RE: The Paul Filibuster

RE: The Paul Filibuster (Full Version)

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

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/6/2013 11:26:25 PM)
Update: Senator Paul ended his filibuster, just shy of the 13 hour mark.

Level -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 3:03:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Update: Senator Paul ended his filibuster, just shy of the 13 hour mark. And spent the next two hours taking a leak. [8D] They asked questions that needed to be asked, and answered, but that's not what the Tea Partiers and Fox news watchers are getting from all this; they're getting the fires of their paranoia fueled.

muhly22222 -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 5:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrUnderwood quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 I would prefer to see it done without the need for active-duty military personnel involved, on the basis of establishing a precedent, but I'm not opposed to it in a pinch. Like I said before, if a person or group was posing an imminent threat to others, they need to be stopped. It's no different than a police officer shooting a man who is pointing a gun at his ex-wife. A person or group has broken the laws, and they cannot be stopped from hurting others without being killed. At that point, law enforcement has a duty to society to take the necessary step(s). I love it. It is all so cut and dry when we throw our Constitutional Rights, indeed, our human rights, out the window. Prefer dis-establishing a precedent, do you? Yes, by all means reiterate how, in a pinch, when some insane ex-wife allows herself to be disarmed by me, when some undercover asshole, "certain" he has his man, puts his gun in my face and I assert my Second Amendmentality; it is "ok" for your UAV (in preference to active duty military) to whip out the beat down stick, instead of - oh, I don't know, say some sort of "enforce due process" solution. You are aware that the people who control the UAV's used by the military are also active-duty military personnel, right? And yes, if a police officer (undercover or otherwise...he's going to identify himself as such) orders you to put the gun you're holding down, I would expect you to do that. The situation can be sorted out when people aren't holding guns to each others' heads. That precedent I was talking about establishing was the precedent of acceptability for active-duty military personnel to take law-enforcement action. That is not a precedent I'd like to see established, but I'm willing to grant that there are instances where law enforcement personnel may not be able respond as quickly a military personnel to a given situation. In a Timothy McVeigh-type of situation, where the number of people who will be killed and injured is simply massive, any means should be taken to stop him and his bomb.

hot4bondage -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 7:15:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level I'm thinking along the same lines. One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable? I think that this exchange might help answer your question: As the filibuster crept toward its 13th hour, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) joined to ask Paul whether the U.S. government had the authority to take out the fourth plane on 9/11 before it crashed into the Capitol. "I don't think this is such a clear and easy situation," Durbin said. Paul called it a "red herring." "We all agree that you can repel an imminent attack," Paul said. "None of us disagree with that. We are talking about a targeted drone program" against citizens who are "not actively engaged in combat. ... I don't think that standard can be used in the United States." Durbin said he respected Paul's response. "I stand with the senator," Durbin said. "I think it is a legitimate question."

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 7:17:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? You cannot imagine any acceptable use for a drone in law enforcement? What about a drone that flies into a dangerous situation first? Or a bomb disposal robot? I didn't say that at all. I realize there are many applications where drones would be extremely helpful. What concerns me is the "camel's nose in the tent" analogy. How long will it be before you have drones flying up to your window to see what's going on just because the police think you might be doing something illegal? Do you really think that once they decide the police can use drones for bomb detection that it will stop there?

Owner59 -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 7:38:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Senator Rand Paul has a question. Will the President say that he won't use drones to kill American Citizens, on American soil? And he's trying not to sit down, until he gets an answer. The White House isn't returning the calls from his office. Live coverage from C-Span 2 The clock started at 11:47 a.m. Eastern If the bwig bwad dwones are used by law enforsement........to kill Americans ....on American soil yada yada.......that, would be legal. They are already used by LEOs for search and rescue......on American soil.... So?

mnottertail -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 7:53:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So, are you then perfectly ok with the President of these United States having such authority? Well, the teabaggers down there were for it before they were against it, and made the bill, but they had thought that it was going to be done by Willard, and now they are shitting their pants. Unintended consequences.

JeffBC -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 8:32:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And I find it hard to believe its only conservatives who want these answers. This liberal is fucking scared shitless of Obama and the powers he's already claimed. I sure as hell hope that Senator Paul's next question is, "What percentage of the US population is currently under some form of constant surveillance?" (hint to the unaware: The answer is ~100%) FirmhandKy said: Every single left of center poster has told me that I'm full of shit, or "Bush did it first!" (untrue). OK, you can stop saying that as of now. See above.

Owner59 -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 8:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So, are you then perfectly ok with the President of these United States having such authority? Well, the teabaggers down there were for it before they were against it, and made the bill, but they had thought that it was going to be done by Willard, and now they are shitting their pants. Unintended consequences. Jr. seems (as rich has confirmed) to be the new leader and voice of the grand oil party.........[sm=rofl.gif] The gop [sm=sex.gif] `s themselves again.....[:D]

JeffBC -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 8:42:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny I didn't say that at all. I realize there are many applications where drones would be extremely helpful. What concerns me is the "camel's nose in the tent" analogy. How long will it be before you have drones flying up to your window to see what's going on just because the police think you might be doing something illegal? Do you really think that once they decide the police can use drones for bomb detection that it will stop there? Actually, on the surveillance front it's already worse than what you are imagining above. They don't need to think you are doing anything. They are already doing surveillance on the entire population and storing the data. Later, if they decide they want to inspect any given person more closely it's all there. The next gen of surveillance drones is truly amazing in it's capabilities... in a horrifying sort of way.

Owner59 -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 9:53:28 AM)
Yup...."bomb detection".....the number one gateway drug to tyranny....[sm=rofl.gif]

JeffBC -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 10:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Yup...."bomb detection".....the number one gateway drug to tyranny....[sm=rofl.gif] Uh... I wasn't so much talking about bomb detection as a single drone which can track all movement with an area the size of a small city. The videos were quite fascinating... actual videos from the inventor shown on PBS. Couple that with similar internet monitoring and... well... big brother is more than watching. They are watching EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME just in case they might need it later... no warrants, no due process, no nada. And yes, a robust internal surveillance system coupled with a strongly asserted need for secrecy on the government side is EXACTLY a gateway drug to tyranny.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 10:08:30 AM)
I wonder what the penalty would be for shooting off a BIG bunch of fireworks as a drone flies over LOL.

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 10:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Yup...."bomb detection".....the number one gateway drug to tyranny....[sm=rofl.gif] Lol..yeah, kind of like the Civil Rights argument in the 60's just before the beat down in Selma.

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 10:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I wonder what the penalty would be for shooting off a BIG bunch of fireworks as a drone flies over LOL. Now, that's actually funny. Depending on the prosecutor, I'd say the penalty range might be somewhere between nothing and 10 years in prison.

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 10:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC Actually, on the surveillance front it's already worse than what you are imagining above. They don't need to think you are doing anything. They are already doing surveillance on the entire population and storing the data. Later, if they decide they want to inspect any given person more closely it's all there. The next gen of surveillance drones is truly amazing in it's capabilities... in a horrifying sort of way. Yeah, Jeff. I know what you mean. I'm a tech follower too. I'm waiting for the first jaywalking ticket to show up in someone's mailbox simply because a traffic camera used facial recognition to backtrack the person it saw running across the street from their apartment just to get a cup of coffee at their local cafe'.

Level -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 10:49:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage quote: ORIGINAL: Level I'm thinking along the same lines. One last hypothetical: if we could have scrambled fighters to shoot down the planes that hit the Twin Towers, would that be acceptable? I think that this exchange might help answer your question: As the filibuster crept toward its 13th hour, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) joined to ask Paul whether the U.S. government had the authority to take out the fourth plane on 9/11 before it crashed into the Capitol. "I don't think this is such a clear and easy situation," Durbin said. Paul called it a "red herring." "We all agree that you can repel an imminent attack," Paul said. "None of us disagree with that. We are talking about a targeted drone program" against citizens who are "not actively engaged in combat. ... I don't think that standard can be used in the United States." Durbin said he respected Paul's response. "I stand with the senator," Durbin said. "I think it is a legitimate question." Yes, that was helpful, thank you.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 11:28:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I wonder what the penalty would be for shooting off a BIG bunch of fireworks as a drone flies over LOL. Now, that's actually funny. Depending on the prosecutor, I'd say the penalty range might be somewhere between nothing and 10 years in prison. Ahhhhhh, but in this county, fireworks are legal. Drones are supposed to be discrete. I daresay a jury composed of conservatives (95% of the locals) would easily believe a man who said. "I didn't see the damn drone, I just set em off".[8D]

ajbby -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 11:42:19 AM)
I wouldn't put anything past Obama. The NDAA already gives him power to detain us indefinitely without due process. What's one step further? Hm.

DomKen -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 1:36:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Really? You cannot imagine any acceptable use for a drone in law enforcement? What about a drone that flies into a dangerous situation first? Or a bomb disposal robot? I didn't say that at all. I realize there are many applications where drones would be extremely helpful. What concerns me is the "camel's nose in the tent" analogy. How long will it be before you have drones flying up to your window to see what's going on just because the police think you might be doing something illegal? Do you really think that once they decide the police can use drones for bomb detection that it will stop there? If the police think you are doing something illegal they can put you under surveillance right now. They don't need drones for that, actually drones are a lousy way to do constant surveillance. I will point out that police have been using bomb disposal robots for more than a decade and we are not seeing some grand rush to have every American trailed by a drone.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875