tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post3599421303965764635..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: "Libertarian Porn”Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-34939657367329666772013-03-11T20:54:50.180+13:002013-03-11T20:54:50.180+13:00Thanks for that update. I since seen it from anoth...Thanks for that update. I since seen it from another source too. <br /><br />"Paul said he started talking to get a clear answer from the Administration about killing Americans on American soil, and would stop talking when he did."<br /><br />The reported response from Holder:<br /><br />"Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”<br /><br />My attorney laughs that ANYONE can be stupid enough to fall for this sort of double talk. Holder did not answer the question. He answered a different one. Look again at the exchange that took place. <br /><br />It turns out that according to legislation recently passed (Dec 2012) the President DOES have the power to kill US citizens on US soil without the need for due process. That's an important violation with the US Constitution. When the President opines that the targetted victim is engaged in hostilities (and he does not have to do even this in public) then that is sufficient in itself to do the killing. Now this assertion of "engaged in hostilities" is tested how exactly? Turns out that's not for the public to know because the deliberations and decision process are "secret for reasons of state security and the safety of Federal officers." In practice the President already has the power granted to kill US citizens on US soil at will. He got given it last year. Also, Obama he already have killed US citizens on non-US soil without due process using exactly the same secret decision making processes as he is now allowed for doing on US soil. <br /><br />Seems like there are still people around who believe in the old, "I won't cum in your mouth."<br /><br />I know it is tiresome but read the legislation and you can see for yourself what I say is right. <br /><br />Amit <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-60005383902878469562013-03-11T10:12:05.267+13:002013-03-11T10:12:05.267+13:00Paul said he started talking to get a clear answer...Paul said he started talking to get a clear answer from the Administration about killing Americans on American soil, and would stop talking when he did. <br /><a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555" rel="nofollow">Late in the day</a>, <br /><br /><i>Attorney General Eric Holder wrote Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., to confirm that President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation, Obama’s spokesman announced today.<br /><br />White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”<br /><br />Paul said that was good enough for him. “I’m quite happy with the answer,” he said during a CNN interview. “I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer.”</i>Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61212033169382679672013-03-11T05:52:39.927+13:002013-03-11T05:52:39.927+13:00Mike
What assurances did he get?
AmitMike<br /><br />What assurances did he get?<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-67078096363935338232013-03-10T16:58:08.147+13:002013-03-10T16:58:08.147+13:00Attn: David and Anon.
Rand Paul was holding up th...Attn: David and Anon.<br /><br />Rand Paul was holding up the vote in order to get certain assurances. The Filibuster wasn't personally against the appointment, but was using holding up the appointment to get assurances, which were eventually forthcoming.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58227362325652743822013-03-10T08:25:00.653+13:002013-03-10T08:25:00.653+13:00He voted in favour?
He did that?
You mean he a...He voted in favour? <br /><br />He did that? <br /><br />You mean he actually voted OK?<br /><br />After all that speaching he went along with them and voted OK?<br /><br />yes?<br /><br />Go Ahead? <br /><br />What the heck was that all about? He coulda saved everyone a lot of botheration and, if it is true he voted in favour, he should have STFU. People like him is why libertarianism gets nowhere. All talkee talkee no doee doee.<br /><br />Bring back his Dad. At least that guy had the balls to vote NO. NFW. Not OK.<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-57365681668632254272013-03-09T14:42:18.599+13:002013-03-09T14:42:18.599+13:00It was great that Sen. Paul did this, but in the e...It was great that Sen. Paul did this, but in the end he voted FOR Brennan's confirmation. So much for "standing up" for the American people. (SIGH).David Blankenaunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-59433699562683435862013-03-09T05:02:16.330+13:002013-03-09T05:02:16.330+13:00I couldn't stop watching it. A guy standing a...I couldn't stop watching it. A guy standing at a podium on CSPAN for 13 hours is the most compelling TV I've seen in years. Who knew? <br /><br />For the libertarianish, it was the combination of the message and the place. To hear the libertarian perspective articulated clearly and persuasively on such an important issue from the floor of the Senate with the media focus... yeah... libertarian porn. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.dividist.com/2013/03/on-rand-paul-old-timey-filibusters-john.html" rel="nofollow">It was good for me</a>. <br /><br />Was it good for you?Dividisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17028140223133400783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-91301565510553736492013-03-08T15:54:53.281+13:002013-03-08T15:54:53.281+13:00The GOP all cheered, but they wouldn't have un...The GOP all cheered, but they wouldn't have under Bush. And next time the GOP get in, it'll be the Democrats who rally around civil liberties while the GOP stays the course. At least that's my odds-on pick.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1819699562318357572013-03-08T15:13:19.536+13:002013-03-08T15:13:19.536+13:00Very worthy I'm sure, but I still prefer norma...Very worthy I'm sure, but I still prefer normal porn.twrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312229399327994398noreply@blogger.com