Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41561 - 41580 of total 52599 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:07am PT
Overwhelming support for minimum wage: A new Gallup poll finds that 71 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour. Even conservatives favor this policy by 54-44, and Republicans favor it by 50-48. It’s yet another issue where the GOP Congressional leadership is out of step even with their own voters.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:07am PT
no,, it was in HOUSTON..At least the one im talking about..According to the many articles..
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:08am PT
Public supports gun control: A new Quinnipiac poll confirms yet again that solid to large majorities support Obama’s gun proposals: Eighty eight percent of Americans support universal background checks; and 54 percent support bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Strikingly, the poll also finds that respondents trust Congressional Republicans slightly more than Obama to handle gun policy, by 44-42, even though they oppose all the policies the public supports. This perhaps is a reminder of what an excellent job the “gun rights” has done in obscuring the true nature of gun control policy goals.
jghedge

climber
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:10am PT
"no,, it was in HOUSTON..At least the one im talking about..According to the many articles.."


Yes, from the same place all your other info comes from, no doubt
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2013 - 09:11am PT
Ken
Just more data that says the Republican Party is working against the People
Against the wishes of the majority
They have become the tyrannical minority that have taken the Nation Hostage

Who could be so stupid to vote for this mafia control
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:20am PT
Hey Ken,, guess youve missed the news article about obummer already taking out US citizens with drones. Yes he was in a foreign country and asscociating with known teroorists, but YES he was a young citizen too. So DONT tell me the gubbmint CANT use the NDAA 2013 laws they way they choose.. They set an easy precedence, and will now EXPAND on that, just like they have been doing for decades.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:32am PT
Rong, please explain how a law that went into effect in 2013 had an impact on a military action that took place in 2012?

:)

And explain whether the child to which you refer was a target, or an inadvertent victim of an attack?

Careful! Because if you are stating that the mere presence of any american makes a target unshootable.....what were the allies doing dropping bombs on things where POW's might be...which they did.
You would also be making a case for kidnapping Americans and placing them at all strategic sites......such as Iranian nuclear facilities, cities, military installations. What a great strategy!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:36am PT
that was due to the 2012 laws Ken.. The 2013 goes past that,, but then you knew that..

Now do i agree on SOME use of drones? Yep.. But NOT in my hood..

We are already treated like suspects just getting on a stinking airplane. Ill be dammed if i will put up with any such further goings on.. When the price for freedom becomes a prison unto itself, its time to question.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2013 - 09:41am PT
How many Americans have been killed by these so called drone strikes??

2, and one had given up his citizenship, and declared war on America, the other, his child, a terrorist in training

big f-ing deal
stop huffing so much glue

all the Progressive liberal Senators voted against the NDAA bill
maybe you should vote for them, that at least will change things

The Republicans would put a Drone over every town.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:45am PT
As the filibuster crept toward its 13th hour, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) joined to ask Paul whether the U.S. government had the authority to take out the fourth plane on 9/11 before it crashed into the Capitol.

"I don't think this is such a clear and easy situation," Durbin said.

Paul called it a "red herring."

"We all agree that you can repel an imminent attack," Paul said. "None of us disagree with that. We are talking about a targeted drone program" against citizens who are "not actively engaged in combat. ... I don't think that standard can be used in the United States."

Durbin said he respected Paul's response. "I stand with the senator," Durbin said. "I think it is a legitimate question."

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


Yes we ARE talking about pre-emptive strike over non-hostile easily accesible land.

What is the administrations legal opinion on this issue? It's a reasonable question that the administration has no business dodging. They must answer the question.

I trust this president never to do such a thing but it should be made extremely clear that no president ever have such legal authority.
Gary

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:46am PT
Summary execution of United States citizens by the government should be never be allowed.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:53am PT
I note their are a number of insecure and ignorant people on this thread that arrogantly deride the ideas of others that don't agree with their tunnel vision ideas. No names-you know who you are.
The 2009 federal budget ( the last federal budget we had) did not indicate a 1.4 trillion deficit. Tarp added 245 billion and Obama's American recovery and reinvestment act resulted in the loss of a very substantial portion of federal revenue. The result was a projected 425 billion deficit ballooned into 1.4 trillion. Since then the legislative and executive branches have totally abandoned budgeting. You would think by looking at the published reports,i.e. mass media, that nothing is getting through congress. This is far from the truth. Instead of the usual process of bills being developed and debated on the congressional floor before being voted on, a process called "hotlining" has been substituted. Bills are quietly written, all involve pork barrel spending, and e-mailed or phoned to the office of each representative. Defeat of the bill only requires dissent, so by ignoring it through non response the bill automatically advances ultimately to be quietly signed into law by the president. Our dear congressional members, two sides of the same coin regardless of their stripes, rarely dissent since defeat of anothers pork barrel bill would result in defeat of theirs. We are being bamboozled while the country is being plundered by both sides. The question you should all be asking is; why is our attention being deliberately diverted and to what end?
ClimbSki2, i think you were thinking about Rand Paul rather than Paul Ryan. Perhaps one of the drones patolling the texas border tracked an illegal to the cockpit of a plane at a nearby Texas airport- just a little humor.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 7, 2013 - 09:59am PT
Oh certainly I meant Rand Paul not Paul Ryan. And yes I am well aware the differences and who they are. Both I generally consider hideous politicians.

Unfortunately in this very limited case I agree completely with Rand Pauls Question and applaud his determination to make it a major issue.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:00am PT
sorry, Climb, but what you are DEMANDING was already done by the administration on monday.





Washington (CNN) -- Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.
Is it okay for U.S. to target citizens? Domestic drones in U.S. skies Buyers: Drones are here to stay Al Qaeda's guide to avoiding drones
But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a letter to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical."
That letter, released Tuesday, was prompted by questions raised over the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Specifically, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sought the Obama administration's legal rationale for its use of drones to kill terror suspects overseas.
But Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has said he would do what he could to hold up Brennan's nomination until he got a full answer to his query, wanted to know whether the administration considered that policy applicable domestically.
Holder: Drone strike against Americans in the U.S. possible
In a letter to Paul dated on Monday, Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States.
However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."
The United States, he said, has not carried out such action domestically and had no plans to do so.
Holder said a potential scenario might involve a president ordering such action "to protect the homeland" in a case like the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
But he said the administration rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.
Paul, who released the letter from Holder along with his statement, was not satisfied with the response.
"The U.S. attorney general's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening. It is an affront to the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Paul said.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:03am PT
So, you are saying that if a terrorist group hypothetically captured a civilian airliner filled with Americans, and was about to fly it into, say, the World Trade Center, you would not shoot it down (with drones or anything else), but allow it to fly into the building and kill thousands?

You'd demand that every American on that plane be given a trial?

Dick Cheney DID give such an order on 9/11. Was that a criminal act? A war crime?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:06am PT
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

OK thank you for this quote KEN. That is excellent information that clearly shows I was and Rand were wrong. I had not heard all of Holder's testimony. That is a pretty clear statement regarding the legality of pre-emptive strike on US soil.

All I had heard previously about Holders statements were his justification of military force used on American Soil if there was an ongoing attack like 9-11 or Pearl Harbor. I certainly have no issue using whatever assets might work best in repelling. Drones or whatever.

I guess I can breathe a sigh of relief and conclude that Rands fillibuster was a douchebag move demanding an answer already given.

He conned even me this time..

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:09am PT
Hardly Climb2ski.. That was most definitly required. Trust yur GUT. As you did yesterday when suddenly finding yourself in agreement with him..Words are quite cheap in the political arena. One must rely on that little feeling down deep- that sign of unrest in your bowels. That is NATURES alarm going off for you.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:11am PT
answer the question, Rong.

Would you shoot the plane down?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:12am PT
I'm probably oversimplifying some, but haven't we used unmanned drone strikes on American soil for as long as the United States existed? We just called them "bullets."

John
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 7, 2013 - 10:15am PT
John, I think you strike to the heart of the matter, which is that drones are simply a technique.

They don't fundamentally alter the underlying issue in any way.
Messages 41561 - 41580 of total 52599 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews