A new precedent has been set. Despite extensive denial that drone strikes would endanger Americans, Attorney General Eric Holder has now openly admitted that four US citizens were killed through overseas drone strikes since 2009.
While not on United States soil, the deaths of the US citizens in nations like Yemen and Pakistan highlight the new precedent being set by US government heads who wish to use drones as a form of lethal enforcement on US soil. With Holder admitting that Americans have already died via drone strikes following his statements that Obama can already initiate drone strikes on US soil, we are now seeing the way paved to go ahead and announce armed drones to fight terrorism here in the US.
We all remember the initial rhetoric that drones were ‘no real threat’, and that they were simply unarmed scouting machines used to save lives overseas.
Then, we saw them rapidly enter the nation, and we heard the same tired reassurances. We saw them killing innocents overseas with the high powered weaponry being attached to these ‘scouting’ drones, and we see them still doing so today. But, once again, we’re told not to worry. Political talking heads like Eric Holder assure us that domestic drones, for which over 1,400 permits have been issued, are not meant to be used as weapons. Well, that is unless Obama decides to use the drones as a weapon of war on US soil.
Armed Domestic Drones In The Near Future
Despite the message of assurance regarding the promise that domestic drones would never turn into government-controlled war machines, Eric Holder decided to go ahead and announce that it would actually be entirely ‘legal’ for Obama to issue a drone strike on a US citizen on domestic soil. In fact, CNN reports that Holder does not ‘rule out’ the possibility of domestic drone strikes, and that a scenario could occur in the future. And to strike someone with a drone, of course, you would need weaponry. You would need an armed drone.
Considering I'm not moving to Yemen and joining Al Qaeda anytime soon I'm not too worried about drones killing me.
R1, I crown you queen of the cunts.
Yes it's serious.
Giving the government carte blanche when it comes to using drones to kill anyone, at anytime, anywhere, with no due process or respect for the rule of law...well, that's a pretty big goddamn deal.
Go to the site's home; this one is leftie conspiracy...not entirely wrong, but definitely, entirely sensationalized.
R2, but drones can and will be used in the US.
If we don't stop this now then in ten years it will be "normal" for cops to use drones to kill anyone that they want to. Look at how they abuse their powers now- do you want that to be the norm?
Does it HAVE to be me, or may one submit a surrogate?
They weren't AMERICAN Americans though, were they.
Yes, I'd like to die that way.
I don't like drones but I don't like any kind of bombs. In the end, will they save more lives. Drones are better then an Iraq war.
So let me get this straight--you would rather a hate group can kill you rather than a drone kill them?
Get real. Tell Chicken Little to go home. If a drone kills the Boston bombers and saves lives, fine.
Let's get real. You don't think that terrorists are debating anything like this when they get together, do you?
I disagree with the US drone policy. Not because I care if Anwar al-Awlaki gets killed or not (although killing his teenage son was kind of fucked up) BUT because drones kill innocent civilians which make people who previously had no animosity against the US hate the US. So even though drones do kill terrorists they also create them, which doesn't seem to me like a very effective way of fighting terrorism.
But if you think that a drone is going to blow you up one morning on your way to Starbucks because you accidently stumbled onto a Jihadi chat room while trying to buy Uggs online, sorry but that's just zany paranoid bullshit if ever I heard it.
We are losing all of our freedoms anyway. In a few years, people like me, will be in concentration camps. Republicans, big business and our Secret Police (CIA) and military will be the people who take our freedoms away.
[quote]But if you think that a drone is going to blow you up one morning on your way to Starbucks because you accidently stumbled onto a Jihadi chat room while trying to buy Uggs online, sorry but that's just zany paranoid bullshit if ever I heard it.
The evidence to date is that that is precisely what the OP thinks.
Drones? Poor naive OP. Just wait until you see what we have stored in the basement of Denver International Airport ready to unleash if we lose the 2014 elections. You'll pray for drones.
[quote]But if you think that a drone is going to blow you up one morning on your way to Starbucks because you accidently stumbled onto a Jihadi chat room while trying to buy Uggs online, sorry but that's just zany paranoid bullshit if ever I heard it.
One morning, 20 years from now, you post on Datalounge v2.0 how much you hate Chelsea Clinton for running for Prez as a Republican. The CIAstapo determine this to be a threat against the prez-elect, and kill you via drone strike.
Until so-called "liberals" like you realize that the "rule of law" is a good thing and not to tampered with, then the rapid slide towards totalitarian fascism in this country will not stop.
Anyone who can't see that murdering people without trial is abhorrent to a just society can go to hell.
R13, they aren't taking our freedoms, the sheeple are giving them freely. The media is just the propaganda arm of the Demopublican party.
[quote]One morning, 20 years from now, you post on Datalounge v2.0 how much you hate Chelsea Clinton for running for Prez as a Republican. The CIAstapo determine this to be a threat against the prez-elect, and kill you via drone strike.
Uh-huh, and then a pink unicorn will trot up and carry him off to Valhalla.
Each of these events is as likely as the other.
R2 nailed it. If some American goes to Yemen and starts wearing a towel on his head and recruits terrorists to kill Americans--I hope a drone blows his ass to kingdom come. I'm a liberal Democrat but this is where I draw the line.
So when they start killing "Towelheads" here in the US, you will be fine then?
What about the anti-war protesters that point out the crimes of the US government- should they be killed too?
The development of drone technology unfortunately is going to change everything in the next decade. Of course I want strict domestic limits. But that won't alter what is coming. How do you think prevention of application is going to tolerated - by the American people - in specific cases within American borders in which a drone solution would resolve an ongoing crisis?
And, OP, it is true you are naive. Your focus on American combatants overseas is misplaced, and your hysteria over potential misuse within the country shows your cards clearly.
Either we trust our government in large part to manage weaponry and protect our constitutional rights or we don't. The issue is not the weaponry or technologically advanced delivery systems that will continue to pour out of R&D. The issue is whether or not our system remains intact, such as it is.
No argument, commitment, rationale or assurance will satisfy you because you believe the game is lost. You are akin to a Ron Paul paranoid. That makes you a Luddite. Luddites are the worst possible voices to pay attention to because they are unrealistic, demagogic idealists, a bad combination of attributes.
R14/18, the defender of government, no matter how obscene the crime. The piss yellow troll-dar shows you once again.
Tired of sucking that government dick yet? How much do whores like you get paid?
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
And of course, if gay people get butchered, you don't think these idiots would have a problem with drones right?
ROFL... Dear heart, it's not like I hide my posts or talk back to myself, as you've done.
And sorry, dear, but I'm afraid I'm not a "defender of the government," nor do I get paid to post here. But hey, do keep on claiming otherwise since it shows you to be the paranoid loon that you are without any intervention on my part.
What's hilarious is that you actually do think that the government would care what you write here. Only in your fevered imagination. It never seems to occur to you that you're nothing more than a source of amusement which is why I continue to egg you on to greater and greater heights.
please clarify. If they used drones to attack gay people (and if we give the power to Obama, then Jeb Bush will have the same power) then you would support it?
When Repubs take the White House again and use these drones to attack or spy on "liberal" groups then no one here will object?
I also don't object to pink unicorns carrying people off to Valhalla, R25. Funny how that works.
They don't need no stinkin' drones to kill you here. They have boots on the ground.
I don't really see this as a slippery slope situation. Sorry.
R26 (and many more) you annoying insipid cunt-
It looks like they are already putting people in jail, or psych wards, for holding opinions that are "verboten".
DALLAS, August 23rd, 2012 - After a special hearing today, Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharret declared the commitment order granted to federal authorities for Brandon Raub’s arrest and detainment was invalid.
Raub, the 26-year-old former Marine, pro-liberty activist and Virginia resident, was seized by FBI, Secret Service and local authorities over Facebook posts allegedly “terrorist in nature”.
According to court documents, a swift evaluation by social worker Michael Campbell determined Raub’s involuntary admission. The following day, a magistrate Michael S. Znotens ordered his detention at John Randolph Hospital. Raub was evaluated for an additional 15 minutes by Dr. James A. Correll and later ordered by Special Justice Walter Douglass Stoke to remain for 30 days at VA Hospital in Salem, VA.
The fraus and freepers own DL now. Off to Reddit......
R12 you're funny. I actually can't stop laughing now. I wish I could take you to the Mem Day party I'm going to on Sunday. My friends would love you.
R17 nailed it.
R32, I wish I could find the humor.
The first part is perfect.
[quote]I disagree with the US drone policy. Not because I care if Anwar al-Awlaki gets killed or not (although killing his teenage son was kind of fucked up) BUT because drones kill innocent civilians which make people who previously had no animosity against the US hate the US. So even though drones do kill terrorists they also create them, which doesn't seem to me like a very effective way of fighting terrorism.
But the failure to recognize that giving that power to any president will eventually result in them using it on ANY dissident- say, gay people who disagree with the federal government policy on marriage, or Guantanamo Bay, or attacking Iran- is stupid.
Who gives a shit about this nonsense?
Now, the most important question: how big is Bieber? Is he packing? Is he cut?
R34 Don't selectively cut and paste. You seem to have left out the part of their post that someone could find humorous.
I rarely get any support here because I believe that Ron Paul (not Rand!) has the answer.
Read the site at the link for a few days and you will see that even though you might disagree with some of the issues, they all come from a COHERENT view of the world- that our bodies are our property, that our homes are our responsibility, that our children are our responsibility, that our wages are ours to use as we wish, and that anyone who tries to interfere with that better have a damn good reason.
If I pollute your yard, or well, or stream- then I'm responsible, and compensation is required.
If I lie to you about some material transaction (say selling a substandard car) then I am responsible for damages.
If I hurt you, intentionally or not, then I am responsible.
Now forget EVERYTHING you know about insurance and police and the EPA, etc. and try to imagine how much better it would be (and how much less expensive!) if taxes were replaced with user fees.
R36, I'm sorry I don't find indiscriminate murder of children funny.
Not me no, but other people? Okay I guess.
R39, nor do I.
I liked his post in it's entirety. I found the second part humorous. I'm sorry I didn't submit a thesis within my post.
Ease up. Really.
Dude- ease up? Really? This is not some discussion about how cool it is that "Arrested Development" is getting a new season, or Kim Kuntrashian's baby bump. We're talking about KILLING PEOPLE!
I'll "ease up" when my government stops murdering innocent people.
OH Boy, somebody spent too much time watching Tom Cruise in his last movie. Got to be the Fraus and the Freepers.
This is what they imagine, its a Freepers wet dream masturbation fantasy gone wild.
And FYI Tom plays a Maytag, uh I mean a drone repairman. LOL
[quote]I rarely get any support here because I believe that Ron Paul (not Rand!) has the answer.
And there, of course, is the reason you don't get any support. Oh, well.... maybe one day you'll figure it out and rejoin us here in the real world.
[quote]Read the site at the link for a few days and you will see that even though you might disagree with some of the issues, they all come from a COHERENT view of the world
Actually, no, they don't, which is why it's so (unintentionally) hilarious, as are you. It's not at all surprising that you would find it so compelling, though, given the paranoid drivel you spew here.
I'm ok with it. I was going to off myself anyway.
It'll save me the trouble of having to buy charcoal.
The Real Meaning of President Obama’s National Security Speeches
Saturday May 25, 2013
This past Thursday and Friday, President Obama delivered two speeches designed to outline his new thinking on national security and counter-terrorism. While much was made in the media of the president’s statements at the National Defense University and the US Naval Academy suggesting that the most active phase of US military action overseas was coming to an end, this “new” approach is but the same old policy wrapped in new packaging. In these addresses, the president panders to the progressives, while continually expanding and solidifying the "enabling act” principle.
The president will continue and even expand drone attacks overseas because they are “less deadly” than ground invasions. He promises to be more careful in the future.
He is entertaining the introduction of “kill courts” which will meet in secret to decide who is to be executed without trial or charge. He promises these will have sufficient oversight.
He will seek a new and updated Authorization for the Use of Military Force to expand his legal authority to wage war wherever and whenever he wants. He promises it will one day be repealed.
He will continue to indefinitely detain at Guantanamo individuals who have been neither charged nor convicted of any crime, and who cannot even be tried because they were tortured and thus the evidence is tainted. He promises to “commit to a process of closing GTMO.”
The speech speaks of more war and more killing and more interventionism all masked in the language of withdrawal.
The president warns of the threats of the new al-Qaeda affiliates that have sprung up in places like Iraq without explaining that it was the US invasion of Iraq that opened the door to their entry in the first place. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein, just as there was little extremism in Libya before the US attack on that country in 2011.
The president claims that “unrest in the Arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.” However, it was the US-led attack on Libya that resulted in extremists gaining power there, with many fighters afterward spreading unrest and destruction by joining the wars against the Syrian and Malian regimes. The extremists brought to de facto power in places like Benghazi were responsible for the murder of the US ambassador, yet the president says nothing about that unintended consequence of his interventionist policies.
He calls for even more interventionism in the future, but he promises that it will be a different kind of interventionism. He wants the US to shape democratic transitions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya while actively supporting those seeking to overthrow the government in Syria.
He wants to take nation-building to a whole new level, urging that the US “help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship.” He promises to battle extremism overseas by “training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.”
What the president does not seem to understand is that we do not have the money to build schools, upgrade education, modernize economies, and encourage entrepreneurship overseas at a time when our national debt is $16 trillion. And besides, isn’t it a deeply flawed idea that the US government can achieve all of these remarkable results overseas when we know what a disaster these big government undertakings have produced at home? What we reject at home as Soviet-style central planning is fully embraced as effective foreign policy overseas. Should it really be the US government’s role to “modernize economies” or “encourage entrepreneurs” anywhere? Those are activities best left to the private sector, whether here at home or in far off lands.
President Obama’s speech is not at all what it seems. It is a call for more empire and more power to the executive branch. The president promises that “this war, like all wars, must end.” Unfortunately the war on the American taxpayer never seems to end. But end it will, as we are running out of money.
Written by Ron Paul
6412 Brandon Ave #312 • Springfield, VA 22150
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a special project of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a non-profit established by Ron Paul in 1976.
No, OP, but I'm certainly okay with drones killing YOU.
Now fuck on off back to the bunker you crawled out of and leave decent homosexuals alone.
are you ok with Halliburton et al killing you for profit?
Does being called out on your hypocrisy make you feel the need to murder someone? Please see a therapist.
The executives at Haliburton should be taken to the Hague, tried for war crimes, and if found guilty, executed. Publicly. Maybe then Rethugs and Demoncrats would never make war on innocent people ever again.
Throw in the last 4 US administrations, along with their European counterparts, and we might restore the rule of law.
Are you too stupid to see that Ron Paul was right?
"Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharret declared the commitment order granted to federal authorities for Brandon Raub’s arrest and detainment was invalid."
Meaning the system, with all its faults, generally works.
R52, if it really worked then the cops that put him in the psych ward would be tried for kidnapping and/or false imprisonment, Raub would win a multimillion dollar judgment against them, and they would lose their jobs, pensions and spend a few years in jail.
THAT would prove the system works.
Abuse of power is destroying this country, and cops are just the front line. The prosecutors, judges, and politicians should be the ones in jail.
Take it easy, Mare.
You're gonna pull something.
Drones don't kil white people.
The Lew Rockwell nut strikes again!
[quote]Are you okay with drones killing you?
This has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever seen on DL. Ever!
Most of us will happily turn over your GPS co-ordinates, OP/R3/6/16/17/20/22/25/30/34/37/38/39/42/46/47/50/51/53.
[quote]Are you too stupid to see that Ron Paul was right?
ROFL.... What's hilarious is that you actually found that drivel of Ron's to be compelling enough to re-post, instead of laughing at it for the inaccuracies and silliness. Too funny.
OP, were those the US citizens consorting with terrorists. If so, no big loss.
Yes. I'm fine with it.
Could we reschedule the drones killing me for next week? I have acupuncture appt. on Wednesday.
Don't read this if you just ate. It will make you throw up.
HANCOCK FIELD AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.Y. — From his computer console here in the Syracuse suburbs, Col. D. Scott Brenton remotely flies a Reaper drone that beams back hundreds of hours of live video of insurgents, his intended targets, going about their daily lives 7,000 miles away in Afghanistan. Sometimes he and his team watch the same family compound for weeks.
“I see mothers with children, I see fathers with children, I see fathers with mothers, I see kids playing soccer,” Colonel Brenton said.
When the call comes for him to fire a missile and kill a militant — and only, Colonel Brenton said, when the women and children are not around — the hair on the back of his neck stands up, just as it did when he used to line up targets in his F-16 fighter jet.
Afterward, just like the old days, he compartmentalizes. “I feel no emotional attachment to the enemy,” he said. “I have a duty, and I execute the duty.”
Drones are not only revolutionizing American warfare but are also changing in profound ways the lives of the people who fly them.
The good news is that since Obama is in favor of drones, the Republicans will never use them.
[quote]Either we trust our government in large part to manage weaponry and protect our constitutional rights or we don't.
Personally, once it becomes the declared policy of our government to execute American citizens without anything resembling due process, that's when I stop trusting them. Seems simple enough.
(Note: I have no idea if I've learned the "quote' protocol correctly. Apologies in advance if I mess it up.)
R65, don't bother learning how to quote, just leave.
Ron Paul is a racist and an anti-government loon. We do not, and will not, support him. Your hysterical paranoia is unimpressive and unpersuasive.
If you join Al Qaeda and spend your life plotting and attempting to kill Americans, we will hunt you down and kill you. We may use a drone, we may not, but we will definitely kill you.
If you feel this is not something that you would enjoy, don't join Al Qaeda and spend your life plotting and attempting to kill Americans.
If R66 was smart enough to debate, I would reply.
She is the end result of government run schools- too stupid to even know how stupid she is.
My private-school-educated penis spits in your general direction, dear.
Also, for someone who takes such pride in his own schooling, you might want to learn how to deploy a hyphen in the appropriate place, if you wish to be consistent. (And should we even mention the "If…was" construction? Ouch.)
Well, that's embarrassing. My R65 was showing as R66 for some reason, and I thought R67 was taking a shot at me, rather than the actual R66 in between us.
R66, I, sir, am no Paulite. Why "the rule of law" seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp is an entirely different discussion, I suppose. Although i will say it's interesting that you support this policy when you don't even know who the fourth American executed by Obama and company is, or of what he/she was accused. Your blind faith seems to be the "Hysterical" reaction here, not my post.
R67, apologies for what was actually just misplaced bitchery, it appears. Oops.
[quote]Well, that's embarrassing. My [R65] was showing as [[[R66]]] for some reason, and I thought [[R67]] was taking a shot at me, rather than the actual R66 in between us.
Christ. Are you numerically illiterate?
No offense taken, especially since you have the good manners and moral turpitude to admit an unfair accusation.
That said, I cannot understand why you would besmirch Dr Ron Paul (not his son, Dr Rand Paul the lesser) with an unfair accusation that associating with him and his libertarian views is something to be ashamed of.
Someone who consistently holds the belief that murder is murder, theft is theft, and fraud is fraud- in spite of the fact that the actor in question has the audacity of calling themselves "government"- should be looked at as sagacious, not disparaged.
No matter what issues you have with Dr Ron Paul, you must admit that he NEVER calls for murdering or jailing the innocent. If more people like him were in power, we would have no troops raping and killing innocent people all over the world, no big banks stealing from the poor, no corporations selling GMO poison and passing it as food, no young black men spending decades in prison for non-crimes, no terrorists attacking innocent people on US soil because of the crimes our government has rained on them...the crimes our "leaders" are responsible for are endless.
At least Ron Paul would try to stop them- unlike Obama, who has just been another accessory to wanton theft and murder.
Yes, OP, yes! Every night in bed, Mitt talks incessantly and I think to myself 'This fucking drone is killing me!' and then I just pray that it will.
I feel ya, Ann. When Nancy, Hil and the 2 Babs get together with me, all we do is wish that the Geneva Convention covered mariticide!!!
[quote] No matter what issues you have with Dr Ron Paul, you must admit that he NEVER calls for murdering or jailing the innocent. If more people like him were in power, we would have no troops raping and killing innocent people all over the world, no big banks stealing from the poor, no corporations selling GMO poison and passing it as food, no young black men spending decades in prison for non-crimes, no terrorists attacking innocent people on US soil because of the crimes our government has rained on them...the crimes our "leaders" are responsible for are endless.
Is that the fuck what you think? You think Ron Paul will magically end all that? There's one deadly thing that Ron Paul will never alleviate -- Human Greed. It has been around since man existed and will never go away.
Ron Paul will dismantle the government and another unauthorized private sector will sneak in, rape the Constitution and we will all suffer.
If it's not our Government, it's another form of Government. That's the way it has been, that's the way it always will be. People like you are horrible historians, you never look at the past.
Libertarians-always complaining, never offering solutions.
turpitude - I do not think it means what you think it means.
Perhaps you were thinking of fortitude.
I want the policy kept until a true progressive is elected president, then the Bush family are put in Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants, then there is an "accident" where they are all killed by a nuclear bomb and then we hand the place back to Cuba.
And then we get rid of the policy.
Drones are killing me softly with their song. . . .
But that is so unlikely to happen that I have to be against the policy in general.
I wonder when Jihadic Drones will start buzzing the US.
I really don't understand what a drone is or how they work.
Is it a secret camera, then it explodes?
[quote]BUT because drones kill innocent civilians which make people who previously had no animosity against the US hate the US
Oh, they already had plenty of animosity towards the US because of our support of Israel. Acting like the Arabs are suddenly going to love us if we stop drone strikes.
[quote]So when they start killing "Towelheads" here in the US, you will be fine then?
[quote]What about the anti-war protesters that point out the crimes of the US government- should they be killed too?
Our gov has already declared that any drones flying over US airspace is an act of war.
No wonder these people hate us.
[quote]But that is so unlikely to happen that I have to be against the policy in general.
Please, please read up on what our govt is doing. They can already kill you with a drone (no judge, no jury) if they SUSPECT you of ANY crime. All they have to do is kill you and then claim that it was "national security".
How many people thought, prior to 9/11, that we would ever allow torture prisons?
PLEASE someone explain what IS a drone exactly?
Jesus, R86, do you also need someone to explain how Google works?
No, R70, I mean that when I checked for new posts, my r65, showed up, labeled as r66, the actual r66 was NOT visible, and then r67 showed, right after my mislabeled "R66". Probably some sort of site glitch.
R71, while I appreciate Dr. Paul's viewpoint on this and other issues, there are many other issues on which I disagree with him considerably, and I therefore chose to correct r66's misapprehension wrt my alleged support of the Pauls.
[quote]Please, please read up on what our govt is doing.
You mean just study it out, R85?
I worry more about what this technology will lead to. Obama's term ends in 4 years, but we have to live with the precedence that he is setting. As with Bush, the Patriot Act extended beyond terrorism.
The next Administration may be a neo-con.
R90, that is why it is so infuriating to watch Democrats put on their blinders to defend Obama taking all sorts of extra-Constitutional powers that curb our liberties and freedom. Every totalitarian power we allow Obama to claim unchallenged will one day belong to another figure-head elected to serve the far-right Neo-Con agenda.
Think about the precedent set by the IRS scandal, the AP spying, Fast and Furious...and then imagine a NeoCon prez with that power and precedent.
But socialists have never been good with thinking ahead or logic...
Please R91, don't blame Obama for the state of totalitarianism in our government based on the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, and multitude of other acts committed by prior administrations. I'm no Obama sycophant, but can't hold him responsible for programs that were started under Bush.
Lest you forget, the IRS commissioner was appointed by Bush. Further, the powers that be on the right (Rove, for instance) don't particularly like the teabaggers, either. Nobody wants to look into the matter very deeply; it's much easier to say it is Obama's fault that the IRS did their job and scrutinized the tax exemption applications - which, coincidentally, were 89% from right wing conservative groups, hence the increased "scrutiny" on conservative groups, not to mention the fact that the only group denied tax exempt status was a democratic group set up to encourage women to run for office.
Fast and Furious only culminated under Obama; again, it was another failed program started under Bush that was incompetent, poorly conceived and managed, and was just a ticking time bomb. The scandal was and is that the DOJ didn't put a stop to it on Jan 21, 2009
As to the AP phone record subpoena, the facts have not exactly come out yet. On its face, it sounds pretty bad, and just like something Obama would do. I don't believe he's as cool as a cucumber like he wants everyone to think; I think he seethes with anger under the surface, and is just very, very good at suppressing it. I think leaks, in particular, really get under is skin.
If you want to talk about scandal, it's that the DOJ prosecutes the wrong people in these and other scandals; to whit, they go after the AP reporters instead of influential wealthy 1%'ers, homeowners who lied on loan applications instead of bankers who willfully ignored common sense in giving loans, and then lied/cheated/committed fraud in foreclosing on said homeowners, and the preoccupation at the DOJ with medical marijuana... 'Nuff said.
Time for Holder to go. If there is a precedent we should worry about, it is that one administration has been allowed to totally manipulate the next with near impunity.
Now that we know the USGov is spying on us 24/7 are you STILL supportive of allowing them to kill you at their whim?
Will you still support it when a Republican takes the White House?
Well, I'd be okay with them killing you. Does that count?
A second vote for calling a drone strike on the Libertarian Idiot Troll.
OP seems to have a hard on for strawmen.
Sure what could go wrong?
OP you're fucking pathetic. This thread lay dormant for EIGHT DAYS before you, you starved-for-attention whore, decided to wake it up.
Oh, and you're a pussy.
Hell, that's nothing new. This moron thinks nothing of bringing back threads that have been dormant for weeks, if not months, often spamming multiple threads with the same copy-and-paste post, then whining and playing the victim when the webmaster kills or locks his threads because of the spam.
My favorite was the time he brought back a dozen or more threads in the same night with the same lame "challenge" by Robert P. Murphy to debate Paul Krugman, the former being a fellow loon who is best known for being completely wrong in his economic forecasts, (like the article at the link from a few years ago). Needless to say, Murphy is a frequent contributor at the sites our resident paranoid loon frequents, including mises.org and lewrockwell.com.
Frankly, if a drone struck and killed me, it would be sweet relief from my being forced to see the world die.
I voted for Obama both times ONLY because the alternatives were horrifying. Looking back, I can see how the Republicans so cleverly played the election. Conservatives knew Clinton would win in a landslide over McCain and Palin, whom they never expected to win anyway. (Nor did they later believe Romney & Ryan would even come close in 2012 BTW).
So they plucked the unknown Barack Hussein Obama from the corrupt state of Illinois in an effort to bring out the black guilt that burned in the hearts of the liberal press. I will never know the truth about their personal beliefs, but they succeeded in scaring the hell out of the left. It worked.
I'm frightened and nervous about this administration, almost more than I feared Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. The only world leaders in my lifetime who didn't scare the crap out of me were JFK, Carter and Clinton.
Patti Lu Pone killing me?
Well, I'd be concerned if I had an extra chromosome or authorization to take photos during one of her numbers, or knew we'd both be stuck with one another on an island, or seated next to her on a plane....
You said "Drone"?
well that something completely different.