Cheney uses the same sort of situational ethics arguments. The memo did not limit the executions to cases where lives were in immediate danger.
Rand Paul insane.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Cheney uses the same sort of situational ethics arguments. The memo did not limit the executions to cases where lives were in immediate danger.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Hey Jarod,
What does Obama's dick taste like?
What does Obama's dick taste like?
Disillusioned
New member
So we're expanding direct threat of an immediate nature to, "whenever we feel like it". Now instead of having to be pointing a gun at the police, i can be walking down the street without so much as a weapon on me, and hellfire away. I wonder if they'll double tap the poor guys who come to see why there's a crater outside their house.
Yes, I can see how that's totally the same thing.
Sanna Sanna Colito de Rana....
I thought you would be awaire that the CIA has nothing to do with the drone program.
Neither he nor I have described such a situation. It simply could be imagined.
Lets say a group of armed terrorists storm and take over the Plaza Hotel in NYC. The building is on fire and they are exicuting hostages every 20 min's until we meet there demand that Osama's body be returned to them.
Survalance technology shows that the terrorist are all in the penthouse and they are dumb enough to be keeping the hostages on a seperate floor. We happen to have a drone in the area with the ability to destroy the penthouse without harming the hostages. Would it not be legal, under long existing law, for Law Enforcement to use that drone to kill those hostages?
THat is not what Holder said would be legal.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I must say, it is rather amusing to watch some on the left try to deal with Jarods stupidity for once.
Jarod, your myopic focus on Rand Paul's stupid question and Holder's unremarkable response instead of the bigger picture of drone strikes and the President's claimed authority to kill U.S. citizens under specific circumstances in which there is no imminent threat to the United States or its citizens isn't clever. It's asinine.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well then, we would just send in John fuckin McClane. Yippee Ki-yay muther fucker.
Okay lets imagine John McClane is in the hospital with phenumoma.
My point is that Holders comment was CORRECT, it was not outragous, it is a reflection of reality. THere well may be plenty to complain about in the Drone Program, but this is not the place to start. Rand Paul is making a fool of himself by using this narrow point.
Any place is a good place to start. After all, it's a start. It isn't the whole she-bang. That's why your myopic focus on this very narrow point is asinine. Rand Paul's criticisms are much more broad than that.
Here's Fox's take on the same subject, as a counter balance to Huffington Post's leftist propaganda machine.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns/
Then he should have said that, what he said was that he was upset by Holders comment that he could imagine a situation where the executive branch could use a drone to kill Americans in the USA.
If you are going to argue a point, dont start with the one legit point the other side made.
Dude, the guy spoke for, like, 13 hours. I imagine he said quite a bit more than that he was upset by Holder's comment. You're being asinine.
That was his justification for doing what he did, when he did it. Sorry but you should pay attention. He was pretending Holder's comments were what set him off.
He needed to pretend to have a spark to start his political stunt.
Agreed. How does that make him insane and how does that render his legitimate points invalid?
I stopped reading when you made the terrorists comic book bad guys. If you have to imagine criminals so stupid they hand you opportunities to defeat themselves in order to make your premise, you need to rethink your position.