Rand Paul's filibuster is a statement for folks to wake up

[Accountable]

13 posts and not a single one on subject. Every one designed to derail. Ain't that troll-like?

 

[The Man]

Lame




Fail.
What 'we' have here is a childish attempt on TM's part to spin, forgetting that the the past tense usage of support------- was used and that TM's typical style of debating out of convenience for the moment, is in play.
You did support the usage of legalized torture during the Bush administration and now during a Democrat Administration are completely opposed to that type of torture.
It's obvious it's a political decision, TM......making you a (drum roll ) hypocrite.
You do support gray laws when it's convenient for you and deny support when it's convenient for you.


Your position was very clear during the Bush administration......you supported the use of a torture that is called waterboarding.
And I used linkage in past threads to prove your intent at the time.

Further, another member, Tim, provided proof, in your own words used at this web site, that you even used torture on a vagrant that broke into your home and bragged you kill him the next time.
You've even denied that.
But Tim's link to your words was telling.

It's rather obvious you aren't being honest with the forum.



Perhaps, but that's not a rationale for condoning torture to begin with. It's just a lame excuse to avoid responsibility and hide your shame.



Do you think Adolf Hitler and his minions could have used that argument for all the torture they committed at a time when the torture of Jews was legal in Germany?
Comparing prohibition to acts of torture is neither logical nor sane.
One is is a free choice by an individual, the other an imposed act of violence upon an unwilling individual.
But then......your fallacious argument at the time of those waterboardings was that those tortured, chose to be tortured.
That was insane logic.




But you did support the legalization of a torture and the legal act of the torture called waterboarding.
And you aren't addressing that issue because you you know you did support it during the Bush Administration.
Gray laws......you support them when it's convenient.



Slick.....those closed threads where we discussed this earlier have the proof with linkage to source, that shows otherwise.
You did support the legalization and usage of waterboarding during the Bush Administration.



You still don't get it. This is a debate forum and I've outed you on a claim you've made about gray laws.
The Bush Administration imposed torture as a legal activity through legal decisions in the Justice Department:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
You support gray laws when it's politically advantageous and reject them when it's politically advantageous.
You're a hypocrite.




Done and done......this is a debate forum, after all.


Called that one right



You did during the Bush Administration.



You sound upset ......



And the whining kicks in.


Have you ever thought that being honest with the forum, or at least avoiding situations where you present yourself as a poser........might avoid the above debate?
You do support gray laws when there is a political element, to your advantage. And you do reject that same identical gray law, when there is a political element to your advantage.
It's called......'speaking out both sides of your mouth'.
And I caught you at it



You are exaggerating....
Stop posting shit and see what happens



Sour grapes

Fail.

That you have indeed...my position is clear while water boarding was legal..it now needs to be illegal.
Now show me a post to support your claim that I want to have water boarding once again legalized.
You cant..you wont as it doesnt exist.

What 'we' have here is a childish attempt on TM's part to spin, forgetting that the the past tense usage of support------- was used and that TM's typical style of debating out of convenience for the moment, is in play.
You did support the usage of legalized torture during the Bush administration and now during a Democrat Administration are completely opposed to that type of torture.
It's obvious it's a political decision, TM......making you a (drum roll ) hypocrite.
You do support gray laws when it's convenient for you and deny support when it's convenient for you.

LOL calling me a hypocrite nice try.
Fact is you threw a fit over water.boarding during the bush era...but support drone executions during obama....that pretty much makes you a hypocrite.....good job stone

Your position was very clear during the Bush administration......you supported the use of a torture that is called waterboarding.

And again my position is it needs to be illegal....you cant prosecute those that boarded while it was legal.
You spew the constitution out when it suits but seem to ignore its actual intent.

Further, another member, Tim, provided proof, in your own words used at this web site, that you even used torture on a vagrant that broke into your home and bragged you kill him the next time.

I found a man inside my home years ago..he wanted to avoid prosecution.
Now that I am older i have decided one should not play with his own saftey...with home invasions on the rise etc and an intruder automatically being a threat it is best to extinguish the threat quickly rather than gamble the level of violence the intruder is capable of.

It's rather obvious you aren't being honest with the forum.

I am being very honest....find you in my house/ I am interested in my safety and the safety of my family first and foremost...an intruder will be dealt with full on rather than take a chance.

Perhaps, but that's not a rationale for condoning torture to begin with. It's just a lame excuse to avoid responsibility and hide your shame.

I dont condone it...never did..but I could give less than a fuck about those three terrorists that were boarded.

Do you think Adolf Hitler and his minions could have used that argument for all the torture they committed at a time when the torture of Jews was legal in Germany?

Adolf was a barbarian no doubt...but I could not prosecute those that were merely following his orders...just as I cant not prosecute those that did the water boarding to those three terrorists.
And again...one more time maybe it will sink in this time...what they did was legal at the time they committed no crime.
Fuck you want to use the law when it is convenient for you and disregard it when it isnt and charge people for things they done when it was legal......Does the word hypocrite fit?

Comparing prohibition to acts of torture is neither logical nor sane.

Then use what ever example fits your mind...lets try this one.
Executions by a state {death penalty}.
With your logic we should prosecute those that carried out the execution after a state changes its laws and discontinues a death penalty.
Sorry stone it doesnt work like that...nor should it...All I can say on this matter is its a good thing you arent a judge as you would pick what laws you wanted to use and what year they came from.
You would make a fine dictator no more...you spat upon the very foundations America is built upon.

One is is a free choice by an individual, the other an imposed act of violence upon an unwilling individual.

LOL talk or get boarded..that was the choice....you whine about such...and years later I might add...hell if we didnt know better one would think it was you that took the board for those 15 seconds.

But then......your fallacious argument at the time of those waterboardings was that those tortured, chose to be tortured.
That was insane logic.

They were asked questions and refused....take it up with those that did the boarding..I wasnt there....and again I could care less about those three terrorists that acted tough and chose the board.

Gray laws......you support them when it's convenient.

Funny you should say that as you highly oppose water boarding but support drone executions.

You still don't get it. This is a debate forum and I've outed you on a claim you've made about gray laws.
The Bush Administration imposed torture as a legal activity through legal decisions in the Justice Department:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
You support gray laws when it's politically advantageous and reject them when it's politically advantageous.
You're a hypocrite.

I very much get it...you oppose water boarding during bush but approve of drone executions during Obama..you would make Minor Axis very happy.

Done and done......this is a debate forum, after all.

I believe you have made some errors with c and p as the word fail you posted atop should have went here.

Have you ever thought that being honest with the forum, or at least avoiding situations where you present yourself as a poser........might avoid the above debate?

Ironic coming form the one who is against boards by the reps but approves of executions by the dems.
You appear to be getting dizzy from all your spin.

You do support gray laws when there is a political element, to your advantage. And you do reject that same identical gray law, when there is a political element to your advantage.

Wow again...a spinning hypocrite you have reached new lows.

You are exaggerating....
Stop posting shit and see what happens

Ok I laughed.

Sour grapes

w'h'ine

 

[The Man]

13 posts and not a single one on subject. Every one designed to derail. Ain't that troll-like?

We had a cross post here.
I apologize for my part in this ACC ...i would like to point out I am on the defense here and not the cause of the derail.

 

[Stone]

13 posts and not a single one on subject. Every one designed to derail. Ain't that troll-like?

Complain, complain, complain........yes, you and TM have tried desperately to avoid the point I brought up originally, but I have no control over that......so sad my states rights separatist amigo

 

[Stone]

That you have indeed...my position is clear while water boarding was legal..it now needs to be illegal.
Now show me a post to support your claim that I want to have water boarding once again legalized.
You cant..you wont as it doesnt exist.

(edited for brevity and copied into an xps file in case future edits change context )


.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html




Especially #4....but then , I noted that before in private communication with you.....

.my position is clear

Indeed.....you support legalized torture when it's convenient.
And I've proven that statement.

Now show me a post to support your claim that I want to have water boarding once again legalized.
You cant..you wont as it doesnt exist.

That claim wasn't made, you're making that up out of desperation.

LOL calling me a hypocrite nice try.
Fact is you threw a fit over water.boarding during the bush era...but support drone executions during obama

Fail again.
Fact is, I did argue against legalizing torture and you argued in support of legalized torture during the Bush administration and this thread presents you as a liar on the drone issue. All anyone has to do is read my post to see that.
It is interesting that you and Accountable avoid Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution because it fits exactly in with Holder's comments That you linked to.

Your comment:

Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an
American in his home country would be legal and justified

The link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...one-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

Holder's comment:

"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 authorise the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,"

Indeed......under certain circumstances, Article 1 Section 9 defines when the US Government can suspend Habeas Corpus and with martial law invoked, persons physically challenging martial law do lose judicial review and outcomes resulting in their deaths can occur.... and it is constitutional.
I don't give a shit whether you like it or not.....that's the way the Constitution has addressed the government's proper response to loss of civilian control.
And Obama didn't write this into the Constitution.
Tough shit for you.

I found a man inside my home years ago..he wanted to avoid prosecution.
Now that I am older i have decided one should not play with his own saftey...with home invasions on the rise etc and an intruder automatically being a threat it is best to extinguish the threat quickly rather than gamble the level of violence the intruder is capable of.

You posted you'd kill the guy if he did it again......beat his head in.....
And Tim did quote you on torturing the guy.....and you posted it as if it was recent, not 'years ago'......
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
#4........:clap

I am being very honest....

....Good one!

.......find you in my house/ I am interested in my safety and the safety of my family first and foremost...an intruder will be dealt with full on rather than take a chance.

Equating torture to self defense....
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html......most of it

Fuck you want to use the law when it is convenient for you and disregard it when it isnt and charge people for things they done when it was legal......Does the word hypocrite fit?

You just described yourself.....
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
#4........:clap

Adolf was a barbarian no doubt...but I could not prosecute those that were merely following his orders

Trust me when I post......that is going to bite you in the future, for ever and ever.....just like your past support of legalized torture ......:clap
You would argue legal support to those that carried out the atrocities on Jews.
Fucking amazing that you would admit it publicly.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Then use what ever example fits your mind...lets try this one.
Executions by a state {death penalty}.

Let's not.....let's stick to my point......the Constitution, specifically, Article 1 Section 9.

With your logic we should prosecute those that carried out the execution after a state changes its laws and discontinues a death penalty.
Sorry stone it doesnt work like that...nor should it...All I can say on this matter is its a good thing you arent a judge as you would pick what laws you wanted to use and what year they came from.
You would make a fine dictator no more...you spat upon the very foundations America is built upon.

You could always argue you posted that under the influence of a brain tumor....
LOL!
Your rants make me laugh!

That's the worst analogy I've ever seen you post......:clap

LOL talk or get boarded..that was the choice

To the forum......just like said........and there TM is, confirming it.
One of TM's arguments to use torture was that the person being tortured chooses it.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html




And through all of TM's shit.....he still doesn't address the significance of Article 1 Section 9 and how it applies.

 

[Stone]

We had a cross post here.
I apologize for my part in this ACC ...i would like to point out I am on the defense here and not the cause of the derail.

And yet you still persist discussing your past participation in supporting legalized torture in reference to ........'gray' laws, that you brought up.......and avoid the Constitutional points going directly to topic, that I brought up.


http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

 

[Stone]

way to kill a thread guys

Morning Mr Barbarian.....

I think this thread has come alive............:thumbup

My adversaries appear to be a state's rights separatist that honors the Constitution with past arguments to butcher it per whim.....and a sociopath apologist for torture and the monsters that commit it.........:eek........( )


What more entertainment could you ask for?

 

[porterjack]

What more entertainment could you ask for?

pictures of big jugs

 

[Stone]

pictures of big jugs

OK....I had to rep that one.....

 

[Accountable]

We had a cross post here.
I apologize for my part in this ACC ...i would like to point out I am on the defense here and not the cause of the derail.

You give him too much power over you. You've stated your case. Screw 'im if he insists on cackling long after the conversation's finished. If you respond to his every poke then he will never stop poking. He's a troll. It's what he does.

 

[The Man]

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html




Especially #4....but then , I noted that before in private communication with you.....



Indeed.....you support legalized torture when it's convenient.
And I've proven that statement.


That claim wasn't made, you're making that up out of desperation.




Fail again.
Fact is, I did argue against legalizing torture and you argued in support of legalized torture during the Bush administration and this thread presents you as a liar on the drone issue. All anyone has to do is read my post to see that.
It is interesting that you and Accountable avoid Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution because it fits exactly in with Holder's comments That you linked to.

Your comment:


The link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...one-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

Holder's comment:


Indeed......under certain circumstances, Article 1 Section 9 defines when the US Government can suspend Habeas Corpus and with martial law invoked, persons physically challenging martial law do lose judicial review and outcomes resulting in their deaths can occur.... and it is constitutional.
I don't give a shit whether you like it or not.....that's the way the Constitution has addressed the government's proper response to loss of civilian control.
And Obama didn't write this into the Constitution.
Tough shit for you.



You posted you'd kill the guy if he did it again......beat his head in.....
And Tim did quote you on torturing the guy.....and you posted it as if it was recent, not 'years ago'......
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
#4........:clap



....Good one!


Equating torture to self defense....
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html......most of it








You just described yourself.....
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
#4........:clap



Trust me when I post......that is going to bite you in the future, for ever and ever.....just like your past support of legalized torture ......:clap
You would argue legal support to those that carried out the atrocities on Jews.
Fucking amazing that you would admit it publicly.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html



Let's not.....let's stick to my point......the Constitution, specifically, Article 1 Section 9.



You could always argue you posted that under the influence of a brain tumor....
LOL!
Your rants make me laugh!

That's the worst analogy I've ever seen you post......:clap




To the forum......just like said........and there TM is, confirming it.
One of TM's arguments to use torture was that the person being tortured chooses it.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html




And through all of TM's shit.....he still doesn't address the significance of Article 1 Section 9 and how it applies.

Number one.
Again...link to a post showing I want torture to become legal
My position has been very clear what once was legal needs to be illegal now.
You keep making the claim...again link to a post showing I want torture to become legal.
Number two.
You may want o familiarize yourself with how the system works..you can not prosecute someone for doing something that is legal.
Those that gave the boardings years ago did it while it was legal...Obama made it illegal..thus if anyone boards now it is a crime.
One more time you can not charge someone for a crime for doing something that is legal at the time...you somehow like to equate me pointing out that fact as "support for the legalization of torture"
You keep mentioning the constitution as if it means something...but if you do not understand the simple fact that you can not prosecute someone for doing something that at the time was legal...You should not attempt to portray yourself as an authority matter with how the system operates in the United States.
I am not saying this to sound harsh ..but it is designed to protect against the very acts you propose in the event you were a judge or a prosecutor or a person in a similar position.
You can not make a law today to make something illegal then prosecute someone for something committed years prior while it was legal.Can you imagine the overloading of say a simple traffic court if such were allowed...by a stop sign being added to an intersection then write tickets to everyone who went through there before the stop sign was in place?
As said you can not prosecute someone for doing something that was legal at the time....I agree with that.
Its our system you may not like it...but that safeguard is also there to protect you from abuse by the legal system.

 

[The Man]

You give him too much power over you. You've stated your case. Screw 'im if he insists on cackling long after the conversation's finished. If you respond to his every poke then he will never stop poking. He's a troll. It's what he does.

I made the last post rather simple so hopefully he can understand it...but yes you are right...in a way I am feeding the troll.

 

[Stone]

You give him too much power over you. You've stated your case. Screw 'im if he insists on cackling long after the conversation's finished. If you respond to his every poke then he will never stop poking. He's a troll. It's what he does.

Let me guess....you're still unhappy about my comments of your 'hero' Ron Paul?

You bitch about me being off topic, but you and TM....have avoided addressing my first post in this thread, specifically...

.
...........................

Anyone bother to read the Constitution, in particular, Article 1, Section 9?
Specifically:

Under certain circumstances, habeas corpus can be suspended and martial law imposed.
And it's been done in the recent past.
Shoot to kill orders were given to police by the Louisiana Governor after Katrina hit.

Americans were shot and killed without judicial review.

Extending that to cover an American actively involved in domestic terrorism isn't even a stretch of the law.

But suspending habeas corpus and instituting martial law is no small matter and involves trust that current and previous Federal administrations obviously lack. Often with good reason.

...................

You've stated your case.

Yes, he did
But it didn't cover the actual facts of the issue at hand. His own source, posted, contradicted his comments.
Along with bizarre statements about not prosecuting the perpetrators of the Holocaust, rationalizing torture by way of 'it's the victim's choice' and it was 'legal' at the time, and that I don't believe in law and order because I apparently use the Constitution as the argument for what the government is allowed to do in reinstating civilian control in times of emergencies.

Screw 'im if he insists on cackling long after the conversation's finished.

If TM wishes to withdraw as you did in your argument to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, that's fine with me.

If you respond to his every poke then he will never stop poking.

Indeed......this is a debate forum, not the whiney/bitch fest that you seem to desire with out rebuttal.

He's a troll. It's what he does.

You sound bitter.......

 

[The Man]

.


Shoot to kill orders were given to police by the Louisiana Governor after Katrina hit.

.

You may want to familiarize your self with what martial law actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings

It does not allow the cops to shoot at will....several cops found themselves in much trouble just over this one incident.

 

[Stone]

Number one.
Again...link to a post showing I want torture to become legal
My position has been very clear what once was legal needs to be illegal now.
You keep making the claim...again link to a post showing I want torture to become legal.
Number two.
You may want o familiarize yourself with how the system works..you can not prosecute someone for doing something that is legal.
Those that gave the boardings years ago did it while it was legal...Obama made it illegal..thus if anyone boards now it is a crime.
One more time you can not charge someone for a crime for doing something that is legal at the time...you somehow like to equate me pointing out that fact as "support for the legalization of torture"
You keep mentioning the constitution as if it means something...but if you do not understand the simple fact that you can not prosecute someone for doing something that at the time was legal...You should not attempt to portray yourself as an authority matter with how the system operates in the United States.
I am not saying this to sound harsh ..but it is designed to protect against the very acts you propose in the event you were a judge or a prosecutor or a person in a similar position.
You can not make a law today to make something illegal then prosecute someone for something committed years prior while it was legal.Can you imagine the overloading of say a simple traffic court if such were allowed...by a stop sign being added to an intersection then write tickets to everyone who went through there before the stop sign was in place?
As said you can not prosecute someone for doing something that was legal at the time....I agree with that.
Its our system you may not like it...but that safeguard is also there to protect you from abuse by the legal system.

Number one.
Again...link to a post showing I want torture to become legal

That claim was never made. But it wouldn't surprise me.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

My position has been very clear what once was legal needs to be illegal now.

And it's clear you supported legalized torture during the Bush administration.

You keep making the claim...again link to a post showing I want torture to become legal.

Again...that claim was never made.

You lie.....
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Number two.
You may want o familiarize yourself with how the system works..you can not prosecute someone for doing something that is legal.

No shit, Captain Obvious

Those that gave the boardings years ago did it while it was legal...Obama made it illegal..thus if anyone boards now it is a crime.

So?
That does not rationalize your support of legalized torture during the Bush Administration, nor does your logic rationalize the Holocaust nor absolve the murderers and torturers involved in it like you have positioned.


http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

You should not attempt to portray yourself as an authority matter with how the system operates in the United States.

Wow...that was out of the blue....

I am not saying this to sound harsh

Of course you are, you have little in your responses to me beyond exaggerations and outright lies. Might as well be harsh.....makes no difference as you've already made a fool of yourself.

.but it is designed to protect against the very acts you propose in the event you were a judge or a prosecutor or a person in a similar position.

Who ever is helping you with your present post isn't anymore logical than you are.
Habeas Corpus can be suspended when there is no effective civilian control because of emergencies.
Your logic actually provides the possibility of anarchy with out government resolution.
You claimed you support 'law and order'. Your argument doesn't.
Your arguments are truly stupid.

You keep mentioning the constitution as if it means something...but if you do not understand the simple fact that you can not prosecute someone for doing something that at the time was legal

Jack just shakes his head in amusing wonderment....

Are you drinking?

Can you imagine the overloading of say a simple traffic court if such were allowed...by a stop sign being added to an intersection then write tickets to everyone who went through there before the stop sign was in place?

This is like the Twilight Zone...

As said you can not prosecute someone for doing something that was legal at the time....I agree with that.

Well good for you!....

Its our system

What planet are you from?

you may not like it...but that safeguard is also there to protect you from abuse by the legal system.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?



I'm saving this thread for posterity and a good laugh

 

[Stone]

You may want to familiarize your self with what martial law actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings

It does not allow the cops to shoot at will....several cops found themselves in much trouble just over this one incident.

You may want to familiarize your self with what martial law actually is.

This is martial law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law
excerpt:

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis.

Again......the purpose of suspending Habeas Corpus and instituting martial law is to reestablish civilian control not kill off the civilian population as you keep trying to claim.

It does not allow the cops to shoot at will....several cops found themselves in much trouble just over this one incident.

Indeed.
So?
Is that your argument to keep New Orleans in a state of anarchy?.....grievous mistakes made by the police?


Katrina was more than one Bridge.

Here a Wikipedia article that includes the history of imposed martial law in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States

Your apparent argument to remove Article 1 Section 9 would have obviously done more harm to society than the terrible mistakes made on a bridge.

But there is a good argument that those imposing martial law need proper training.

 

[Stone]

I made the last post rather simple so hopefully he can understand it...but yes you are right...in a way I am feeding the troll.

After kicking your ass all over this thread, that's all you have to say?

 

[Stone]

I believe ANY president would have that authority, or am I mistaken?

Someone just wanted to push their own agenda so they pushed the question to the current president's office.

This is the only administration that openly supports it.

I believe ANY president would have that authority, or am I mistaken?

Correct.
As has been shown in posts since your yours, Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution, has given centuries of Presidents that authority. But it has limitations.
It's the imagery of a drone being used to enforce martial law that has caused the excitement.

Someone just wanted to push their own agenda so they pushed the question to the current president's office

Obviously.....and that's how politics is often played.
Rand Paul is obviously trying to expand his power base......and that is a goal of most politicians.

(The Man)This is the only administration that openly supports it.

As has been shown in posts since yours, obviously not.



This has been a fun filled thread for me.
What should have been a simple debate has exposed beliefs in protecting the torturers and murders of the Holocaust from legal prosecution, beliefs that the government should not be allowed to reestablish civilian authority lost in emergencies and that the purpose of martial law is to kill civilians.
Thank you, The Man, for the entertainment.
Kudos to his moral support, our own slice and dice Constitutional authority, a man of many quips, Accountable.......

And the current president's office didn't answer! It should have been a simple question, even a no-brainer. But do you really think that the president is above the Bill of Rights and doesn't have to grant due process to US citizens if he doesn't want to??

Article 1 Section 9 must be very inconvenient for you.


'Mountains out of molehills'..........


carry on

 

[Stone]

It's been 'real'.....goodbye.....

 

[The Man]

Whats real is you support prosecuting people for doing something while it was legal at the time.