RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans

RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 4:27:24 PM)
Indeed Peon, Richard III made several advances in help for the poor, both legally and fiscally. Especially for Northern England where they struggled with the fact London was the centre of trade (Due to the docks)

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 4:30:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 It`s much scawier when done with dwones...... Joking aside, I think it may well be, actually. Drone-attacks seem to fuck up the local populace in a way like nothing before. Personally, I couldn't imagine anything more oppressive than the idea of an unseen, unassailable thing in the air that causes death and destruction with no warning, apparently from nowhere. A bit like the V1 and V2 attacks on London during WW2, only worse. Not so...... The V Rockets were indiscriminate where as the drones are highly targeted. Most of the collateral deaths with drones, which i railed against, were caused by wrong information being given to the security agencies. They seem to be more on the ball these days, though sadly errors still occur.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 4:30:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Florida didn't wait for the gov't to take action. They're taking action on their own. Big Brother If you aren`t breaking the law you have nothing to worry about... There`s absolutely nothing wrong with LEOs using this or any type of platform to enhance their ability to fight crime......be that choppers,blimps or unmanned craft.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 4:32:34 PM)
Why is the lunatic fringe is conflating surveillance drones, with predator drones......two completely different animals? Note to the un-informed.....drones are cheaper and safer than manned aircraft. Not that saving money and/or lives was ever a concern to conservatives....but must we force people to risk their lives to do this work..... just to salve the childish insecurities of our paranoid right wingers...? Aren`t our cons always whining that the police aren`t affective/protective enough?

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 4:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO oh memories are so short in some The hypocrisy is so huge,so all encompassing that it`s completely missed. But isn`t the 1st prerequisite of hypocrisy..... being completely clueless?

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 5:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 It`s much scawier when done with dwones...... Joking aside, I think it may well be, actually. Drone-attacks seem to fuck up the local populace in a way like nothing before. Personally, I couldn't imagine anything more oppressive than the idea of an unseen, unassailable thing in the air that causes death and destruction with no warning, apparently from nowhere. A bit like the V1 and V2 attacks on London during WW2, only worse. Not so...... The V Rockets were indiscriminate where as the drones are highly targeted. Most of the collateral deaths with drones, which i railed against, were caused by wrong information being given to the security agencies. They seem to be more on the ball these days, though sadly errors still occur. This interview helps shed much light on what a drone is and what a drone isn`t. And why they are so affective. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-23-2013/missy-cummings

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 5:55:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans Frankly, I'm tired of having Feds show up at my front door while I'm working on scurrilous efforts. Drones free up my time.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 6:07:15 PM)
"Rise of the Drones" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html General reply: So what " essential liberty" are we giving up here? I`m calling bull shit on that one.... I wish the right would stop using half thruths/half lies to push their sorry-assed agenda..... Stop trying to scare folks with their bull-shit,then pretending to save us from their bull-shit stawmen.........yawn already... If you can`t do win a debate by telling the truth then you`ve already lost the debate......

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 6:45:17 PM)
IF they only had read the actual 16 page memo, it wouldnt have been posted such ahem, "scaremongering bs"

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 7:16:44 PM)
The bull-shit dance is just shtick....entertainment....something to get a rise out of folks......not real or sincere. Truth is any technology can be perverted or mis-used......and sometimes is. But are there examples of Apache attack helicopters being used on Americans? Or jet fighters or any other devastating killing technology? No..........and for very good reason. Where were the "moralists" on the right, when bush pervertedly brought torture back into fashion?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 7:48:48 PM)
Not so much... not in this context. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, a due process requirement in Britain was not "essential to the idea of due process of law in the prosecution and punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration of due process of law as it actually existed in cases in which it was customarily used." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#English_law_and_American_law_diverge One of the niftier features of the English language is that identical words and pharases can have different meanings. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Since you are happy being a subject of monarchy you might have a bit of an issue with due process. You do realise that DUE PROCESS has its BASIS in english common law dont you?? DUH

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 7:56:35 PM)
That`s the difference between English and "muricin"........[8D]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 8:37:31 PM)
The lack of due process under the law was one of the reasons we fought the Revolution in the first place. I love the pro Obama Administration's Flunkies logic... "Well... BUSH did it and nobody called him on it but me, and now there is nothing we can do but support the President" Frankly, I have little issue with using a drone to blow up a bunker in East Pigfuckastan even if there are American citizens in it. What bothers me is the precedent and how future Presidents from both parties will use it?

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 8:59:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy The lack of due process under the law was one of the reasons we fought the Revolution in the first place. I love the pro Obama Administration's Flunkies logic... "Well... BUSH did it and nobody called him on it but me and now there is nothing we can do but support the President" Frankly, I have little issue with using a drone to blow up a bunker in East Pigfuckastan even if there are American citizens in it. What bothers me is the precedent and how future Presidents from both parties will use it? Again....what "due process" is being deprived? Please explain and stop with the cryptic/clever speak...... Give us an example of anyone who`s due process has being denied? You can`t cuz it hasn`t happened..... If you`re speaking about what ifs and hypotheticals......then muses away. You`re fear mongering is at best amateurish.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 9:00:43 PM)
Again....what "due process" is being deprived? Please explain and stop with the cryptic/clever speak...... Give us an example of anyone who`s due process has being denied? You can`t cuz it hasn`t happened..... If you`re speaking about what ifs and hypotheticals......then muses away. You`re fear mongering is at best amateurish.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 9:17:03 PM)
Until it happens, the future is all about what ifs and hypotheticals. Are you really telling me the precedents the President is setting don't bother you?

Real0ne -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 9:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Again....what "due process" is being deprived? Please explain and stop with the cryptic/clever speak...... Give us an example of anyone who`s due process has being denied? You can`t cuz it hasn`t happened..... If you`re speaking about what ifs and hypotheticals......then muses away. You`re fear mongering is at best amateurish. are you trying to insult people or are you beyond ignorant and sucking up to stoopid? "Again....what "due process" is being deprived?" That question is absudusfuckinglunartickus. Well presuming you are an adult and over the age of 18

JeffBC -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 11:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail My point is not to hell with rule of law, or constitution, it is the rule of law and the constitution. I am forced to agree. The constitution established some base rules and then established ways to determine what they mean. The fact that the supreme court has jumped the shark just means that the constitution has failed. So yes, what Obama (and before him Bush and others) have done is legal and constitutional... just as everything Adolph Hitler did was. But that whole line of reasoning is strictly in the legalistic sense and let's be clear... the government makes the laws so it really means nothing in this discussion. In pragmatic fact, I don't agree that the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution into any damned thing it wants. I don't agree that Obama's "new process" is still "due process" -- just a different one without any checks and balances. In other words, I find myself in disagreement with the US government about whether they are my lawful government or not. Accordingly, I have removed myself from their immediate control. Reading the rest of your answer it's no surprise you and I are seeing this similarly. It surely isn't solely an Obama thing. I just dislike him as much as I dislike any of Republican because they are doing the same damned shit.

JeffBC -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/5/2013 11:50:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Again....what "due process" is being deprived? Specifically? How about little things like the right to face my accuser and the right to a fair trial by a jury of my peers and other related rights. Obama has basically said, "We have a new due process... it just has no checks and balances in it and operates in total secrecy." Law exists to give us some commonly agreed to method for understanding what is allowed and what is not. That's the big difference between the rule of law and rule by fiat. Now, we have nothing like that. If someone, somewhere in the government decides your this thing they call a terrorist (like say... ALL people engaging in protests) then they may kill you if they choose. How is this fear mongering. It is the more-or-less exact arguments of Obama's legal team in front of the US Supreme Court. It is what the court agreed with. It is already done. There is no speculation or hypothetical anything. The rule of law is over with in the US. Now it's down to "who has the guns" which is largely why I'm so pro-gun nowadays even though I don't own one.

Politesub53 -> RE: Obama Admin Gets OK to Use Drones On Americans (2/6/2013 2:50:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Not so much... not in this context. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, a due process requirement in Britain was not "essential to the idea of due process of law in the prosecution and punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration of due process of law as it actually existed in cases in which it was customarily used." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process#English_law_and_American_law_diverge One of the niftier features of the English language is that identical words and pharases can have different meanings. Your Supreme Court may have it have it wrong. Due process was laid down long ago. UK.....Due Process http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/42/3

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625