07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 6566676869 ...
tools
  1. Live2ride883's Avatar
    The family, friends, and neighbors of those killed in the name of your academic argument would differ.
    I happen to be in that group, if you look at my Sig line and then Google the name Matt McQuinn you will find he was one of the victims at Aurora, CO. This has been in my Sig line since shortly after it happened.

    And I happen to agree with:
    Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue
    I just don't think a .5% reduction is a "compromise" worth reaching, especially if it's just because people are too afraid to address the actual issues with society.
    03-04-2013 06:05 PM
  2. msndrstood's Avatar
    I apologize to everyone for saying, "LOL, replace "help the sick and poor" with "kill Jews" and Jesus sounds a lot like Hitler. Not sure where you're going with that one."

    The point is accurate, but I could have used a better analogy. I was trying to say, "replace what a person said with the views of the exact opposite, and they suddenly sound like their opponent!"
    That took courage. :thumbup:

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    03-04-2013 06:18 PM
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    I didn't say you were either.

    Never mind. This debate is useless in this atmosphere. It's no wonder we're in the mess we're in today. And with that attitude, things are going to get a lot worse before they are going to get better. Once again... self inflicted.

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    People like that are only nuisance ants at the picnic. They've got no bite.
    03-04-2013 06:38 PM
  4. Markster1's Avatar
    People like that are only nuisance ants at the picnic. They've got no bite.
    There's your poisonous insulting self lashing out again.
    03-04-2013 07:24 PM
  5. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Is it not illegal to murder someone no matter what weapon you use? That law doesnt appear to stop people from murdering people. Unless you confiscate all the AR15's and high capacity magazines, then all you have is a "feel good" law that in reality does very little to prevent their use in a crime.
    Markster1 likes this.
    03-04-2013 07:38 PM
  6. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Closed. This thread went south hours ago.
    Markster1 and Aquila like this.
    03-04-2013 08:01 PM
  7. Live2ride883's Avatar
    But Holder, writing to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, underlined that Obama has no intention of targeting his fellow citizens with unmanned aerial vehicles and would do so only if facing an extraordinary circumstance.

    What I would like to know is the exact scope of "an extraordinary circumstance" is, and if it includes situations other than another 9/11, or Pearl Harbor.

    On Tuesday, he (Rand Paul) denounced Holder's response as frightening and an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.

    Holder: Yep, Obama could kill Americans on U.S. soil | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

    Pearl Harbor, was of course an act of war committed by a nation state (Japan), so I guess this would be justified if he used drones if/when we come to a second American revolution, or during martial law.
    03-05-2013 09:16 PM
  8. metz65's Avatar
    Innocent till proven guilty with a trial of your peers is now guilty if the president says so.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    03-05-2013 11:10 PM
  9. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Innocent till proven guilty with a trial of your peers is now guilty if the president says so.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    It's looking that way.
    03-05-2013 11:46 PM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Legal for now...

    Couldn't this get challenged somewhere? I mean, it definitely should, just because it seems like too much power for the President (the Office, not the individual).
    Live2ride883 and Aquila like this.
    03-05-2013 11:56 PM
  11. metz65's Avatar
    Legal for now...

    Couldn't this get challenged somewhere? I mean, it definitely should, just because it seems like too much power for the President (the Office, not the individual).
    Agreed. Something like this isn't just about our current president.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    03-06-2013 12:17 AM
  12. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Once the government (any government) strips a right from the people, or assumes a power not previously granted it is very difficult to get that right back to the people, or the power removed.
    Attached Thumbnails Firearms and self-defense-481221_475651889151262_1476142272_n.jpeg  
    Aquila and MERCDROID like this.
    03-06-2013 12:57 AM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Couldn't this get challenged somewhere? I mean, it definitely should, just because it seems like too much power for the President (the Office, not the individual).
    The way I understand it is you can't challenge/sue the government through the court system unless you have standing. Meaning you have to have been affected by the action to be able to sue. Problem with that its the person affected will be dead. There may be some exceptions to this, but otherwise I think it will have to be Congresses that goes after this kind of power assumption.

    I haven't heard enough about this controversy to address it directly here, and this post is only about challenging government on potentially illegal activities.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 01:53 AM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    Once the government (any government) strips a right from the people, or assumes a power not previously granted it is very difficult to get that right back to the people, or the power removed.
    need this picture in the human rights forum.
    03-06-2013 03:26 AM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    Innocent till proven guilty with a trial of your peers is now guilty if the president says so.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    This is a huge affront to the 14th Amendment. I felt the use of drones for targeted assassination, double taps and signature strikes was ridiculous and illegal when it was foreign citizens and "enemy combatants" we were targeting. We're not at war, who the heck is the enemy? We haven't declared war since June 5th, 1942 when we added Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania to the countries we opposed in World War II.

    In addition to the multitude of international laws and treaties we've danced on, now we're killing citizens. I want to make clear, I don't care what you are accused of. Until you are tried and convicted, you cannot be sentenced, nor have the sentence carried out. This needs to be immediately challenged in a highly public forum, such as the 2014 midterm elections.

    As commander in chief, the president is granted no extra military powers by the constitution in time of crisis. It is in those times that it becomes more important for the president and congress to do their duty to the county by strict adherence to our laws and the constitution, upholding their oath to protect the constitution at all costs.
    metz65 and Bratigan like this.
    03-06-2013 03:36 AM
  16. metz65's Avatar
    Today it's legal with drones, how much longer before the CIA, FBI, DHS etc can kill on command with no trial?

    And people wonder why we are so against a ban on (as they call them) assault rifles.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    03-06-2013 04:12 AM
  17. AustinTech's Avatar
    Well apparently all the President has to do is suspect someone of being a terrorist and then its lawful to murder, whoops, I mean kill them. Obama has already done so without any consequences. The next guy will do the same.

    Drone strikes against anyone, domestic or foreign, is a war crime in my opinion. The only stipulation I'd put on that is if we are officially at war and a strike is going to happen either way, drone or not, then it's okay.

    From my Galaxy Note 2
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 06:35 AM
  18. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Once the government (any government) strips a right from the people, or assumes a power not previously granted it is very difficult to get that right back to the people, or the power removed.
    Can we use the Patriot Act as an example of stripping a right from the people?
    Aquila, Live2ride883 and Blaize19 like this.
    03-06-2013 10:38 AM
  19. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    What is the difference between a law officer killing a suspect in the commission of a crime or terrorist act and a drone operated by a law officer killing a suspect during the commission of a crime or terrorist act ?

    The former happens all the time.... and not a peep from any of you.
    Aquila, MERCDROID and rexxman like this.
    03-06-2013 10:42 AM
  20. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    The opinion issued by Holder is that it is legal; however, the opinion does not make it legal. This will go through the courts as it by passes due process.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
    rexxman likes this.
    03-06-2013 10:47 AM
  21. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Well apparently all the President has to do is suspect someone of being a terrorist and then its lawful to murder, whoops, I mean kill them. Obama has already done so without any consequences. The next guy will do the same.

    Drone strikes against anyone, domestic or foreign, is a war crime in my opinion. The only stipulation I'd put on that is if we are officially at war and a strike is going to happen either way, drone or not, then it's okay.

    From my Galaxy Note 2
    We have not been "officially" at war since WWII. So according to you.... all the killing since then has been a war crime. Right?
    Aquila and rexxman like this.
    03-06-2013 10:48 AM
  22. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    What is the difference between a law officer killing a suspect in the commission of a crime or terrorist act and a drone operated by a law officer killing a suspect during the commission of a crime or terrorist act ?

    The former happens all the time.... and not a peep from any of you.
    Caught in the act versus suspected without due process, that is the difference.

    Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2
    03-06-2013 10:48 AM
  23. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Here is the rest of the story from Yahoo News that Live2Ride conviently left out:

    Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as frightening and an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.

    The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so, Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that 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.

    Holder added: The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

    But "it is possible, I suppose 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," Holder said. "For example, the President could conceivably 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 Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

    Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority, said Holder.

    -------------------------

    He won again..... get over it again.
    03-06-2013 11:04 AM
  24. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Here is the rest of the story from Yahoo News that Live2Ride conviently left out:

    Paul had asked the Obama administration on Feb. 20 whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial." On Tuesday, he denounced Holder's response as frightening and an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.

    The U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so, Holder assured Paul in the March 4, 2013 letter. The attorney general also underlined that 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.

    Holder added: The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

    But "it is possible, I suppose 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," Holder said. "For example, the President could conceivably 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 Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

    Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of this authority, said Holder.

    -------------------------
    I never left anything out. I posted sections from the article, and the link so everyone could read the article for themselves. I believe is mentioned in the forum rules not to copy entire articles from other sources to ensure that the originating author gets full credit for the article.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 02:35 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Can we use the Patriot Act as an example of stripping a right from the people?
    Absolutely, the Patriot Act is ridiculous both in the law and the manner in which it was passed, then repassed, etc.
    03-06-2013 03:45 PM
4,617 ... 6566676869 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD