Con_Alma;1401979 wrote:Hmmmm...I thought I stated I didn't think such a scenario would result in a strike.

I thought I used the words immenent threat would be necessary.

That's WHAT THE ****! I guess I have to speak you lingo to try and be more clear.

I've already stated that someone that was in the process of attacking Americans deserves lethal force. I think everyone agrees with that.

The problem is the administration's definition of "imminent."

justincredible;1401982 wrote:I've already stated that someone that was in the process of attacking Americans deserves lethal force. I think everyone agrees with that.

The problem is the administration's definition of "imminent."

I've already stated that's my position too. How long should we keep repeating this and throwing in WHAT THE ****???

Con_Alma;1401983 wrote:I've already stated that's my position too. How long should we keep repeating this and throwing in WHAT THE ****???

Con_Alma, there are children that read this forum. Please refrain from using that kind of language. Thanks.

Con_Alma;1401983 wrote:I've already stated that's my position too. How long should we keep repeating this and throwing in WHAT THE ****???

You replied to CB's hypothetical scenario with "good riddance." That is where my reaction came from.

justincredible;1401986 wrote:You replied to CB's hypothetical scenario with "good riddance." That is where my reaction came from.

Did you read the whole post or just the parts you wanted to.

I'll say good riddance non stop to those who present an immanent danger....even if that's means an unavoidable innocent life is lost.

sleeper;1401985 wrote:Con_Alma, there are children that read this forum. Please refrain from using that kind of language. Thanks.

I'll respectfully decline when I desire to try and magnify the ridiculous of such a response provided to me by repeating it.

Con_Alma;1401987 wrote:Did you read the whole post or just the parts you wanted to.

I'll say good riddance non stop to those who present an immanent danger....even if that's means an unavoidable innocent life is lost.

Yes, I read the whole post. It was pretty short.

It's not the e-mail that would create the drone attack but if you must have an answer in your fishing attempt then yes, good riddance.

If a guy is eating lunch, which was the location provided in CB's scenario, you said good riddance. Yes, you said an email wouldn't lead to the drone strike but even if they had a ridiculous amount of intelligence that he was a terrorist you arrest him if he is non-combative. You don't blow him and anyone else around him up.

Con_Alma;1401990 wrote:I'll respectfully decline when I desire to try and magnify the ridiculous of such a response provided to me by repeating it.

Perhaps it would be better to point out the ridiculousness of the speech without actually repeating the speech. Two wrongs don't make a right or at least that used to be the case until Obama got into office.

justincredible;1401993 wrote:Yes, I read the whole post. It was pretty short.



If a guy is eating lunch, which was the location provided in CB's scenario, you said good riddance. Yes, you said an email wouldn't lead to the drone strike but even if they had a ridiculous amount of intelligence that he was a terrorist you arrest him if he is non-combative. You don't blow him and anyone else around him up.

1. I don't think an e-mail would result in a drone attack.

2. I don't care if he's non-combative or not.

3. If he's unable to be arrested and is an imminent threat....good riddance.

4. I think the person posing the question was simply fishing for an example accompanied with an answer that amounts to nothing more than exaggeration for effect.

4. Should we continue with the WHAT THE ****! ??

sleeper;1401994 wrote:Perhaps it would be better to point out the ridiculousness of the speech without actually repeating the speech. Two wrongs don't make a right or at least that used to be the case until Obama got into office.

Perhaps it would but that's not the route I chose.

I don't care if 2 wrongs don't make a right. I wasn't trying to make a "right".

What I find hilarious is the same people who claim ineptitude on the government in economic matters somehow think when it comes to security/defense that they just trust the government and rights or the constitution don't matter as long as we can stop a few terrorists.

Hell if I were Obama I would just tell people obamacare stops terrorist and these "conservatives" will be all for it

Con_Alma;1401999 wrote:4. Should we continue with the WHAT THE ****! ??

I said it once, you keep bringing it up. Your problem, not mine.

pmoney25;1402007 wrote:What I find hilarious is the same people who claim ineptitude on the government in economic matters somehow think when it comes to security/defense that they just trust the government and rights or the constitution don't matter as long as we can stop a few terrorists.

Hell if I were Obama I would just tell people obamacare stops terrorist and these "conservatives" will be all for it

Reps.

Con_Alma;1402003 wrote:Perhaps it would but that's not the route I chose.

I don't care if 2 wrongs don't make a right. I wasn't trying to make a "right".

You know you are starting to sound like a politician Con_Alma. I don't know if I fancy that.

justincredible;1402009 wrote:I said it once, you keep bringing it up. Your problem, not mine.

It's no problem at all. That once that you said it is indicative of the exaggeration for effect. I referred to....displayed for all to see.

sleeper;1402012 wrote:You know you are starting to sound like a politician Con_Alma. I don't know if I fancy that.

I don't post for your fancy but I appreciate you letting me know.

Con_Alma;1402015 wrote:It's no problem at all. That once that you said it is indicative of the exaggeration for effect. I referred to....displayed for all to see.

:thumbup:

Con_Alma;1402016 wrote:I don't post for your fancy but I appreciate you letting me know.

You are so welcome.

pmoney25;1402007 wrote:What I find hilarious is the same people who claim ineptitude on the government in economic matters somehow think when it comes to security/defense that they just trust the government and rights or the constitution don't matter as long as we can stop a few terrorists.

Hell if I were Obama I would just tell people obamacare stops terrorist and these "conservatives" will be all for it

I personally don't think there's ineptitude in the federal governemnt from an economic perspective. I do think we have different routes we would like to see taken to address the issues of the day.

Con_Alma;1402019 wrote:I personally don't think there's ineptitude in the federal governemnt from an economic perspective.

justincredible;1402027 wrote:

Thanks. I am aware of the continuing rising debt level. Some believe it's a manageable amount that benefits the economy by injecting money into it. I personally don't. It's why I stated I think we have different routes we would like to see taken to address the issues of the day.

justincredible;1402027 wrote:

Amazing that a graphic like this one can make $38 million look like a small amount of money.

Back to the topic...

Here's 10 memorable quotes from Rand's filibuster - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/top-10-quotes-from-rand-pauls-amazing-8-plus-hour-filibuster-on-civil-liberties-drone-strikes/

On vague wording of drone strike criteria: “Are you going to just drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda? Are you going to drop a missile on Kent State?” He later added, “That’s gobbledygook.”

On Obama’s civil liberties flip-flop: “I think its also safe to say that Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone-strike program if he were in the Senate.”

On John Brennan: “I have hounded and hounded and hounded him… Only after yanking his chain… does he say he’s going to obey the law. We should be alarmed by that.”

On the Constitution and the law: “I’m not saying that anyone is Hitler, don’t misunderstand me. But what I am saying that is…when a democracy gets it wrong, you want the law to be in place.”

Taking a stand: “I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees…But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”

On his colleagues in the Senate: “If there were an ounce of courage in this body I would be joined by other senators… saying they will not tolerate this.”

On White House “kill list”: “The people on the list might be me.”

On Obama: “He was elected by a majority, but the majority doesn’t get to decide who we execute.”

On making a point: “This will be a blip in his nomination process. But I hope people will see it as an argument for how important our rights are.”

On Congress: “Nothing ever happens around here.”

queencitybuckeye;1402032 wrote:Amazing that a graphic like this one can make $38 million look like a small amount of money.

LOL, no kidding.

Well, Rand Paul surely proved the old adage about "the apple not falling far from the tree". His filibuster accomplished two things, in my view. He played to the right-wing base, as evidenced by the hearty support among the OC wingnuts. Perhaps he feels that alone will put him into the conversation in 2016. Hard to tell what's floating around inside that conspiracy-driven mind of his, so we won't even speculate. The other thing he accomplished is establishing that he's as bat-shit crazy as his Daddy. Now he can claim the title of the Libertarian leader, whatever that's worth these days. Oh, yes, he did a third thing as well. He provided red-meat fodder for Fox News, as they were playing this up as if it were the most important issue of the day. They needed something to distract the fallout from Roger Ailes' book.