Reddy

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) wow at this thread THE FILIBUSTER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) You've been trying to corner Duke for pages. Apparently again, it is only bad when it isn't you. It is always different when it is someone else. have i? or are you projecting again?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) I read it as arguing that there's no reason to expect that the Republicans would be any better on this issue than the Democrats but that's because you're not coming at it from as blatant a bias as SS is, so you actually read the words instead of make up your own.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:32 PM) And Dems are for them now that there is a Democratic president. no we're not. at all. look at polling data. still grasping at straws, and seems you grabbed the short one.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) So by pointing out that it was just an extension of a Bush policy, that was no attempt to make it not as bad for Obama? lol, you are full of it. no... it wasn't. because i an VEHEMENTLY against Obama's use of drone strikes. you trying to corner me into something I don't even believe is just hilarious and kind of sad. grasping at straws much?

ok let me further clarify. if we had a Republican president condoning drone strikes, you all would support it. end of story.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) So what were you trying to say by that? Please explain. i already did. i was just pointing out the hypocrisy. nothing more. why you want to make that mean something insidious is beyond me. lol

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) But your subconscious did by making the line Bush. Or at least that is what you would say if this was about race. NO! It's simply the most recent and the most convenient example because it's been a hot topic for a decade now, and Republicans unanimously supported it and now they're against drone strikes! What aren't you getting here?? GOP has and always will stand for "intentionally obtuse".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) Yet, back there you were defending it by saying it was only an extension of another policy. how is calling it an extension of another policy a defense of that policy? please elaborate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) Both parties being very far from perfect doesn't mean that one isn't demonstrably worse on basically every major policy area. while you may be right about that, it all comes down to the overarching conceptual aspects for me. nope, neither party is perfect in practice, but one party generally supports helping people in need and encouraging equality - in other words, has ALL of its peoples' best interest in mind, not just the 1% (again, this is ideal and conceptual but sometimes fails in practice), and the other party does the opposite. that is the fundamental difference between the two. when you get to things like foreign policy and the like, the two are nearly identical.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) So how is that different than me bringing up the Alien and Sedition Act? All of the policies of targeting American citizens for being "disloyal" can pretty much be traced back to there. it isn't. did you bring up the Alien and Sedition act, and did I miss it? Did you support it when it was put in place? How old does that make you?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:13 PM) You could do that, or you could not be a hypocrite. But the first is easier for you for sure. show me where I was being hypocritical please. I support neither the Patriot Act nor drone strikes.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) The policies that enabled the drone problem are not limited to the Patriot Act. They go back a very long time. The funny thing is back in the days of the OSS/earlier CIA they kind just did whatever they wanted and nobody knew about it. Then people found out and got pissed so they just passed a bunch of laws enabling them to do a lot of the same s*** but this time with legislative approval. I dont know which I'd prefer, a complicit government or an ignorant one? Yep, exactly. Of course the policies aren't limited to the Patriot Act, and of course SS is right that many similar policies have been in effect for a long, long time. But like I said the Patriot Act was a public endorsement of these policies and as such, were supported by the right and panned by the left. Since then, the flip flop among the GOP is incredibly hypocritical, but such is American politics.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) So you changed the topic from drone strikes to Bush and the patriot act, and I am the misdirector and subject changer for calling you out on your flip flop? i'll try to use really small sentences from now on so you'll be sure to follow. my apologies.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) So you changed the topic from drone strikes to Bush and the patriot act, and I am the misdirector and subject changer for calling you out on your flip flop? ok let me see if i can clarify this... Nuke was b****ing about drone strikes, and I brought up the patriot act because most republicans who NOW b**** about drone strikes SUPPORTED the patriot act, of which these drone strikes are an expansion! that's not misdirecting or changing the subject in the least bit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) And now you are on the opposite side of the coin. You were upset about it, and now are hand-waving away drone strikes on American citizens. what?? i dont know where you get this s*** from, honestly. upset about what? and how am i hand waving away drone strikes? the GOP ability to misdirect and change the subject is staggering. haha

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:53 AM) Candidate B is only a slightly hyperbolic depiction of a two term president. Who didn't run on that platform, and who - if he had - would have lost in the primaries

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:50 AM) We didn't. Again, we have targeted American citizens who weren't perceived as loyal pretty much since the beginning of this country. This didn't start with GW. That is just silly. so then you support the Patriot Act I assume, since it does nothing new that we weren't already doing? guess I was getting my panties in a bunch for the last decade for absolutely no reason at all! Thanks for enlightening me. Honestly my reason for picking out the Patriot Act, is that many republicans who now yell and scream about drones supported it when GWB was president. That's the only point I was making.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) This is purely hypothetical for the purpose of avoiding what would otherwise be a meaningful conversation on actual contenders in 2016 (lol). Candidate A: I will curtail the drone program. Their use on American soil will be prohibited and abroad there will be more oversight. I'll also repeal the Patriot Act, dissolve the NSA (which at this point is too rotten to be saved) and repeal the controversial aspects of the 2013 NDAA. But my religion is against gay marriage so there will be no progress at the federal level in that arena during my presidency Candidate B: I will be a champion of gay marriage, oh by the way I've got this great idea to give drones to State PD's which they can use to blow people up who are involved in high speed pursuits or if we have reason to believe they are trafficking drugs on the interstates. neither, because Candidate B wouldn't make it past the primaries on that platform.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) really? You think Reagan or either of the Bushes went out of their way to berate their security details? Hell Ronnie didn't even like saying 'Damn', he sure as hell wouldn't be throwing f-bombs at the help. wow, how well did you know him personally? that must be so cool.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:40 AM) There is a massive chasm between our use of drones internationally and the proposal of using them domestically within our borders that you just kind of shrug off. But the bigger issue here is that you'll support a side you know is going to erode your rights because to you they're marginally better than the alternative. I mean the least you could do is be less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, who of all the potential candidates for 2016 is by far the most likely to make zero effort in curtailing governments intrusion into our rights. by electing Ted Cruz? who won't restrict ANY rights I'm sure. especially not abortion and gay marriage. it goes both ways, as we've clearly already discussed in depth.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) With the claim that it was an expansion of the Patriot Act, and ignoring any other history (recent or old) you essentially picked out a random point in time to start pointing the finger. Why then, exactly, if you knew better? Because I wasn't referring to spying on citizens but to the way we treat those who are perceived as a "threat", which was changed (or maybe just made more public) with the inception of the Patriot Act.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) Yeah the democrats really went out and reversed those policies. You know, as much as I loathe the Patriot Act and all the bulls*** that's associated with it at least in the aftermath of 9/11 you could somehow make the argument that like when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus we actually needed a temporary suspension of some rights because the intelligence community had been so thoroughly gutted after the Cold War ended that they were incapable of protecting the country from an external threat. Now that they've gotten their s*** together again they really shouldn't have these broad powers that exist outside the constitutional realm anymore, but for some mysterious reason the current administration seems intent on expanding these programs instead of phasing them out. I'm half playing devil's advocate here. I really dont believe the Patriot Act was necessary to protect the country, I'm just saying. I think the interesting thing is that you lump all democrats together with Obama, when he is, in fact, the most conservative democratic president we've had in a long time. He's very pro-war, pro-expansion of the executive branch, pro-business, etc, etc. Yes, Obama has expanded the Patriot Act, and I - like you - think that's s***. Unfortunately the reality is that the two parties are very, very similar outside of social issues, and neither is willing to stick its neck out from the status quo.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:35 AM) It is amazing how short your memory is if you think that is really the beginning of the government spying on and targeting American citizens. i never claimed it was... lol

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2013 -> 11:31 AM) See, here's the thing. I agree with you, at least broadly, that our surveillance state, drone policy, etc. are s***. Our national political landscape is such that both parties largely support these programs. Even Champion of Liberty Rand Paul doesn't care about drone policy beyond his minor objection; he is still 100% onboard with how we are using them internationally. So I can choose to between two candidates, both of whom have troubling civil liberties an foreign policy ideas, but one of which supports gay marriage etc. I have no reason to believe that Republicans wouldn't be just as bad if not worse these grounds as the Democratic candidate, plus they'll bring a whole host of terrible social and economic policies with them. You can keep saying "drones!" all you want, but it's a really shallow criticism because it doesn't actually give me a reason to support your chosen party/candidates. ^