| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#Typographers-Society
#PropagandaCenter
#OCCUPYart
#OccupyDA
#Unseen-People
#inDISPUTE
#WorldEvents
| Digital Art / Typography / Other | ©2013 *luvataciousskull |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
And which Al Quida terrorist would Ron Paul have let live, I wonder.
We use drones to try and keep our enemies at bay. I'm not sure why anyone who cares about the security of the country would take his position.
There are unarmed drones and then there are armed drones.
The first ones are actually... well, they're not fine, but they're not that bad. They fly around, observe, and overseas have the ability to find terrorists and check out situations where a traditional manned plane would be in serious trouble. In terms of domestic use, a lot of people are worried about how they can be used, myself included, since they could be used to spy on law-abiding Americans.
The second ones, the armed ones, are the main issue. They are ARMED. They could fly around YOU. When it was originally announced, it was vague as to if the President could use them against citizens and for weeks no one got an answer from the administration on it. Senator Rand Paul, much like myself, was concerned about this and filibustered to get an answer. The next day he finally got an answer: "No."
In short: The issue isn't with drones, it's about it an armed drone could be use on an American Citizen WITHOUT trial or charge. Did the President give himself the power to kill us at will? Thankfully, no.
Perhaps we should let the attack happen first, and then let justice be done? Or should we use the tools we have to prevent traitors from doing us harm? There have been instances of American citizens joining Al Qaeda.
Why doesn't Ron Paul address those concerns?
Seems Ron Paul has built a straw man argument for purely partisan reasons, and people are buying it.
No, we can't stop an American Citizen from doing these dastardly plans until we bring them into court. Everything needs Order, you can't freely kill people and say you're justified for it because this guy was a terrorist.
Was the giant population of people in Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan ALL terrorists? NO! But that didn't seem to stop some of our nutball politicians from drone-striking them.
And lastly, we're talking about RAND Paul, not RON Paul, they're both great though.
And what exactly are you implying by everything needs Order, with a capital 'O'.
Like WWII Germany had Order, or are you talking about some other kind of Order?
New World Order, maybe? Or are you trying to say 'Rule of Law' in your own clumsy, Rand Paul way?
And I am not advocating (or even talking about) the murder of innocent civilians in another country. That is a different topic entirely.
The topic here is should our military be able to use a drone to stop an attacker inside the border of the United States. THAT is the question.
You and Rand seem to think that drones should not be used, and that the attack should be allowed to happen. After the attack, then we should seek 'justice'.
After citizens have lost their lives, then we are free to use drones? Sort of the way 9/11 unfolded. Let the Twin Towers fall, THEN get Bin Laden, 12 years later.
Rand Paul was grandstanding, making an issue out of an outlandish possibility to score political points. He used the drones to create a government 'bogeyman', with Obama as the villain, and nobody stops to ask if Rands reasoning is even sound. Rand is playing the 'fear' card. "Your government is out to get you"! Well guess what, Rand is part of the government he so despises. What makes HIM so trustworthy?!
And you call me 'brainwashed'.
Secondly, are you really comparing LAW, PEACE, AND ORDER TO GERMANY IN THE 1940S?
Third, okay, take the Tin-Foil hat off, I think we heard enough about "New World Order."
Fourth, HELL NO! Our Government has NO RIGHT to abuse Military Power on it's own Civilians. Have you ever heard of the fucking Constitution?
Drones SHOULD NOT be used on American Soil because that goes against our right to privacy, and that brings me to another topic, there would be less crime if more people were armed, have you ever heard of Switzerland?
Yes because King Obama was too focused on ruining economy and taking away the Second Amendment.
Obama IS A VILLIAN. A criminally insane one, he changed nothing, threatened the first, second, fifth and sixth amendment, he gave guns to Mexican Drug Cartels, he drone-striked innocent people in a foreign country, and NOW he's proposing that he should be able to drone strike Americans without Trial. IS THAT NOT CRIMINALLY INSANE?
Yeah, Ron Paul was apart of the Government too, but he's the most sensible person in it, same goes for Rand Paul.
Now go away and stop proposing to take away my rights as an American.
We JUST caught Bin-Laden's son. Isn't it a good thing we just caught him, we can now put him on trial, and do this right?