This is embarrassing. I agree with McCain

[Gary]

Rand Paul filibuster blasted by John McCain, Lindsey Graham

While Republican senators flocked to the floor Wednesday night to
support Sen. Rand Paul�s nearly 13-hour filibuster, Sens. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did exactly the opposite on
Thursday.

McCain quoted heavily from a Wall Street Journal editorial that
slammed Paul�s filibuster on the Obama administration�s drone use,
including a line that said "If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously,
he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up
impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms".

McCain called Paul�s concern that the government could kill any
American with a drone "totally unfounded." He referenced Jane Fonda,
as Paul did on Wednesday, calling her "not his favorite American" for
her support of the Viet Cong, but said the American government would
not have killed her.

Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-blast-rand-paul-filibuster-88564.html#ixzz2MtXoNx5H

[mg]

> Read more:http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-blas...

Here's a quote from the Wall Street Journal:

"Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain
the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American
citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws
of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including
on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy
combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs
to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—
that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an
internationally recognized armed conflict. [...]

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is
right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-
Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in
Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki
was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in
World War II, were captured and executed.

The Journal closed its editorial by calling Paul's filibuster nothing
more than a "stunt." . . .

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull
political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their
college dorms," the Journal wrote. "He needs to know what he's talking
about."

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-filibuster-wall-street-journal-wsj-2013-3

[GLOBALIST]

McCain always has to present that John Wayne
attitude that he is pro-military and gung ho.
Ran Paul did bring up a topic totally ignored
by the Obama devotees his murder of civilias
by drones.

Quoting his on speech about Israel...
Why would anyone tolerate missiles being
aimed at their own country.
Hey stupid bastard,Obama, maybe ask
the parents of all the kids you murdered
in Pakistan, Afganistan and Yemen.

[El Castor]

McCain had his head up his ass on this one. Assassination from the air
might be necessary in Pakistan or Yemen, but we have law enforcement
to deal with American citizens on US soil. After flip flopping for a
couple of weeks, Rand Paul forced Eric Holder to back down -- "... the
president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill an
American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil."

Unless you would like to see a drone taking a bead on you at the next
Klan meeting, you should thank Rand Paul.

[Gary]

I like the thoughts of drones. It opens up all kinds solution to our
crime problem. Let's be honest. As much as it hurts me to admit
it, there are lots of Americans who need killing. But policemen
must bring them all in to be tried. A few drones would cut down
on the crap we call "innocent until proven guilty".

With the right man in the White House, our crime problem would
diminish greatly. Next time Rodney King drives dangerously --
instead of the cops whipping his ass -- the POTUS can send a drone
after him.

[Gary]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:45:57 -0800, sordo <so...@the.real.deal.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:18:24 -0800, El Castor
><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>

>Not only McCain but his "light in his loafers" sidekick, Graham threw
>a hissyfit as well. He better be careful as South Carlolina is a very
>conservative state and may well support a candidate for his senate
>seat.

It has been a source of wonder to me how the people of SC ever sent
Senator "Missy" Graham to the Senate to begin with.

[mg]

On Mar 7, 6:18 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:20:03 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >Rand Paul filibuster blasted by John McCain, Lindsey Graham
>
> >While Republican senators flocked to the floor Wednesday night to
> >support Sen. Rand Paul’s nearly 13-hour filibuster, Sens. John McCain
> >(R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did exactly the opposite on
> >Thursday.
>
> >McCain quoted heavily from a Wall Street Journal editorial that
> >slammed Paul’s filibuster on the Obama administration’s drone use,
> >including a line that said "If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously,
> >he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up
> >impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms".
>
> >McCain called Paul’s concern that the government could kill any
> >American with a drone "totally unfounded." He referenced Jane Fonda,
> >as Paul did on Wednesday, calling her "not his favorite American" for
> >her support of the Viet Cong, but said the American government would
> >not have killed her.
>
> >Read more:

> >http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/john-mccain-lindsey-graham-blas...

>
> McCain had his head up his ass on this one. Assassination from the air
> might be necessary in Pakistan or Yemen, but we have law enforcement
> to deal with American citizens on US soil. After flip flopping for a
> couple of weeks, Rand Paul forced Eric Holder to back down -- "... the
> president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill an
> American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil."
>
> Unless you would like to see a drone taking a bead on you at the next
> Klan meeting, you should thank Rand Paul.

After doing a search on Google, I can't find any evidence that Eric
Holder has flip flopped on the issue.

[Runge 667]

BIGOT GLOBALIST SHOWS HIS REAL FACE

"GLOBALIST" <free....@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 121168b2-a9bf-4eac...@googlegroups.com...

[El Castor]

Are you forgetting who the POTUS is? He will probably give Rodney a
drone to send after your ass.

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:20:03 -0800, El Castor

I hadn't forgotten. I'm just looking down the road. He won't be
there forever.

Anyway -- all he knows (or does) is what he's told. If a leaf blows
in the window -- he would sign it -- if an aide handed him a pen.
That is ... if he's not busy shooting baskets with his home-boys.

[Earl Evleth]

On 8/03/13 2:18, in article 7ceij89p7ju4fhc19...@4ax.com, "El

Castor" <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:

> McCain had his head up his ass on this one. Assassination from the air
> might be necessary in Pakistan or Yemen, but we have law enforcement
> to deal with American citizens on US soil.

There is, however, the American tradition of offering rewards
in wanted posters "dead or alive" the emphasis was on dead.

The use of drones on American soil already occurs along the borders.
Killer drones are another problem. What is true is that being heavy
handed about chasing down criminals can lead to problems, like with
WACO. At the time I thought the shoot out (mostly in one direction)
in LA of the group which had converted Patty Hearst was too violent.
The Black Panther shootout (one way) in Chicago went too far.

On the other hand sending the drones after speeders would be appreciated.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:24:30 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:

Heck, the drones would be after me, because I speed
all the time. If I didn't, other drivers would honk and yell
at me for holding up traffic.

I just hope the drones don't go after jaywalkers, since
that's one of my favourite pastimes.

Or against people running around naked in the woods.
It would be a better world if more people ran around
naked in the woods, at least people under age 35 or so.

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:35:36 -0800, rumpelstiltskin
<rumpels...@x.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:24:30 +0100, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>wrote:
>
>>On 8/03/13 2:18, in article 7ceij89p7ju4fhc19...@4ax.com, "El
>>Castor" <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>>
>>> McCain had his head up his ass on this one. Assassination from the air
>>> might be necessary in Pakistan or Yemen, but we have law enforcement
>>> to deal with American citizens on US soil.
>>
>>
>>There is, however, the American tradition of offering rewards
>>in wanted posters "dead or alive" the emphasis was on dead.
>>
>>The use of drones on American soil already occurs along the borders.
>>Killer drones are another problem. What is true is that being heavy
>>handed about chasing down criminals can lead to problems, like with
>>WACO. At the time I thought the shoot out (mostly in one direction)
>>in LA of the group which had converted Patty Hearst was too violent.
>>The Black Panther shootout (one way) in Chicago went too far.
>>
>>On the other hand sending the drones after speeders would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Heck, the drones would be after me, because I speed
>all the time. If I didn't, other drivers would honk and yell
>at me for holding up traffic.

For speeders, they need a real small drone. Just big enough to hold
a hand grenade. It should break into the car window, land in the
drivers lap -- check the speedometer -- and then explode.

> I just hope the drones don't go after jaywalkers, since
>that's one of my favourite pastimes.

If you enjoy jaywalking, you'd feel right at home in the deep South.
Africans love to jaywalk. Actually they love to walk across the
street anytime -- they see a car coming. It doesn't matter if it's
an intersection or not. Like a bunch of chickens. I almost ran
over three this morning. I can't figure it out, but they do enjoy
it. It seems to be a hobby of some of the older ones. They
spend the morning walking back and forth across the street.

> Or against people running around naked in the woods.
>It would be a better world if more people ran around
>naked in the woods, at least people under age 35 or so.

Only females descended from the British Isles -- and under 35 --
should be allowed to run around naked.

[rumpelstiltskin]

I don't want to encourage your racism, though I suppose it's
already about as bad as it can get short of Klan membership
and lynching, but you reminded me of an old joke, one that I
had to think about for a few seconds before I got it:

How can you tell a dead lawyer from a dead snake on the
road? There are skid-marks in front of the snake.

>> Or against people running around naked in the woods.
>>It would be a better world if more people ran around
>>naked in the woods, at least people under age 35 or so.
>
>Only females descended from the British Isles -- and under 35 --
>should be allowed to run around naked.

Chauvinist! What pleasure would that bring to gay people,
unless their boyfriends were running around with them?
Wouldn't you rather have Germans or Poles or Scandinavians
than English? Those groups are notable for the quantity of
gorgeous people in them, whereas the English can be kind of
grotty.

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:51:07 -0800, rumpelstiltskin

What amazes me -- even at my age -- is that no matter how much truth
there is in what we say -- if it's about a negro -- the liberals
scream "racist" !

Blacks and whites have many little differences. For instance, I was
out at the mall this morning (having safely dodged three jaywalkers)
and I noticed another small difference. You see when black people
go to the mall, they really enjoy talking to each other.

(Rumple is saying -- "So what ! Everybody likes to talk to their
friends ! ")

Ah, yes. But you will notice a difference when you are at the
mall. You see, africans begin talking to each other when they are
about 100 to 150 feet apart. Imagine how much fun you can have
listening in on 10 or 20 conversations -- all at once.

> but you reminded me of an old joke, one that I
>had to think about for a few seconds before I got it:
>
> How can you tell a dead lawyer from a dead snake on the
> road? There are skid-marks in front of the snake.

Yeah, I heard a version of it.

>>> Or against people running around naked in the woods.
>>>It would be a better world if more people ran around
>>>naked in the woods, at least people under age 35 or so.
>>
>>Only females descended from the British Isles -- and under 35 --
>>should be allowed to run around naked.
>
>
> Chauvinist! What pleasure would that bring to gay people,
>unless their boyfriends were running around with them?
>Wouldn't you rather have Germans or Poles or Scandinavians
>than English? Those groups are notable for the quantity of
>gorgeous people in them, whereas the English can be kind of
>grotty.

Actually, I wanted to specify "only caucasian females", but I knew if
I did, I'd be called a racist.

[El Castor]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:03:42 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In response to questioning before the senate, Eric Holder said, �As
members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S.
government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and
has no intention of doing so. The question you have posed is therefore
entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President
will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an
extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and
appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws for the
President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the
territory of the United States."

[El Castor]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:03:42 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I can. On March 5th Eric Holder wrote a letter to Rand Paul in which
he said:

"On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting
additional information concerning the Administration's views about
whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such
as drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without
trial.

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 authorize the military to use lethal force within the

territory of the United States. For example, the president could
conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such
force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a
catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and
September 11, 2001."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/killing-american-citizens-american-soil-take-2

So, to sum up, according to Eric Holder, weaponized drones could be
used against American citizens on US soil under an "extraordinary
circumstance". He gave two examples, but were these the only
extraordinary circumstances? Clearly there was no intention on Eric
Holder's part to limit "extraordinary" to just those two
circumstances. He is a lawyer, his reply was intentionally vague and
left the door open for future interpretation of just about anything.

As Mother Jones (a left leaning publication) put it, "But that still
leaves open the question most of us really want answered. The problem
is that it's hard to phrase it precisely. What we want to know is
whether the president can specifically target a particular American
citizen (or group of citizens) for assassination on American soil even
when there's not some kind of hot, real-time incitement (such as an
invasion or a standoff). The issue of drones is immaterial here. What
we're interested in is a situation where, say, the president gets
information that some sort of bad guy is holed up in a cave in Idaho.
Can he order up lethal force? Or is he required to go after him in a
way that at least theoretically allows the possibility of surrender?
We still don't know the answer to that question, and even if I haven't
phrased it quite correctly, I'm pretty sure it's the question most of
us want answered."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/killing-american-citizens-american-soil-take-2

Two days later, after Rand's filibuster, Holder sent a letter to Rand
which said (the whole text):
"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional
question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized
drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The
answer to that question is no."

Rand Paul was looking for a unequivocal non-weasel worded explanation
of Obama's authority to use weaponized drones against American
citizens and after embarrassing the administration with his
filibuster, he finally got it. I think there is no doubt that if he
could have gotten away with it, Holder would have left the issue up in
the air. Thank you, Senator Rand.

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 12:17:40 -0800, El Castor

I'm getting to like Eric. Actually I see no problem at all.
When the US government -- acting as US Marshalls -- issue a "wanted
dead or alive" poster -- isn't that about he same thing ? Aren't
they "authorizing" the use of lethal force ? Nay ! Aren't they
pleading for it ? "Please ! Shoot that bastard"

Why is it OK for some redneck to shoot public enemy number 1 -- but
evil for the government to do it ? Y'all lost me somewhere.

[El Castor]

Oh, you mean the Eric who declined to pursue voting rights complaints
against Black Panthers who (during Obama's first election) stood
around outside a Philadelphia polling place dressed in black uniforms
and armed with a club? Next time you go to vote and run into something
like that, give Eric a call.

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:44:30 -0800, El Castor

The difference between us is -- his actions don't surprise me :-)

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:43:16 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
<snip>

>What amazes me -- even at my age -- is that no matter how much truth
>there is in what we say -- if it's about a negro -- the liberals
>scream "racist" !

It's true for you, and there may be truth in it, but it's an
uncivilized way to treat other people. I'll grant you that
I speak about (the majority of) southerners pretty much
the same way you speak about blacks, but there is a
difference in that there isn't any recent history of lynching
and bullying and denial of equal rights to southerners as
there is with blacks.

>
>Blacks and whites have many little differences. For instance, I was
>out at the mall this morning (having safely dodged three jaywalkers)
>and I noticed another small difference. You see when black people
>go to the mall, they really enjoy talking to each other.
>
>(Rumple is saying -- "So what ! Everybody likes to talk to their
>friends ! ")
>
>Ah, yes. But you will notice a difference when you are at the
>mall. You see, africans begin talking to each other when they are
>about 100 to 150 feet apart. Imagine how much fun you can have
>listening in on 10 or 20 conversations -- all at once.

I almost never go to malls so I haven't noticed that. It
may be mostly a southern thing. I do however object to
boomboxes on buses, and to car radios playing crap
music turned up to 10 gigabels. There was one of
those car radios a couple of mornings ago that I could
hear in the bedroom one room away from my second-
storey front windows. I went to the window and looked
out, and it was a white guy - I do admit I was surprised
at that.

>
>> but you reminded me of an old joke, one that I
>>had to think about for a few seconds before I got it:
>>
>> How can you tell a dead lawyer from a dead snake on the
>> road? There are skid-marks in front of the snake.
>
>Yeah, I heard a version of it.
>
>>>> Or against people running around naked in the woods.
>>>>It would be a better world if more people ran around
>>>>naked in the woods, at least people under age 35 or so.
>>>
>>>Only females descended from the British Isles -- and under 35 --
>>>should be allowed to run around naked.
>>
>>
>> Chauvinist! What pleasure would that bring to gay people,
>>unless their boyfriends were running around with them?
>>Wouldn't you rather have Germans or Poles or Scandinavians
>>than English? Those groups are notable for the quantity of
>>gorgeous people in them, whereas the English can be kind of
>>grotty.
>
>Actually, I wanted to specify "only caucasian females", but I knew if
>I did, I'd be called a racist.

I definitely prefer my own race for sex. I've only a few times
had sex with a black or an oriental guy. I think most people
are like that, no matter how liberal they are. Most of the guys
with the best physiques are black though, there's no debate
about that.

[mg]

On Mar 8, 1:17 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:03:42 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>

I don't know how you can claim that's a flip flop. That doesn't look
like a flip flop to me.

[El Castor]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:18:27 -0800 (PST), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Does to me. He backed of his weasel worded position. Looked like that
to a lot of people.

[El Castor]

The mid-term election after Obama's first victory, My wife and I were
about a block from our polling place. I said to her, I suppose we'll
find some Black Panthers with a club. Instead, as we drove up, there
were some White farmers erecting a picket fence across the entrance to
the parking lot, and taking down the Polling Place sign. It was
farmers market day. If I told Eric about that they would probably have
gotten the death penalty.

[Gary]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:47:17 -0800, rumpelstiltskin
<rumpels...@x.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:43:16 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>
>>What amazes me -- even at my age -- is that no matter how much truth
>>there is in what we say -- if it's about a negro -- the liberals
>>scream "racist" !
>
>
> It's true for you, and there may be truth in it, but it's an
>uncivilized way to treat other people.

Telling the truth is uncivilized ? Oy vey !

>I'll grant you that
>I speak about (the majority of) southerners pretty much
>the same way you speak about blacks, but there is a
>difference in that there isn't any recent history of lynching
>and bullying and denial of equal rights to southerners as
>there is with blacks.

I would argue the old pendulum has swung too far .... the other
direction.

For instance take jaywalkers. Sixty years ago, they would have
been run over -- so they did not do that. If a car was in sight --
they would not cross the street. Maybe that was bad. But today,
they know that a white man cannot run over them. If we did, the
FBI, the CIA and half the Supreme Court would be on our ass.
Wanting to know why we had violated this precious ones civil rights.
THAT crap has been going on for 50 years.

So we slam on brakes and burn up our tires rather than hit an african
who jumps out in front of us in the middle of the road. And they
know this -- and they enjoy it ! Which is why they are bouncing
out in front of traffic.

<snip>

>>Ah, yes. But you will notice a difference when you are at the
>>mall. You see, africans begin talking to each other when they are
>>about 100 to 150 feet apart. Imagine how much fun you can have
>>listening in on 10 or 20 conversations -- all at once.
>
>
> I almost never go to malls so I haven't noticed that. It
>may be mostly a southern thing.

It's a black southern thing.

> I do however object to
>boomboxes on buses, and to car radios playing crap
>music turned up to 10 gigabels. There was one of
>those car radios a couple of mornings ago that I could
>hear in the bedroom one room away from my second-
>storey front windows. I went to the window and looked
>out, and it was a white guy - I do admit I was surprised
>at that.

I cannot understand why any fool would want a car radio that loud.
Except to disturb other people. We must have a local law against
it. I haven't head a boom box or loud radio in a long time.

<snip>

>>Actually, I wanted to specify "only caucasian females", but I knew if
>>I did, I'd be called a racist.
>
>
> I definitely prefer my own race for sex. I've only a few times
>had sex with a black or an oriental guy. I think most people
>are like that, no matter how liberal they are. Most of the guys
>with the best physiques are black though, there's no debate
>about that.

I've never had an impure thought about any female who was not
caucasian. Maybe it's because us southerners lust after our
sisters so much :-) I didn't have a sister -- but I had one of the
prettiest cousins that ever lived. No one was surprised when she
married a millionaire.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:49:16 -0800, El Castor

It looks like that to a lot of "conservatives" perhaps, but
those folks will believe anything as long as it's anti-Obama.
The USA has been going against its own citizens, such
as that mullah in Yemen whom they killed along with his
son, for a long time, or against the Black Panther
leadership or any number of other anti-government outfits
who weren't attacked by drones only because there were
no drones in those days. There were automatic guns
though, and those were used - they're another way of
killing from a safe distance. The drones are just a safer
distance.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 07:47:59 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:47:17 -0800, rumpelstiltskin
><rumpels...@x.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:43:16 -0500, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>What amazes me -- even at my age -- is that no matter how much truth
>>>there is in what we say -- if it's about a negro -- the liberals
>>>scream "racist" !
>>
>>
>> It's true for you, and there may be truth in it, but it's an
>>uncivilized way to treat other people.
>
>Telling the truth is uncivilized ? Oy vey !

Being uncivilized is uncivilized.

>
>>I'll grant you that
>>I speak about (the majority of) southerners pretty much
>>the same way you speak about blacks, but there is a
>>difference in that there isn't any recent history of lynching
>>and bullying and denial of equal rights to southerners as
>>there is with blacks.
>
>I would argue the old pendulum has swung too far .... the other
>direction.

It hasn't swung the other way at all. It just is swinging
in the same way with the same resoluteness as heretofore.

>
>For instance take jaywalkers. Sixty years ago, they would have
>been run over -- so they did not do that. If a car was in sight --
>they would not cross the street.

I don't remember any such thing. I've always jaywalked.

>Maybe that was bad. But today,
>they know that a white man cannot run over them. If we did, the
>FBI, the CIA and half the Supreme Court would be on our ass.
>Wanting to know why we had violated this precious ones civil rights.
>THAT crap has been going on for 50 years.

Oh, you were talking about n****s in the South. I guess it was
OK to run them over in the South in the good old days. It was
even OK to drag in chains behind your truck.

>
>So we slam on brakes and burn up our tires rather than hit an african
>who jumps out in front of us in the middle of the road. And they
>know this -- and they enjoy it ! Which is why they are bouncing
>out in front of traffic.

I'm sorry to hear you have such a problem with black people
deliberately jumping in front of your car. I haven't had that
problem. People of all races do sometimes walk out into
the street without paying attention. Just yesterday, as I was
a pedestrian waiting for a light to change at a crosswalk, I
heard the horn on the second car at a green light honking
angrily, and saw a white guy crossing against the light and
not looking at all in a hurry about it. After he crossed, the
front car and the car that was honking were able to get
through the light before it turned red, but the four or five cars
behind them had to wait for the next light. If that guy had
been run over, I'd have had some sympathy with the drivers.
I can easily imagine how much more strongly I'd have felt
that way if I were a southerner and the guy walking against
the light had been black.

>
><snip>
>
>>>Ah, yes. But you will notice a difference when you are at the
>>>mall. You see, africans begin talking to each other when they are
>>>about 100 to 150 feet apart. Imagine how much fun you can have
>>>listening in on 10 or 20 conversations -- all at once.
>>
>>
>> I almost never go to malls so I haven't noticed that. It
>>may be mostly a southern thing.
>
>It's a black southern thing.
>
>> I do however object to
>>boomboxes on buses, and to car radios playing crap
>>music turned up to 10 gigabels. There was one of
>>those car radios a couple of mornings ago that I could
>>hear in the bedroom one room away from my second-
>>storey front windows. I went to the window and looked
>>out, and it was a white guy - I do admit I was surprised
>>at that.
>
>I cannot understand why any fool would want a car radio that loud.
>Except to disturb other people. We must have a local law against
>it. I haven't head a boom box or loud radio in a long time.

There probably is a law against it, though we don't have
a policeman on every corner. We may soon though, since
"they" want to put a policeman in every classroom as an
alternative to violating gun-fiends' civil rights by banning
their assault weapons. How we're going to pay for all
these new policemen is beyond me.

>
><snip>
>
>>>Actually, I wanted to specify "only caucasian females", but I knew if
>>>I did, I'd be called a racist.
>>
>>
>> I definitely prefer my own race for sex. I've only a few times
>>had sex with a black or an oriental guy. I think most people
>>are like that, no matter how liberal they are. Most of the guys
>>with the best physiques are black though, there's no debate
>>about that.
>
>I've never had an impure thought about any female who was not
>caucasian. Maybe it's because us southerners lust after our
>sisters so much :-) I didn't have a sister -- but I had one of the
>prettiest cousins that ever lived. No one was surprised when she
>married a millionaire.

I've got you beat on that. I've never had an impure
thought about a female.

[El Castor]

This is all about attacks on non-combatant citizens on US SOIL -- not
Yemen, where we have no courts, no policing authority, and are forced
to rely on the CIA and the military. If it was Bush that had just gone
through this exercise of waffling and equivocation, the Left, yourself
included, would be going nuts. Thanks to Rand Paul we finally got a
definitive answer from Eric Holder.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:53:10 -0800, El Castor

>On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:11:00 -0800, rumpelstiltskin

<snip>

>> It looks like that to a lot of "conservatives" perhaps, but
>>those folks will believe anything as long as it's anti-Obama.
>>The USA has been going against its own citizens, such
>>as that mullah in Yemen whom they killed along with his
>>son, for a long time, or against the Black Panther
>>leadership or any number of other anti-government outfits
>>who weren't attacked by drones only because there were
>>no drones in those days. There were automatic guns
>>though, and those were used - they're another way of
>>killing from a safe distance. The drones are just a safer
>>distance.
>>
>This is all about attacks on non-combatant citizens on US SOIL -- not
>Yemen,

That's why I added the black panthers, but you chose focus
elsewhere.

[El Castor]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:32:48 -0800, rumpelstiltskin
<rumpels...@x.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:53:10 -0800, El Castor
>>On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 08:11:00 -0800, rumpelstiltskin
><snip>
>
>
>>> It looks like that to a lot of "conservatives" perhaps, but
>>>those folks will believe anything as long as it's anti-Obama.
>>>The USA has been going against its own citizens, such
>>>as that mullah in Yemen whom they killed along with his
>>>son, for a long time, or against the Black Panther
>>>leadership or any number of other anti-government outfits
>>>who weren't attacked by drones only because there were
>>>no drones in those days. There were automatic guns
>>>though, and those were used - they're another way of
>>>killing from a safe distance. The drones are just a safer
>>>distance.
>>>
>>This is all about attacks on non-combatant citizens on US SOIL -- not
>>Yemen,
>
>
>
> That's why I added the black panthers, but you chose focus
>elsewhere.
>

I have no idea why you added the Black Panthers (drone strikes by
Ronald Reagan??), so why don't you tell us -- but please back up
whatever it is with a plausible source.

[mg]

On Mar 9, 1:49 am, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:18:27 -0800 (PST), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>

When you ask a lawyer a question, he doesn't give you answers to
questions you didn't ask. Paul wrote a letter to Holder asking a
question and Holder evidently answered it. Then he went on a
filibuster stunt and asked another question and Holder send another
letter which read as follows:

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional
question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized
drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’”
wrote Holder. “The answer to that question is no.”

It doesn't look to me, by the way, like Paul has made his letter(s) to
Holder public, and if he hasn't he needs to do so.

Paul is a liar and a fruitcake, by the way, who has compared our
economy to that of pre-Hitler Germany.

[rumpelstiltskin]

First let's refresh what you and I actually wrote:

You: "This is all about attacks on

non-combatant citizens on US SOIL -- not Yemen"

Me: "Black panther leadership ... weren't attacked by drones

only because there were no drones in those days."

Please note that, in contrast to saying Reagan administration
used drone strikes, I specifically said that it did not.



Hoover's FBI had a "counter-intelligence" program
(COINTELPRO) which combated whatever group
Hoover declared as dangerous. The aim of the
program, in Hoover's words, was "to neutralize
their leaders, their spokesmen, membership and
supporters." The program included infiltrating the
organization, and stirring up differences within the
Panther Party, in part by sending bogus mail.
Treating the Panthers as U.S. citizens with rights,
arresting them if they broke the law but otherwise
allowing them to assemble, to disseminate their
opinions and to organize people politically was
not good enough for Hoover and some others in
law enforcement.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch28B-5.htm


I hope you won't deny that the text above accurately
describes what happened on US soil, since it happened
within living memory. Even if you find it OK because it
was the black panthers, that doesn't change the fact
that it's an example of the USA going after its own
citizens who had not broken a pre-existing law, on US
soil.

[El Castor]

Interesting, but I really don't see the connection. Does whatever
Hoover did give Obama a license to execute enemies of the state from
the air?

[El Castor]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:18:45 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgke...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

If he meant to say that all along, so be it, but without Rand Paul's
filibuster I suppose the question would still be unanswered, so thank
you Rand Paul. Others from your side of the aisle would appear to
agree with me.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Mar 10, 5:23 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:18:45 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>

>
> >When you ask a lawyer a question, he doesn't give you answers to
> >questions you didn't ask. Paul wrote a letter to Holder asking a
> >question and Holder evidently answered it. Then he went on a
> >filibuster stunt and asked another question and Holder send another
> >letter which read as follows:
>
> >“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional
> >question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized
> >drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’”
> >wrote Holder. “The answer to that question is no.”
>
> >It doesn't look to me, by the way, like Paul has made his letter(s) to
> >Holder public, and if he hasn't he needs to do so.
>
> >Paul is a liar and a fruitcake, by the way, who has compared our
> >economy to that of pre-Hitler Germany.
>
> If he meant to say that all along, so be it, but without Rand Paul's
> filibuster I suppose the question would still be unanswered, so thank
> you Rand Paul. Others from your side of the aisle would appear to
> agree with me.

Thanks Rand for getting Holder to answer the obvious. Or, do you
share Rand's paranoia that this question needed to be answered because
Americans not engaged in combat need protection against government
drones?

If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
means.

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:58:52, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrose...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Thanks Rand for getting Holder to answer the obvious. Or, do you
> share Rand's paranoia that this question needed to be answered because
> Americans not engaged in combat need protection against government
> drones?
>
> If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
> lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
> Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
> means.
>

Thanks, Josh. A nice comment. It does not address the legal or ethical
demands of the people of the United States of America.

Question: Does any single earthling. whether elected. appointed. or
from hereditary background, have the power to decide upon the willfull
termination (destruction) of another earthling? The opinion of the
people
of the United States of America, so far is yes---. But if that ever
happens,
that single earthling, is guilty.of murder, a felony, thus
disqualified from
having any further discretionary decision. This planet has many
earthlings, none of which cannot be replaced by a better earthling.

This seems to be a Catch-22 for all would be Rulers.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:20:09 -0700, El Castor

That's obviously not what I meant or wrote.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth

>On Mar 10, 5:23 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> If he meant to say that all along, so be it, but without Rand Paul's
>> filibuster I suppose the question would still be unanswered, so thank
>> you Rand Paul. Others from your side of the aisle would appear to
>> agree with me.
>
>Thanks Rand for getting Holder to answer the obvious. Or, do you
>share Rand's paranoia that this question needed to be answered because
>Americans not engaged in combat need protection against government
>drones?
>
>If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
>lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
>Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
>means.

I'd like to see that last bit clarified too.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth

Americans not in combat, but on foreign soil, have already been killed
by drones, so it was a legitimate question. Holder's original
ambiguous answer did nothing to reassure. What exactly is an
extraordinary circumstance?

>If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
>lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
>Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
>means.

What does it mean? At least it's not quite as ambiguous as
"extraordinary circumstance".

[El Castor]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:00:01 -0700, rumpelstiltskin

I still don't know what you meant, but since you brought up J Edgar
Hoover, here is something that might interest you. When FDR was
preparing his exclusion order which shipped more than 100,000 Japanese
off to concentration camps (more than half of whom were American
citizens), Hoover argued against doing it, explaining that only about
400 were a security risk, and the FBI knew who they were. FDR of
course went ahead and did it anyway.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I'm not familiar with any Americans not engaged in combat (where
"engaged in combat" was determined by the administration) killed by
drones on foreign soil.

> >If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
> >lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
> >Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
> >means.
>
> What does it mean? At least it's not quite as ambiguous as
> "extraordinary circumstance".

Your point on "extraordinary circumstance" is well taken. Where was
Rand on that one?

You didn't comment on my point. Rand's rant was on issue of no
controversy. Why did he go there instead of one of these other issues
(what is "engaged in combat" or "extraordinary circumstances")? It
seems to me he is paranoid.

[El Castor]

Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki -- all killed
in Yemen, and all American citizens. Both of the Awlakis were born in
the United States. Samir Khan was nauralized.

>> >If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
>> >lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
>> >Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
>> >means.
>>
>> What does it mean? At least it's not quite as ambiguous as
>> "extraordinary circumstance".
>
>Your point on "extraordinary circumstance" is well taken. Where was
>Rand on that one?

"Extraordinary circumstance" was a term used by Eric Holder in
testimony before congress to describe an occasion which could prompt
the president to use a lethal drone strike on US soil.

I can't speak for Rand Paul, but I believe that it was the ambiguity
of Holder's testimony, and refusal to be more specific, that prompted
Paul's filibuster.

>You didn't comment on my point. Rand's rant was on issue of no
>controversy. Why did he go there instead of one of these other issues
>(what is "engaged in combat" or "extraordinary circumstances")? It
>seems to me he is paranoid.

He got Holder to say ... "... the president does not have the
authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on
U.S. soil." That apparently satisfied Rand, and made the pages of
major US newspapers.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/politics/37521327_1_drones-white-house-citizen

For some, that statement may not be enough. Here is an Op-Ed from the
NY Times that offers a plausible argument in that regard:

The Drone Question Obama Hasn�t Answered
By RYAN GOODMAN
Published: March 8, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/opinion/the-drone-question-obama-hasnt-answered.html?_r=0

Paranoid?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Mar 11, 6:14 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth
>
>

> >> >Thanks Rand for getting Holder to answer the obvious. Or, do you
> >> >share Rand's paranoia that this question needed to be answered because
> >> >Americans not engaged in combat need protection against government
> >> >drones?
>
> >> Americans not in combat, but on foreign soil, have already been killed
> >> by drones, so it was a legitimate question. Holder's original
> >> ambiguous answer did nothing to reassure. What exactly is an
> >> extraordinary circumstance?
>
> >I'm not familiar with any Americans not engaged in combat (where
> >"engaged in combat" was determined by the administration) killed by
> >drones on foreign soil.
>
> Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki -- all killed
> in Yemen, and all American citizens. Both of the Awlakis were born in
> the United States. Samir Khan was nauralized.

Didn't the administration designate them as "engaged in combat"?

> >> >If Rand would like to do a real service, he could take the libertarian
> >> >lead on what power the President should have to use drones on
> >> >Americans engaged in combat, particularly what "engaged in combat"
> >> >means.
>
> >> What does it mean? At least it's not quite as ambiguous as
> >> "extraordinary circumstance".
>
> >Your point on "extraordinary circumstance" is well taken.  Where was
> >Rand on that one?
>
> "Extraordinary circumstance" was a term used by Eric Holder in
> testimony before congress to describe an occasion which could prompt
> the president to use a lethal drone strike on US soil.
>
> I can't speak for Rand Paul, but I believe that it was the ambiguity
> of Holder's testimony, and refusal to be more specific, that prompted
> Paul's filibuster.
>
> >You didn't comment on my point.  Rand's rant was on issue of no
> >controversy.  Why did he go there instead of one of these other issues
> >(what is "engaged in combat" or "extraordinary circumstances")?  It
> >seems to me he is paranoid.
>
> He got Holder to say ... "... the president does not have the
> authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on
> U.S. soil." That apparently satisfied Rand, and made the pages of

> major US newspapers.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/politics/37521327_1_dro...

>
> For some, that statement may not be enough.

The Times article makes the same point I did above, for which you have
still not responded to, when the article said (my emphasis added):

"But Mr. Holder’s letter raises more questions than it answers — and,
indeed, *MORE IMPORTANT AND MORE SERIOUS QUESTIONS* than the senator
posed. What, exactly, does the Obama administration mean by “engaged
in combat”?

I will go further and say Rand's question was neither important nor
serious. One more time, Jeff. All Rand wanted to know was whether
the administration could drone-attack an American in the US who is not
engaged in combat. No shit Sherlock, they can't. We already knew
that, so why did Rand filibuster to get an answer to this non-serious,
non-important question. The only reason I can think of is Rand thinks
it is serious and important because he thinks it could come true.
But, only a paranoid person thinks that is the case.

[El Castor]

I can't answer that question. Why would you think that I could? Might
Rand Paul have demanded more? Might he still be filibustering? I
suppose, but I guess he did what he could do. To quote Eric Holder's
last letter to him on the subject:

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional

question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized
drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The

answer to that question is no."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/03/rand-paul-gets-a-letter-from-eric-holder.html

That seems to be the best that Paul could get out of the
administration, but if you are implying that there are still
unanswered questions, then I would have to agree. For instance, the
author of the New Yorker article I referenced asked why did Holder
specify a "weaponized" drone. You being a lawyer must know how devious
they can be. (-8

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Mar 11, 9:23 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> Might
> Rand Paul have demanded more? Might he still be filibustering? I
> suppose, but I guess he did what he could do.

Nonsense. He got exactly what he asked for. He just thinks his
question is serious. He is paranoid.

[El Castor]

Sez Josh, the quintessential liberal.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Mar 11, 10:05 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:41:15 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth
>

> <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 11, 9:23 pm, El Castor <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
> >> Might
> >> Rand Paul have demanded more? Might he still be filibustering? I
> >> suppose, but I guess he did what he could do.
>
> >Nonsense.  He got exactly what he asked for.  He just thinks his
> >question is serious.  He is paranoid.
>
> Sez Josh, the quintessential liberal.

Good comeback. Jeff.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On Mar 11, 10:03 pm, sordo <so...@the.real.deal.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:41:15 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth

> You might take a look at:
>
> Lawmakers ask Obama to detail drone policy
>
> By JOSH GERSTEIN|
> 3/11/13 1:21 PM EDT
>
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/03/lawmakers-ask-o...
> -to-detail-drone-policy-158993.html?hp=3Dl3
>
> "Eight Democratic lawmakers are urging President Barack Obama to
> declassify documents detailing the legal basis for his
> administration's use of drones, both against U.S. citizens and foreign
> nationals."

Apparently, you don't understand the point either. I agree with the
request in this letter because there is much in the drone program that
needs detailing and oversight. But, the one thing that does not is
the thought that the President is going to use drones to kill ordinary
Americans drinking lattes at a Seattle Starbucks. Yet, Rand believes
that is a possibility and thus demands an answer that the President
can't do this. That is paranoid.

[El Castor]

Best I could do on the spur of the moment, but appropriate under the
circumstances.