Rand Paul Fires Back at Fascist McCain and Graham

[hortysir]

Been bouncing around

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It simply shows where gullible minds are located. Most of us can see through Rand Paul's self-serving bullshit.

Right, if a Bush AG had said what holder did you'd be shitting all over yourself calling for impeachment. You really are one hypocritical ass.

I don't recall Rand Paul or any Republican's making a big stink during the Bush debacle.

I had the luxury of watching the entire filibuster since I'm recovering from surgery (umbilical hernia repair).

1) Rand Paul was not a Senator during the Bush years.

2) Rand Paul clearly stated he was opposed to Bush policies, especially the Patriot Act.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's turn the table on you.

1) How is it that you were terribly distressed over Bush's use of warantless wire taps, but you aren't upset over Obama's far worse use of warantless executions?

Granted both are terrible, but both are also necessary to fight the war on terror, but at the same time we cannot allow our liberties to be taken from us.

So the real question should be:

Why are you such an ULTRA-hypocrite, who is more upset over a denial of privacy than denial of LIFE?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, we should be glad this question came up under the Obama Administration than under a more totalitarian type Administration, like Dick Cheney's/Bush the Decider, where they may have actually justified such an act of terror (SHOCK AND AWE 2013)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the laws of war should apply,” Paul said in an interview on Fox News about McCain and Graham, who had described Paul’s comments about drones as “ridiculous.”

“The laws of war don't involve due process, so when they ask you for an attorney you tell them to shut up. That's not my understanding of the way America works,” Paul told Fox. “I don't think the laws of war apply to America, I think the Bill of Rights do and I think it's a disservice to our soldiers that our senators up there arguing that the Bill of Rights aren't important."

Paul said whether drones can be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is a “very serious question” and was at the root of Wednesday’s filibuster, which delayed a final confirmation vote on John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA."


Paul fires back: Sens. McCain, Graham think the 'whole world is a battlefield' - The Hill's Video



.

Fascinating story.

Rand is (imho) a bit of a lugnut, BUT ... even though I disagree with him to a limited extent, I say the guy deserves credit.

What he did in that performance art called "filibuster" was impressive. And like a lot of his fellow libertarians, I find the guy to be very much on the level.

McCain and Graham are simply wrong in trying to offer their "rebuke" of him. First of all, John, shut the fuck up. Secondly, who the hell elected YOU to offer a rebuke to a fellow Senator just because you and he disagree? I'm glad he rebuked you and your young goober side-kick right back again.

On the topic in question, it seems like Rand did get the idiot AG to at least temper the official view of the claim that the President has legal authority to use drones on Americans in America. That's not a bad outcome. Too bad McCain and Graham never think to try to effect an actual outcome.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Also, wasn't McCain the guy who choose Sarah Palin to be his running mate?

Wasn't Graham the one who said "Wise Latina Woman," during Sotomayer confirmation hearings? Racist fuck.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

It simply shows where gullible minds are located. Most of us can see through Rand Paul's self-serving bullshit.

No, you're just a thoughtless, committed Obamabot who will willingly throw away your rights to protect your Messiah. Jim Jones is reserving a spot for you in the afterlife.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If an American citizen is engaged in an act of war right here in the lower 48, the deeply held belief of Rand Paul is that he needs to get arrested and prosecuted.

But in that same scenario (unlikely though it may be), AG Holder thinks the President can have a drone fly up the guy's nose.

Acts of war (in progress) are not mere criminal acts. I happen to agree (much to my own consternation) with President Obama on this one. Thus, I disagree to some extent with Rand Paul's musings about "due process." Due process applies to a criminal proceeding, not to war. And if the claimed authority to send a drone up the bad guy's ass is strictly limited to an act of war, to prevent the immediate risk of injuries to America or her people, then I can't help but reject the claim that getting the bad guy with a drone strike is somehow unConstitutional.

But at least Rand is giving thought to the matter. At least he cares about the Constitution.

So although I reluctantly agree with the substance of McCain's commentary about Rand's position, I completely reject McCain's effort to 'rebuke' Rand Paul.

The GOP has problems. Big ones. McCain himself is one of those problems when he speaks like that. Rand may be off base (and that's my view of his thesis), but there was nothing about his efforts that were unseemly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the laws of war should apply,” Paul said in an interview on Fox News about McCain and Graham, who had described Paul’s comments about drones as “ridiculous.”

“The laws of war don't involve due process, so when they ask you for an attorney you tell them to shut up. That's not my understanding of the way America works,” Paul told Fox. “I don't think the laws of war apply to America, I think the Bill of Rights do and I think it's a disservice to our soldiers that our senators up there arguing that the Bill of Rights aren't important."

Paul said whether drones can be used against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is a “very serious question” and was at the root of Wednesday’s filibuster, which delayed a final confirmation vote on John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA."
.

Due process has nothing to do with apprehending a suspect who is recognized as a threat or an imminent threat.

For instance, if Senator Rand is waving a hand gun in the Senate chamber and perceived to be a threat, no one is worried about due process. He will be killed if he does not put it down.

 

[blackhawk]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

It simply shows where gullible minds are located. Most of us can see through Rand Paul's self-serving bullshit.

Hard to take that comment serious when most of you couldn't see through Obama's and still can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

It simply shows where gullible minds are located. Most of us can see through Rand Paul's self-serving bullshit.

Hard to take that comment serious when most of you couldn't see through Obama's and still can't.

I see you got your feathers plucked gain, Blackhawk.

 

[dblack]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

It shouldn't be that surprising. Both parties are dominated by authoritarians. When push comes to shove, they'll come to together to preserver their power.

 

[rdean]

I find it hilarious that the ACLU, John Cusack, Jon Stewart, Code Pink stand with Rand and Progressives stand with warhawk fascist 100 years war John McCain.


.

If Rand asked about targeting enemy combatants who are American on US soil or questioned the use of the technology THEN it would be a serious question.

Rand asked about killing Americans who weren't involved in attacking the US. In other words, just any American walking down the street. THAT MAKES THE QUESTION RETARDED. Rand even said the purpose was to humiliate the president, not to prove a point, or make the US better or........

Just humiliate the president. If Rand was a single IQ point higher, he might be smart enough to understand that he is the one who should be feeling humiliation.

 

[blackhawk]

It simply shows where gullible minds are located. Most of us can see through Rand Paul's self-serving bullshit.

Hard to take that comment serious when most of you couldn't see through Obama's and still can't.

I see you got your feathers plucked gain, Blackhawk.

Simply stating a fact Jake unless you feel Obama has given us no self serving bullshit to see through if so you make my case.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If an American citizen is engaged in an act of war right here in the lower 48, the deeply held belief of Rand Paul is that he needs to get arrested and prosecuted.

Rand Paul does not think, nor do most of his filibuster supporters, that the Federal government is denied the authority to kill an American citizen on US soil, if that person is an imminent threat using or threatening to use lethal force.

Do not put words in his mouth or ours.

However, if that US citizen is simply going about his civilian life (especially on US soil), the United States government should arrest him instead and try him under Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. If the evidence against him is overwhelming, he will not walk free, and you might even learn/gather more intelligence out of him.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Founding Fathers provided that part of the Constitution in order to allow people the right to defend themselves against arbitrary accusations.

REPEAT: No one denies the federal government to use lethal force when the suspect is also using lethal force.

No one denies the federal government, under Article IV, Section 4, the ability to protect the United States from IMMINENT invasion/attack.

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hard to take that comment serious when most of you couldn't see through Obama's and still can't.

I see you got your feathers plucked gain, Blackhawk.

Simply stating a fact Jake unless you feel Obama has given us no self serving bullshit to see through if so you make my case.

You have no case, my friend, simply an opinion you cannot support. You give us a lot of your self serving nonsense without any evidence. You could try, you know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And nothing the administration has done, The2ndAmendment, has justified Rand's or your nonsense.

Two words, kiddo: step off.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And nothing the administration has done, The2ndAmendment, has justified Rand's or your nonsense.

Two words, kiddo: step off.

They released a letter prior to the Filibuster saying they could envision scenarios where they could execute unarmed suspects that were US citizens on US soil. Who the hell are you kidding?

They were forced to recant, even though they passed it off as an "additional question."

 

[Lakhota]

Rand Paul Exploits Drones Grandstanding With False Fundraising Letter

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It simply shows where gullible minds are located. Most of us can see through Rand Paul's self-serving bullshit.

Right, if a Bush AG had said what holder did you'd be shitting all over yourself calling for impeachment. You really are one hypocritical ass.

I don't recall Rand Paul or any Republican's making a big stink during the Bush debacle.

I don't recall Rand Paul being in Congress, I do recall Ron Paul being in Congress and making a stink.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If an American citizen is engaged in an act of war right here in the lower 48, the deeply held belief of Rand Paul is that he needs to get arrested and prosecuted.

But in that same scenario (unlikely though it may be), AG Holder thinks the President can have a drone fly up the guy's nose.

Acts of war (in progress) are not mere criminal acts. I happen to agree (much to my own consternation) with President Obama on this one. Thus, I disagree to some extent with Rand Paul's musings about "due process." Due process applies to a criminal proceeding, not to war. And if the claimed authority to send a drone up the bad guy's ass is strictly limited to an act of war, to prevent the immediate risk of injuries to America or her people, then I can't help but reject the claim that getting the bad guy with a drone strike is somehow unConstitutional.

But at least Rand is giving thought to the matter. At least he cares about the Constitution.

So although I reluctantly agree with the substance of McCain's commentary about Rand's position, I completely reject McCain's effort to 'rebuke' Rand Paul.

The GOP has problems. Big ones. McCain himself is one of those problems when he speaks like that. Rand may be off base (and that's my view of his thesis), but there was nothing about his efforts that were unseemly.

He never said anything approaching what you just claimed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And nothing the administration has done, The2ndAmendment, has justified Rand's or your nonsense.

Two words, kiddo: step off.

They released a letter prior to the Filibuster saying they could envision scenarios where they could execute unarmed suspects that were US citizens on US soil. Who the hell are you kidding?

They were forced to recant, even though they passed it off as an "additional question."

Your interpretation is false, period. There was no vital question of the America attacking unarmed citizens, which is what Rand was saying. Horse shit on Rand.

The good part was that millions of Americans became educated on the matter and realized that the reactionary right was being nonsensical, once again.