hfojvt Mar 2013 #61

You just described helicopters jeff47 Mar 2013 #71

Helicopters are hardly disposable and their operating costs are high Fumesucker Mar 2013 #75

Helicopters are only obvious if they are flying low. jeff47 Mar 2013 #78

That is really what worries me is who in the future will have drones? ThomThom Mar 2013 #39

Every new technology requires clarification LeftInTX Mar 2013 #48

Outlaw DNA! randome Mar 2013 #64

Indeed. No one is alive to remember the furor over fingerprints! MADem Mar 2013 #79

+1 KoKo Mar 2013 #87

How many Americans get pissed off when the police kill a US citizen.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #9

Drones Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #13

Interesting response, but you didn't answer my question. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #15

The point was, there is no difference between a drone and other police weapons Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #19

Police helicopters don't fire at people and they have people inside of them. Two differences. Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #10

Due process is almost certainly a lengthy process. Almost certainly it involves dozens of people. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #12

So 'an official' giving an order is the same to you as a long process in which a jury delivers the Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #56

Are you lecturing or debating? Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #57

Handguns have people holding them quaker bill Mar 2013 #21

People inside police helicopters do in the US. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #31

Actually, police helicopters do fire at people. jeff47 Mar 2013 #72

In this case, it is about the weapon The Straight Story Mar 2013 #16

The entire history of warfare is the history of weaponry evolving onenote Mar 2013 #40

My Take: The Straight Story Mar 2013 #42

+1 Blue_Tires Mar 2013 #62

That reminds me of a story I read in Isaac Asimov's Sci-Fi Magazine CJCRANE Mar 2013 #76

why allow an uneeded and unwanted device just so corporate whores can make profits?? nt msongs Mar 2013 #17

Many people erroneously believe that they are US-Only Technology. MADem Mar 2013 #23

And some of them look like cute little RC model airplanes. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #26

But many of them do not. The French models are nothing to sneeze at. MADem Mar 2013 #35

Agreed BO 08 Mar 2013 #41

Per the Attorney General of the United States: baldguy Mar 2013 #24

Yup. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #28

the same AG who says it's ok to let criminals get away with crime if they are too big? nt msongs Mar 2013 #30

To put them in a real bind quaker bill Mar 2013 #25

I've said from the beginning that I think the focus on drones is a red herring stevenleser Mar 2013 #29

^^This^^ Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #32

Why? The same reason there was a 'shitstorm' over them when Bush was president. sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #33

You do realize that I oppose extrajudicial killing of people, right? Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #36

I'm not so sure BO 08 Mar 2013 #44

It is true, because a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it gives the power sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #54

There wasn't a shitstorm over drones when Bush was President. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #67

What? Were you around back then? sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #68

I don't think I ever heard drones discussed in the media or elsewhere before Obama. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #69

I think you have it right. bluedigger Mar 2013 #34

If the police come at me with helicopters and assault rifles I have the doc03 Mar 2013 #37

Imagine president bush - not Presdient Obama - same scenarios Zax2me Mar 2013 #43

You clearly inferred a lot from an OP that did not espouse the use of the weapons. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #45

How cheap, painless, secret, and widely proliferated does use of force need to be for you? TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #47

I oppose any government orders to kill US Citizens. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #51

The reason why is obvious that anyone has a brain cell Harmony Blue Mar 2013 #46

Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, King, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan . . . . Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #52

A foreign state didn't sanction such assassinations Harmony Blue Mar 2013 #55

Lets start over. What is it that you think I am arguing? Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #58

There are rules that govern their use. I think the term is "due process". Locrian Mar 2013 #50

I agree with you. And yes, it is the system. Not the weapon. The system. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #53

This post would have made a better OP. Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #59

No. I wanted the OP I made. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #65

Dimes to doughnuts the OP hasn't a clue what "due process" entails. But she approves of the killing Romulox Mar 2013 #60

Donuts to your puke you never read the thread. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #74

Couldn't care less about your gender--it's the cheerleading for killing I'm disgusted by. Romulox Mar 2013 #81

Congrats on TOTALLY missing the point, which was decidedly NOT cheerleading. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #82

I didn't miss any point. I reject your *justifications*. Romulox Mar 2013 #83

Uh huh. Why would there be furor over the perfect authoritarian weapon... 99Forever Mar 2013 #63

False framing... again... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #70

Had you read this entire thread's discussion . . . . . Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #73

Ah... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #77

right on the money imho eom arely staircase Mar 2013 #80

Its many issues and not so simple Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #84

Drones don't kill people, the order to fire kills people Recursion Mar 2013 #85

The Laws have not kept up with the Technological Advances... KoKo Mar 2013 #88

I thought I would add an often overlooked situation involving drones Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #86