Author Topic: Politics, Religion, etc. etc. 2/16/11 - 5/9/13  (Read 44884 times)

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14671
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3255 on: March 07, 2013, 09:04:39 pm »
You don't agree with Rand on that portion.  He said that he has no problem with the overseas strikes that take out those that can not be arrested and brought to trial.  He just wants confirmation that it would not happen within the borders of the United States.

His exact comments were that in the present age, the battlefields extend beyond geographical borders, and the enemies can not be allowed asylum in foreign countries.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3256 on: March 08, 2013, 07:20:50 am »
I am aware of Rand's comments, but they were not quite as broad as you suggest.  His criticism was not just of drone strikes on US soil, but with the idea that the entire world is a battlefield.  I suspect that he will press the issue further in the months ahead, but whether he does or not, it needs to be, and my last comment was not that Paul would press anything further, but merely that "but now the question needs to move beyond the borders of the U.S. and beyond just U.S. citizen."

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14671
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3257 on: March 08, 2013, 10:01:17 am »
When he was interviewed on FOX, he agreed with the concept that the battlefield was not restricted to specific countries.  Either he has changed his views, or he is trying to confuse his audience.

I was aware of your comments, and their meaning.  But you seemed to imply that Rand agreed with your views.  If he does, he is being very evasive.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3258 on: March 08, 2013, 11:30:44 am »
But you seemed to imply that Rand agreed with your views.  If he does, he is being very evasive.

No.  You may have inferred it.  I did not imply it.

Look again at what I wrote.

I agree with Rand, and agree with you about Lindsey and McCain being wrong about Rand's filibuster, or his comment about a drone strike on Jane Fonda 40 years ago, being embarrassing.... but now the question needs to move beyond the borders of the U.S. and beyond just U.S. citizen.

How long are we as a nation going to continue to accept the president's claim that he has the authority under the Constitution to declare someone an "enemy combatant" if they are not on U.S. soil and put them on a kill list?

Nothing in the Constitution even suggests that it limits the power of the Federal government only when dealing with U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil.

I set out where the question needs to move, and likely will move.

I did not say, or suggest, that Rand Paul would push the question, or even answer in the same way I do.

I merely set out where the question needs to move.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14671
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3259 on: March 08, 2013, 02:19:43 pm »
True.  But since I misunderstood it, it is probably a good thing that I posted as I did, or others may also have misunderstood it.

I assume that our goal is communication, rather than competition.

FITS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3211
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
    • HealthSource Nutrition
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3260 on: March 08, 2013, 02:47:43 pm »
I assume that our goal is communication, rather than competition.

Your goal, maybe.

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14671
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3261 on: March 08, 2013, 02:52:50 pm »
It is a goal we all fail at, occasionally.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3262 on: March 08, 2013, 05:32:51 pm »
True.  But since I misunderstood it, it is probably a good thing that I posted as I did, or others may also have misunderstood it.

I assume that our goal is communication, rather than competition.

I don't think I did an end zone dance in there at any point.

It seemed I simply corrected you to help with the communication, or at least that was all I intended.

If you saw it as competition, perhaps you could explain sometime just what the competition might be, so I could perhaps play along with you.

FITS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3211
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
    • HealthSource Nutrition
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3263 on: March 08, 2013, 05:43:55 pm »
It is a goal we all fail at, occasionally.

Some exponentially more than others.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3264 on: March 08, 2013, 06:53:55 pm »
Some exponentially more than others.

You mean like those who try to communicate that Puerto Rico is an independent country?

FITS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3211
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
    • HealthSource Nutrition
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3265 on: March 11, 2013, 07:39:45 am »
LOL! Somehow I knew the PR thing would be brought up.

Jes, take Puerto Rico and your overly dead horse and shove them up your a*s*s....

Playtwo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7827
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3266 on: March 11, 2013, 12:20:48 pm »
Jes, I think you will enjoy this article by Conor Friedersforf of The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-the-establishment-press-got-rand-paul-wrong/273880/

ticohans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4440
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3267 on: March 11, 2013, 02:36:08 pm »
P2, excellent article. Thanks for sharing.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
« Reply #3268 on: March 11, 2013, 03:00:16 pm »
Thanks for the link, Play, but the thing I did not see in the article (and perhaps I simply missed it) is WHY the establishment press got Paul wrong (and to a significant degree continues to do so).

The problem to a very large degree is that journalists are by and large liberal, want government to coerce behavior to conform with the model they desire, and really do not like freedom.  This often causes them not to look to cover issues or candidates or even political races but to have them actively champion one candidate and to make every effort to undermine another.... and despite that Paul won.  As a candidate he is a much better advocate of the libertarian position than his father, and much more likely to be acceptable to the electoral mainstream.

CurtOne

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24516