RE: The Paul Filibuster

RE: The Paul Filibuster (Full Version)

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

Message

Nosathro -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 2:13:45 PM)
Well for all that was said the Senate confirmed John Brennan as CIA Director. Paul also managed to get a few people in his own party pissed at him. http://news.yahoo.com/filibuster-senate-confirms-brennan-cia-214039404--politics.html http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rand-paul-filibuster-receives-mixed-reviews-republicans-204506835--politics.html

JeffBC -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 2:15:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Well for all that was said the Senate confirmed John Brennan as CIA Director. Paul also managed to get a few people in his own party pissed at him. That's why I like the guy. I mean seriously. If you're not pissing off the party power structures then you're not doing your job nowadays.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 4:11:47 PM)
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 I saw that this morning...half asleep, half awake...it was, truly, amazing....I sat there for about 20 minutes watching the two of them passing the baton back and forth (I figured that was the only way the other could take a leak)....truly stunning....I don't think I've ever seen one person talk about, what could be covered in less than 2 sentences.....for 20 entire minutes. Absolutely stunning stuff.

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 4:57:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. For the time being. quote: 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. First of all, in this instance, the robot they use isn't the same thing as a drone. And you're right, there isn't a rush to have everyone followed by a drone. I'm merely bringing up the broader implications. I fear that just because we can do all these wonderful things with technology that one day we could wake up realizing the typically benevolant LEO's have the power to become the East German Stazzi by simply flicking a switch.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 5:05:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny I fear that just because we can do all these wonderful things with technology that one day we could wake up realizing the typically benevolant LEO's have the power to become the East German Stazzi by simply flicking a switch. Well, yes, in Red states that's a real danger. I'd get paranoid if the Radicals ever take the White House again, too - but then any sensible person is already paranoid about that prospect. [sm=couch.gif]

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 5:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam 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] Speaking of drones supposedly being discrete, I just heard a blip on the radio today saying that now businesses are wanting to start using drones. Do you think we could get away with saying we didn't see that giant Blade Runner sized dirigible? (lol)

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 6:20:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam 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] Speaking of drones supposedly being discrete, I just heard a blip on the radio today saying that now businesses are wanting to start using drones. Do you think we could get away with saying we didn't see that giant Blade Runner sized dirigible? (lol) I wonder if you could get away with shooting one down for trespassing.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 6:31:28 PM)
[:D] [image]local://upfiles/502828/B27E1CEE20D543ACB3BA6B2791962D2B.jpg[/image]

cloudboy -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 7:34:34 PM)
quote: According to the OP, that wasn't the question. The question was will President Obama (promise not to) use DRONES to carry out those acts. I have no doubt that asking the President to rule out the use of any other weapon would enrage the NRA. That's right, a ban on drones will lead to a ban on guns and then a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 8:48:26 PM)
General reply to the (non-kook) discussion: The drone itself is just the tool, and we ought to get used to the idea of remote control aircraft, operating overhead. They'll be a lot cheaper than the highway patrol planes looking for speeders, and a hell of a lot cheaper than black helicopters. The debate should be about adequate rules governing how they share the airspace with civilian traffic, and what roles they can and cannot play. I don't think there should be any more of a, "remote control," exception to (what's left of) the 4th Amendment, than there should be for the part of the Constitution that says only Congress has the power to declare war. Ultimately, this goes to the question of Presidential power. Technology has brought us to a place where the government has the ability to kill targeted individuals by remote control. The US has somehow defaulted to a position that this is the exclusive domain of the White House, without oversight, or accountability. That part doesn't work for me.

JeffBC -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 9:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The US has somehow defaulted to a position that this is the exclusive domain of the White House, without oversight, or accountability. That part doesn't work for me. Yeah. It's that whole "due process" gig. I agree with you, it's not the capability itself it's the death by fiat aspect that concerns me. I have to admit I'm also pretty damned concerned about the military operating on US soil against US citizens. But hey, that's a whole other kettle of fish and rapidly becoming pointless anyway as he militarizes the police and DHS.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/7/2013 9:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I agree with you, You'll want to be very careful about that, Jeff. They'll take away your liberal card. [;)]

DomKen -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 2:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: 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. First of all, in this instance, the robot they use isn't the same thing as a drone. And you're right, there isn't a rush to have everyone followed by a drone. I'm merely bringing up the broader implications. I fear that just because we can do all these wonderful things with technology that one day we could wake up realizing the typically benevolant LEO's have the power to become the East German Stazzi by simply flicking a switch. Bull. A bomb disposal robot is exactly like a drone because it is a drone. it can be operated by telepresence or navigate by internal software. It has sensors appropriate to its task. it is unmanned. Try looking up drone in wiki and see what you get. As to the police turning into the Stazzi, do not forget that the police are people. Some are authoritarian thugs but most aren't. Before such a shift could occur the very make up of local law enforcement would have to change from top to bottom.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 3:36:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I agree with you, You'll want to be very careful about that, Jeff. They'll take away your liberal card. [;)] Naaa.. he is fine. Getting a bit of a complex there, Rich?

DomYngBlk -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 7:27:18 AM)
I think he should be committed as a danger to others and himself.....

vincentML -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 8:07:33 AM)
quote: I wonder if you could get away with shooting one down for trespassing. Maybe. If you can show you own the air rights above your property.[:D]

vincentML -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 8:12:29 AM)
quote: First of all, in this instance, the robot they use isn't the same thing as a drone. And you're right, there isn't a rush to have everyone followed by a drone. I'm merely bringing up the broader implications. I fear that just because we can do all these wonderful things with technology that one day we could wake up realizing the typically benevolant LEO's have the power to become the East German Stazzi by simply flicking a switch. I heard that quite a number of Law Enforcement Agencies have applied to DHS for permission to fly their own drones. But, as the opened files showed, the Stazzi worked by turning neighor and friends to spy on and report on aquaintences. Hardly a high tech operation. [8\|]

Nosathro -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 8:13:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Well for all that was said the Senate confirmed John Brennan as CIA Director. Paul also managed to get a few people in his own party pissed at him. That's why I like the guy. I mean seriously. If you're not pissing off the party power structures then you're not doing your job nowadays. I never said I was pissed, I just pointed out that Paul efforts achieved nothing, John Brennan was appointed as CIA Director. Also I reported that some in his own party, I am independent, are not happy with him.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 8:13:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I wonder if you could get away with shooting one down for trespassing. Maybe. If you can show you own the air rights above your property.[:D] I was waiting for that. http://www.land-professor.com/property-rights.html "1. Air Rights Air Rights include from the surface of the land into space. It is possible to purchase land that has limited air rights. An example would be not owning the rights above 50 feet. This would stop you from building anything higher than 50 feet. A previous owner may have retained the air rights higher than 50 feet to keep the view from being blocked." This, of course doesn't apply to any ROW granted to the FAA or law enforcement by the government. An advertiser would have to comply with any FAA regulations (and therefore be granted right of passage). If they didn't do that, they'd indeed be trespassing.

vincentML -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/8/2013 8:14:43 AM)
quote: Ultimately, this goes to the question of Presidential power. Technology has brought us to a place where the government has the ability to kill targeted individuals by remote control. The US has somehow defaulted to a position that this is the exclusive domain of the White House, without oversight, or accountability. That part doesn't work for me. Well, have to wonder what the Senate Armed Forces Committee and the Senate Intel Committee have been doing to earn their keep.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875