More hypocrisy from Obama

robert l. bentham said:
i dunno about being a sheep... ron lost me with the newsletters,
Click to expand...
As so you did as you were supposed to. You know what the media tells you and they didn't want to focus on bringing the troops home or closing bases or cutting military overseas spending or talking about the Federal Reserve or morality crimes and the war on drugs. Nope. Those things would be stuff that the two main parties have agreed on so let's not stir the pot by having a debate on those things. Let's see, what should we talk about - well, we can call Ron Paul a loony a great deal (but don't talk about what he thinks, just that he's a loony) and then concentrate all the media attention on... well, let's see - how about a racist newsletter from years ago that he didn't write. Bingo. People will be so incensed that they will fail to think. Perfect.

I don't even agree with Ron Paul on quite a few things but I could see that he was being assassinated in the media. They could have gone after a lot of things he says but a bunch of them are "liberal" positions and a bunch of them are "conservative" positions so they had to find something that neither side has as a platform ... but Paul didn't have racism as a platform either. No matter. Roasted him on it anyway and still had to change the conference rules out from under him to prevent him from having a voice at the convention.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
let's see - how about a racist newsletter from years ago that he didn't write. Bingo. People will be so incensed that they will fail to think. Perfect.
Click to expand...


he quibbled... the correct answer should have been... i didnt write that bat shit crazy stuff... i don't believe in that bat shit crazy stuff...and bat shit crazy people are not welcome on my life raft... sadly... that ain't what he did... and when ru paul the lesser came out and said no civil rights act... well say what you want my friend but they were playin to, and straight playin voters... nothing new here no matter how noble their first intentions... third party might as well be referred to as the welfare party in this "alleged" great nation... cause it relies on the handouts of the party out of power to give the appearance of choice... even you know that fluffy
 
robert l. bentham said:
guess i'm missing it too... paul is the same piece of crap his dad was; with a "douchier (is that a word?) haircut"
Click to expand...

Rand and Ron don't agree on everything, they are different people of course but they do share fundamentals. Here is Rand on government spying. In this interview is he trying to be evasive or just avoiding tripwires and snares an keeping his aim steady on the actual point. Personally I think the US could use more guy like this and fewer of the Peter Kings.
 
robert l. bentham said:
he quibbled...
Click to expand...

Surely with your activities you must have attracted the attention of the press at some time or did they just ignore you rather than risk legitimizing you? If you did get interviewed at some point were you fairly portrayed? You see, they don't publish everything you say, generally, an the longer they interview, the more choice they have about what to use. If they ask the same questions over and over and you try to explain in different ways hoping that one they'll eventually "get" what you are saying then they have the chance to put together all the worst answers. It's all part of the game. Fact is that Paul said he didn't write them and he doesn't agree - which is the footage you would have seen if he was a preferred candidate of the media owners and then the subject would have been dropped as old news. You were shown what was necessary to shape your opinion "correctly". It's actually rather outlandish that something written 20 years ago (by someone else) could still be held against you when the intervening years were clean.

The Atlantic is a little more sober on the issue and lets hear from someone who is very much a fan for a spirited defense (and in the middle he raises a very good psychological observation).

 
faethor said:
What I think you're missing is there are a couple of issues. First, what the Pauls believe/claim to be the Constitution may not be what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

There's what the constitution says, and how it's read.I like the Paul reading of it better. The way the constitution is read these days is based on how it has been read in the past and what things we more or less let people get away with and so have come to accept. A lot of those people who have had their way with the constitution have been playing word games or just trying to make exceptions. Granted, that is how law comes about but there can always be a new reading - or we can just plain old ignore what it says since it's just a Goddamned piece of paper (as Dubya so candidly said).

The way the Constitution is constructed the Gov may not use weapons on citizens, unless the citizen is a combatant.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't really. That's not in the constitution. Combatant is not in the constitution and it's hard to say how it's actually defined because it's a declaration of the executive branch whether or not someone is a combatant.
Perhaps you are thinking of Article I, Section 8.15 - but is someone actively engaged in insurrection (something some of the founding fathers thought a necessary act of free citizens in the face of a government not responsive to the people) the same thing as a "combatant" who may be droned even if he isn't actually fighting or even planning to fight but may just be sitting at a cafe table somewhere?

One good historical illustration of how this works and how we accept this is from Lincoln, who turned the US Military against US Citizens.
Click to expand...

Something there is still debate over. Is the wish of a state to secede the same thing as insurrection?


(Also - A few weeks later he said it'd be OK to kill someone with a drone, without trial, if they were leaving a liquor store with a gun, and the police thought that guy as the robber. (Talk about inconsistent!) ) Check my first point - just because Paul says something is Constitutional doesn't make him right.
Click to expand...

The robber fleeing - if he does not obey a lawful order to halt may, as things go in the US these days, get himself shot. That's not really right either because the police should only be shooting if they believe doing so will save lives. However, the guy is probably actively involved in a crime - whereas an enemy combatant is anyone the president and some of his staff decided to name an enemy combatant and he need not actually be actively engaged in combat to earn that classification.
Rand held us all hostage over his befuddlement.
Click to expand...
Not me, and not you. In fact he probably used up a bunch of time that would otherwise have been wasted passing stupid laws so if he achieved nothing else he managed that. One thing I can guarantee is that you personally were not in any way held hostage.

But, just as well there are sheep accepting whatever Rand tells them. These two are simply flocks of a different cloth. But, all sheep none-the-less.
Click to expand...
And there are sheep who simply reject whatever Rand Paul says, not on it's merits but simply because Rand Paul said it. That's a flock too.
 
from the legislation

2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary.

im just not any more comfortable with that than i am with what obama is doing... honestly; reds buddy,gary johnson would get my vote before either of the pauls
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
There's what the constitution says, and how it's read.I like the Paul reading of it better. The way the constitution is read these days is based on how it has been read in the past and what things we more or less let people get away with and so have come to accept. A lot of those people who have had their way with the constitution have been playing word games or just trying to make exceptions. Granted, that is how law comes about but there can always be a new reading - or we can just plain old ignore what it says since it's just a Goddamned piece of paper (as Dubya so candidly said).


No, it isn't really. That's not in the constitution. Combatant is not in the constitution and it's hard to say how it's actually defined because it's a declaration of the executive branch whether or not someone is a combatant.
Perhaps you are thinking of Article I, Section 8.15 - but is someone actively engaged in insurrection (something some of the founding fathers thought a necessary act of free citizens in the face of a government not responsive to the people) the same thing as a "combatant" who may be droned even if he isn't actually fighting or even planning to fight but may just be sitting at a cafe table somewhere?



Something there is still debate over. Is the wish of a state to secede the same thing as insurrection?




The robber fleeing - if he does not obey a lawful order to halt may, as things go in the US these days, get himself shot. That's not really right either because the police should only be shooting if they believe doing so will save lives. However, the guy is probably actively involved in a crime - whereas an enemy combatant is anyone the president and some of his staff decided to name an enemy combatant and he need not actually be actively engaged in combat to earn that classification.
Not me, and not you. In fact he probably used up a bunch of time that would otherwise have been wasted passing stupid laws so if he achieved nothing else he managed that. One thing I can guarantee is that you personally were not in any way held hostage.


And there are sheep who simply reject whatever Rand Paul says, not on it's merits but simply because Rand Paul said it. That's a flock too.
Click to expand...

When you are right, you are right. Bravo.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
There's what the constitution says, and how it's read.I like the Paul reading of it better. [/url]
Click to expand...
It appears your point was on a particular single issue. My point was in general. Just because the Pauls claim 'Constitution says' doesn't make them inerrant. The Pauls often act like the Constitution meant for a weak central gov. It did not. The Articles of Confederation, were indeed for a weak central gov. The Founders soon discovered how unworkable that was.

A lot of those people who have had their way with the constitution have been playing word games or just trying to make exceptions.
Click to expand...
One example might be a particular vocal group of people skip over reading 'For a well regulated milita...'

Also we musn't forget the Founders had disagreements. One important one was what exactly is 'promote the general welfare'. Some Founders had a broad meaning of these, others narrow. Some of these debates are as old as the nation.

No, it isn't really. That's not in the constitution. Combatant is not in the constitution and it's hard to say how it's actually defined because it's a declaration of the executive branch whether or not someone is a combatant.
Perhaps you are thinking of Article I, Section 8.15 - but is someone actively engaged in insurrection (something some of the founding fathers thought a necessary act of free citizens in the face of a government not responsive to the people) the same thing as a "combatant" who may be droned even if he isn't actually fighting or even planning to fight but may just be sitting at a cafe table somewhere?
Click to expand...
Actually you're right. The US Constitution doesn't define combatant. If we only look at the US Constitution the milita can be used for insurrections, repelling invasions, and to execute the laws.

In 1879 the US Federal military had occupied the Confederate States. There was a fear that this military occupation might be forever. Thus, the Posse Comitatus Act was born which further limits the use of the military. The US President is limited by not only the US Constitution but as well as these laws that come after. This act narrowed the scope of actions. In my use of 'combatant' it's the same meaning as an insurrectionist. - Someone that's actively taking part in a rebellion against the government.


Something there is still debate over. Is the wish of a state to secede the same thing as insurrection?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, there's no text in the US Constitution which says States can leave if they do X,Y,Z. Thus, any seceding would be a rebellion against the government, aka act of insurrection. The Civil War is that point history which established this interpretation of US law.

Something to remember is the US Constitution provides methods to change it. We call those amendments. If there's a large need or demand for States to secede they could ratify an amendment which includes the necessary items to happen to enable a legal secedition (What that may look like may be an interesting discussion.)

The robber fleeing - if he does not obey a lawful order to halt may, as things go in the US these days, get himself shot. That's not really right either because the police should only be shooting if they believe doing so will save lives.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Paul told us how wrong using drones is because of the lack of due process. Then a few weeks later he says it's okay to use drones with a lack of due process. This was an example of how Paul citing 'Constitution' doesn't make it true.
 
faethor said:
One example might be a particular vocal group of people skip over reading 'For a well regulated milita...'
Click to expand...
Right. The Constitution is a general document of principles and most of the specifics are left open. There were immediate needs like the composition of the houses and how to fill the seats, but most of it is a framework for the sort of government that was desired. Lawyering and lawmaking are, to a large degree, a matter of arguing over what the rules mean. The winning version isn't necessarily the right version, just the one that got the most support (or least opposition) at the time. The laws arising thus are not sacred. They can be changed but not by people who think that the law is like the "Law of God". Even existing law can be struck down by a sufficiently good constitutional argument (and the right ideological composition of the judiciary).

The US President is limited by not only the US Constitution but as well as these laws that come after.
Click to expand...
Provided that the laws are not in contravention of the Constitution.
AFAIK, there's no text in the US Constitution which says States can leave if they do X,Y,Z. Thus, any seceding would be a rebellion against the government, aka act of insurrection.
Click to expand...
And here is where the lawyers can bill endless hours around the tenth amendment. Was the right to leave the union really something that, explicitly, the Constitution took away? It would seem that it is not so stated, however, the Northern bankers would not have been able to back their credit without Southern cash crop production. The civil war was an expression of who held the balance of power at that point and what the North did to the South was exactly what King George would have liked to have done to the whole continent except there was a great big ocean in the way.

That's one of several ways to look at it. To their credit the people of the industrial North did have some sympathy for the slaves and so that was an easy moral story-line on which to sell the war.


Ironically cotton and tobacco are pretty much yesterdays cash crops and other countries produce for less. The South is more or less a giant boat anchor these days that can't be cut free because it cost so much to keep and it is a land route to the oil fields of Texas and ports and oil terminals serving South America.
Exactly! Paul told us how wrong using drones is because of the lack of due process. Then a few weeks later he says it's okay to use drones with a lack of due process.
Click to expand...


Not "exactly". I still think that there is a significant difference (and I think most people would agree even though we would find it hard to quantify the difference and we'd all draw different lines in the sand) between shooting a guy who is escaping with the contents of the bank vault and shooting the guy that is sitting in his living room who helped the robber plan it, or even, shooting the grocery store clerk who accepts some of the stolen cash in exchange for a frozen pizza.
 
see... but it was at first... constitution is a good deal more flexible than most people realize... it's actually a contradiction to itself in places...
 
robert l. bentham said:
see... but it was at first...
Click to expand...
Right - but because the constitution provided for ways to amend the constitution it was constitutional to add the thirteenth amendment. The Government could amend the constitution again if it thought that it could get the votes to do it. Stripping the bill of rights from the constitution would be pretty tricky I imagine because the bill of rights is good for the little guy. Knowing they can't really repeal the bill of rights the few who rule have decided to simply ignore them and hope people don't notice, or if they do, don't bother complaining too much.

Now, one thing about the American system is that it is founded on a constitution that has a unique mythology behind it, a people who shrugged off tyranny and made a new covenant (hmm - actually not such a unique mythology now I think of it) with "the People" (OK - pretty radically new really). This is an idea that has power. While the people can put up with a lot there will be radicals and idealists who continue to buy into it and while the power elite are dismantling it, those that continue to aspire to it are enemies.

For a government to maintain power it must have the loyalty of the subjects either through their aspirations or through their fear. When a government that claims its authority to rule from the rights and freedoms of the constitution abridges those rights and freedoms, and in the belief of rule by the consent of the people dismisses the dissent of the people then that government loses the legitimacy amongst the people that it needs to rule. Then it must rule autocratically and even less legitimately. Generally it is only a small percentage of any population that sets the direction of society. It was less than a third of the people who supported the American Revolution in the first place. While it is less than 1% who would consider armed action against the government then there will be enough camps built to discourage people from following that course, but when it is a third of the population (or so) who decide that the government is so illegitimate that it should not be cooperated with then it loses the power to lead.

The constitution, even when people don't actually know what it says, is an idea, and like Santa Clause, so long as people believe in the constitution it is real.

So far, as a "melting pot" the US has failed to produce an alloy. The crucible is brittle with slag and mineral inclusions, whole walks that never blended and stayed separate. The ability to keep the walks apart has been crucial to ruling the country, but one day maybe the poor white man will look at the poor black man and see that he has more in common with this brother than with the man behind the desk in a Wall Street penthouse office. That's the sort of nightmare that has the ruling classes writhing in their sweat soaked designer bed sheets.

the constitution is a good deal more flexible than most people realize... it's actually a contradiction to itself in places...
Click to expand...

It's a make-work program for lawyers.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
The winning version isn't necessarily the right version, just the one that got the most support (or least opposition) at the time. The laws arising thus are not sacred. They can be changed but not by people who think that the law is like the "Law of God". Even existing law can be struck down by a sufficiently good constitutional argument (and the right ideological composition of the judiciary).
Click to expand...
Certainly.

Provided that the laws are not in contravention of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Part of the Constitution has also grown as to how the legality of laws exist. That's through analysis of the Court System. In this case we have Congress passing, the President accepting, and the Courts agreeing. A trifecta of power must agree to the legality of an issue.

The reason I say this is a couple of Southern states are playing with laws that say 'we only follow Constitutional laws'. Which is great. Except the reality is they want a 'State right' to declare a Federal Law unconstitutional. That's not how it works, that's what the Courts are for. Thus, because their law would modify the Constitutionally established system of government, it would be illegal.

And here is where the lawyers can bill endless hours around the tenth amendment. Was the right to leave the union really something that, explicitly, the Constitution took away? It would seem that it is not so stated, however, the Northern bankers would not have been able to back their credit without Southern cash crop production. The civil war was an expression of who held the balance of power at that point and what the North did to the South was exactly what King George would have liked to have done to the whole continent except there was a great big ocean in the way.
Click to expand...
There was some language in the Constitution enabling secession. James Madison strongly disagreed with this ability. In the end he won the debate and that language was stripped. It doesn't exist in the final signed version.

Ironically cotton and tobacco are pretty much yesterdays cash crops and other countries produce for less. The South is more or less a giant boat anchor these days that can't be cut free because it cost so much to keep and it is a land route to the oil fields of Texas and ports and oil terminals serving South America.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree with you. What we find is typically the 'Blue' States support the 'Red' States. For example, for each $1 in taxes I contribute to the Federal level Minnesota receives back 72 cents. Most of the Confederate States get back more than they contribute in taxes. (Which as a side note I find a bit amusing they scream about saving taxes. Okay let's start by cutting back the surplus you receive and giving it back to the Blue States that are paying it. ;) )

Not "exactly". I still think that there is a significant difference (and I think most people would agree even though we would find it hard to quantify the difference and we'd all draw different lines in the sand) between shooting a guy who is escaping with the contents of the bank vault and shooting the guy that is sitting in his living room who helped the robber plan it, or even, shooting the grocery store clerk who accepts some of the stolen cash in exchange for a frozen pizza.
Click to expand...
The best thing is capture the guy and put him on trial. If a guy robbed a liquor store, didn't kill anyone and isn't shooting at cops on the way out why not capture and try him? (Besides the whole use of a drone for that was overly idiotic. At best we'd have a cop shooting him, would we really spend millions on a predator drone or a couple of bucks for a few bullets.)
 
faethor said:
At best we'd have a cop shooting him, would we really spend millions on a predator drone or a couple of bucks for a few bullets.)
Click to expand...


If by spending a million bucks of someone else's money you could kill without trial a political dissident just by declaring him a combatant, why not. It would be much harder for the public to accept sending the cops to execute him (though I'm sure execution by cop already happens but not generally at the direction of the Federal government). Assassination of enemies (even American citizens) or those standing near them is now accepted practice. What Rand Paul was unable to secure from the government was that the same practices which are deemed lawful abroad cannot be applied within the borders of the US. Indeed the response seems to imply that it IS lawful to kill someone when they have been declared a combatant or are military age males in a field of combat. Combatant doesn't actually mean carrying a weapon and being involved at that moment in fighting - it is a much more flexible term than that. And if America were declared a theatre of battle as it sometimes rhetorically is then that would open up a lot more targets.

Oh, but they'd never actually do that, right? But they made very sure to reserve the possibility. America isn't ready for that sort of thing yet but maybe a few more terror attacks? Or maybe just a test on some known public unlikables.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
seems to imply that it IS lawful to kill someone when they have been declared a combatant or are military age males in a field of combat. Combatant doesn't actually mean carrying a weapon and being involved at that moment in fighting - it is a much more flexible term than that.
Click to expand...

It's shorthand for "someone we either already killed or very soon hope to."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top