If you want to see an actual filibuster, turn to CSPAN2 (1 Viewer)

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,298
Reaction score
28,320
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
ill tune in when he drops.

just give me a heads up. lol

:ezbill:
I hope he busts his sorry little poodle perm open on the floor when he does.

"Administration's drone policy.."

What's that supposed to mean?

He's opposed to using drones to perhaps, theoretically, someday, maybe use one to attack some terrorists who've holed up in a mall or something?

What a maroon.
 

crosswatt

Gone Fishing.
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
32,282
Reaction score
46,065
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline
Can you think of a better way to step outside of your father's shadow and establish yourself as the "outsider" candidate for the next presidential race? I have to give him credit; it’s not a bad way to stand out from the crowd politically.
 

dapperdan

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Jul 29, 1998
Messages
11,295
Reaction score
7,242
Age
58
Location
Juanita Beach, WA
Offline
I hope he busts his sorry little poodle perm open on the floor when he does.

"Administration's drone policy.."

What's that supposed to mean?

He's opposed to using drones to perhaps, theoretically, someday, maybe use one to attack some terrorists who've holed up in a mall or something?

What a maroon.
It looks as if you're quite comfortable with the Administration's self-approved policies of being able to conduct drone attacks on American citizens on American soil?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...ld-order-lethal-force-in-us-158548.html?hp=l1
President Barack Obama could order the use of deadly force against an American inside the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released Tuesday.

"The question you have posed is entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. "It is possible, I supposed, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could concievably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."
 

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,819
Reaction score
3,782
Offline
I hope he busts his sorry little poodle perm open on the floor when he does.

"Administration's drone policy.."

What's that supposed to mean?

He's opposed to using drones to perhaps, theoretically, someday, maybe use one to attack some terrorists who've holed up in a mall or something?

What a maroon.
So you agree that we should be able to kill non-combatant American Citizens on American soil without a trial because we suspect them of being terrorists (or associates with terrorists)?

Cool.
 

TechDawg09

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,020
Reaction score
5,764
Location
Dallas
Offline
It looks as if you're quite comfortable with the Administration's self-approved policies of being able to conduct drone attacks on American citizens on American soil?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Holder: Obama could order lethal force in U.S. - POLITICO.com
So you agree that we should be able to kill non-combatant American Citizens on American soil without a trial because we suspect them of being terrorists (or associates with terrorists)?

Cool.
No one agrees with what you guys just said.


Eric Holder: "We reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."
 

jcollins9

Bring The WOOD!
Joined
Apr 12, 2002
Messages
5,819
Reaction score
3,782
Offline
So they signed a law that gave the legal basis for the argument, and spent large amounts of resources creating a white paper that justifies the legality of such actions, but then they said, "but don't worry, we won't do it." and that's good enough for you?

Cool...
 

dapperdan

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Jul 29, 1998
Messages
11,295
Reaction score
7,242
Age
58
Location
Juanita Beach, WA
Offline
No one agrees with what you guys just said.


Eric Holder: "We reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."
You can re-phrase and say that you don't agree with what I just said...but there is a large number of Americans who do agree with me, and are concerned with the bending of the Constitution that Holder appears to be engaged in.

Holder leaves that door open for a very slippery slope interpretation of allowing drone hits on American soil, against U.S. citizens. Given the Administration's bent for hyperbole, it's not that difficult to envision classifying the Tea Party as terrorists in the President's apparent view of the world.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,979
Reaction score
7,834
Offline
So they signed a law that gave the legal basis for the argument, and spent large amounts of resources creating a white paper that justifies the legality of such actions, but then they said, "but don't worry, we won't do it." and that's good enough for you?

Cool...
What law?
What white paper?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Emmanuel Sanders fears that his case of COVID-19 could turn at any moment Saints RSS News Feeds 0

Similar threads



Headlines

Top Bottom