Rand Paul is Filibustering John Brennan

[Avatar4321]

I thought he had more of a problem in getting the nom in 2016 with you guys because of his name and skin color than his substance. Turns out he has no substance either.

All you've established is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...e-republicans-get-off-work-3.html#post6290940

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/260355-been-working-the-polls.html#post6289115

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/260176-no-gloating-pledge-3.html#post6287707

And to top it off:

Romney wins in a landslide. Republicans win the Senate and keep the House.

Chris avoids this thread like he avoid his Gov Walker threads like the plague.

Yeah...like you know the first thing about politics....

Funny, I haven't had a problem saying I'm wrong when Im wrong. But your deflection doesn't change the fact that there is substance to Rubio. Or that the right doesnt care about race or someone's name. Heck, a large part of us were ready to endorse Herman Cain before he dropped out due to scandal.

You just can get over the fact that your side is anal about race. You're obsessed with it. And you have to try to project it on others because you don't have substance to your positions.

 

[uscitizen]

Who gives a shit what McCain and Graham says? Nobody appointed them the Kings of the Republican party...

People need to contact these two and tell them to Represent the people they were hired to Represent..

You tell em. why waste their time on this crap when they should be representing the big money interests that put them there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That sounds like a lot of nonsense. Now there are such things as dishonest questions, but I don't think Rand's question qualifies. This administration has killed American citizens with no due process in the past. With that in mind I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them whether they believe they can do the same thing within the United States. As for being intended to derive a false answer, I don't know what that even means. What is a false answer? An answer that is wrong? An answer that is untrue? A lie? And how would that be the fault of the person asking the question if the person answering it gave a false answer?

This nonsense is on the reactionary side. One, due process as you insist actually is not required for apprehension or termination of a threat who won't give up. Of course the admin can do it in the USA. But to suggest that somehow the question was involving the admin falsely attacking "unarmed" civilians suggests a false answer.

You are better than this. Back up.

Well by all accounts Anwar al-Awlaki was unarmed when he was killed. So again, I don't think it was a ridiculous question. Especially after they refused to answer it for weeks. As for a false answer, that still makes no sense. Holder gave an answer, was it false?

Once again, "due process as you insist actually is not required for apprehension or termination of a threat who won't give up".

The question was falsely framed to create a false illusion that the admin was a threat to civil rights.

 

[Lakhota]

Paul’s Mr. Smith move is less one of courage than one of political opportunity.

Instead of lauding the anti-woman, anti-civil rights neo-libertarian senator, progressives would do better to ask: Why have all the Senate Democrats signed onto the Brennan nomination?

Rand Paul No Progressive Hero, Despite Anti-Drone Filibuster

 

[Stephanie]

Who gives a shit what McCain and Graham says? Nobody appointed them the Kings of the Republican party...

People need to contact these two and tell them to Represent the people they were hired to Represent..

You tell em. why waste their time on this crap when they should be representing the big money interests that put them there.

that would be no different what Obama and the Democrat party does..
we are sick to death of McCain and Graham.. the people of their states need to vote them out, please

 

[candycorn]

All you've established is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...e-republicans-get-off-work-3.html#post6290940

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/260355-been-working-the-polls.html#post6289115

http://www.usmessageboard.com/election-forums/260176-no-gloating-pledge-3.html#post6287707

And to top it off:

Romney wins in a landslide. Republicans win the Senate and keep the House.

Chris avoids this thread like he avoid his Gov Walker threads like the plague.

Yeah...like you know the first thing about politics....

Funny, I haven't had a problem saying I'm wrong when Im wrong.

You've had a lot of practice. How big was the "landslide" he he he

But your deflection doesn't change the fact that there is substance to Rubio. Or that the right doesnt care about race or someone's name. Heck, a large part of us were ready to endorse Herman Cain before he dropped out due to scandal.

Rubio's substance took a massive hit from anyone paying attention last night. You can sound like Sarah Palin or you can sound Senatorial. All he had to do was hold the floor...and he decided to invoke references to Jay Z lyrics and The Godfather among others. Did you listen to him at all? I'm guessing not. If you did, you'd be re-considering your remarks.

As for Herman Cain...yeah okay. How many primaries did he win?

You just can get over the fact that your side is anal about race. You're obsessed with it. And you have to try to project it on others because you don't have substance to your positions.

We'll see how well Rubio does in the primaries in 2016 I suppose.

Tell us about Rubio's substance. Give some examples...feel free. What creative ideas has he come up with...what gravitas has he projected? Examples....

 

[beagle9]

Who gives a shit what McCain and Graham says? Nobody appointed them the Kings of the Republican party...

People need to contact these two and tell them to Represent the people they were hired to Represent..

You tell em. why waste their time on this crap when they should be representing the big money interests that put them there.

that would be no different what Obama and the Democrat party does..
we are sick to death of McCain and Graham.. the people of their states need to vote them out, please

It's ashame that Graham is being led around by his nose by McCain it seems.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul's self-serving spectacle only appealed to the radical right.

So I guess killing an American on American soil with a drone while he is not engaging in combat with any other American is just fine with you. Obama has already killed an American in Yemen along with his teenage son and the son's classmate. Al three killed by a hellfire missile. I can see taking out the father but I draw the line at killing his son and his neighbors son. The father and Both minors were American born citizens. Just what does Obama have to do to get your goat? do you support him no matter what? What Rand Paul did was long over due. He spoke truth to power and won. Something the left use to admire but now you refer to it as self serving. You sir are whats wrong with America.

Good for you, and now I will add something more if I may.

If the drone program was directed as a program that would be used only by the coast gaurd or by local law enforcement agencies as a part of their arsenal against criime, and this in order to battle the drug warlords and their minions (or) to collect intel on bad people by surveilence of their hide outs (or) to be used as a tactical weapon in order to help stop say a boat speeding away in the night, wherefore it is trying to avade our coast gaurd or athorities because it is filled with drugs and bandits, yet only after being warned by say lighted codes in the distance that would tell the boat to shut down and surrender immediately or it will be stopped by this method possibly by application of if needed, and as would also be proven (or) to search for a killer on the loose who has taken refuge in the yellowstone park or other such rough terain, then I think such a program would be much better accepted and understood as to be something good to add to the many great police held technologies in which we have now in America today, but controlled and used only by the police or state agencies for fighting crime would it be accepted by the citizens of this nation in acceptance of, otherwsie if it were for this purpose only.

The problem with all of this, is that it is something that the federal government controls, and would control as a program in country, and the feds need nothing like this in America at all, especially not to be controlled or used by them in America as a program ever. WHY you might ask? It's because they are to politicized to be trusted in my opinion, and their power would be lifted to tyranical levels, where as the temptations would be to great for them to have at their disposal. They may want to use this to harm political foes with in the future, and that is totally unacceptabe, and totally unconstitutional, so what is Obama and company thinking is what people had best begin to seriously ask themselves now, because his " we are going to totally transform America" statement, may just come at the end of a drone instead of at the end of a barrel, otherwise if his motives are somewhat seeded in this thought or type of futuristic thinking in which he might have.

The federal government having any thoughts or attempts to seize control of this nation be it state by state, should be seen only as tyranical in nature, so America beware of everything these days, because we are seeing some wild stuff going on now.

First paragraph, great. Second and third paragraph, you went off the rails.

The legislation for domestic drones is exactly as you described in the first paragraph, not the second. Drones would be used by local level law enforcement exactly the same way helicopters are.

 

[g5000]

All you dipshits who have been drinking Rand Paul's piss about domestic drones, read the actual legislation: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr658rds/pdf/BILLS-112hr658rds.pdf

All the hysteria about US based drones started with the passage of this act. So read the fucking thing.

Subtitle B - Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

Note that it is entirely about civil unmanned aircraft.

Not Rand Paul's imaginary missile-laden drones.

 

[Avatar4321]

Paul’s Mr. Smith move is less one of courage than one of political opportunity.

Instead of lauding the anti-woman, anti-civil rights neo-libertarian senator, progressives would do better to ask: Why have all the Senate Democrats signed onto the Brennan nomination?

Rand Paul No Progressive Hero, Despite Anti-Drone Filibuster

Of course he isnt a progressive hero. Progressives dont care about the Constitution.

 

[Goodoledays]

Who gives a shit what McCain and Graham says? Nobody appointed them the Kings of the Republican party...

People need to contact these two and tell them to Represent the people they were hired to Represent..

But before doing that...contact the POS POTUS to lead the U.S. not just the Dems.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This nonsense is on the reactionary side. One, due process as you insist actually is not required for apprehension or termination of a threat who won't give up. Of course the admin can do it in the USA. But to suggest that somehow the question was involving the admin falsely attacking "unarmed" civilians suggests a false answer.

You are better than this. Back up.

Well by all accounts Anwar al-Awlaki was unarmed when he was killed. So again, I don't think it was a ridiculous question. Especially after they refused to answer it for weeks. As for a false answer, that still makes no sense. Holder gave an answer, was it false?

Once again, "due process as you insist actually is not required for apprehension or termination of a threat who won't give up".

The question was falsely framed to create a false illusion that the admin was a threat to civil rights.

Well this circular argument has gotten stale.

 

[Goodoledays]

Oh, I take that back. This guy's in charge. The man who gets so nervous having to make a speech to a camera that he grabs and gulps a water bottle and hopes you don't notice.

Given the IQ of your average Republican, he was probably right.

Well I would rather watch that rather than some jerk telling me there are now 57 states here in U.S.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well by all accounts Anwar al-Awlaki was unarmed when he was killed. So again, I don't think it was a ridiculous question. Especially after they refused to answer it for weeks. As for a false answer, that still makes no sense. Holder gave an answer, was it false?

Once again, "due process as you insist actually is not required for apprehension or termination of a threat who won't give up".

The question was falsely framed to create a false illusion that the admin was a threat to civil rights.

Well this circular argument has gotten stale.

The only "circular" component here is your refusal to accept the reality that Rand's question was framed to infer an answer, which in fact was false, from the admin.

 

[Goodoledays]

An old school filibuster. Shows you how serious Rand Paul is about this issue.

Can our government kill unarmed citizens, on US soil, with no due process?

Depends on the situation, of course. If Lincoln had drones, do you think he wouldn't have used them?

Only if Ubama was hanging around too much.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Once again, "due process as you insist actually is not required for apprehension or termination of a threat who won't give up".

The question was falsely framed to create a false illusion that the admin was a threat to civil rights.

Well this circular argument has gotten stale.

The only "circular" component here is your refusal to accept the reality that Rand's question was framed to infer an answer, which in fact was false, from the admin.

It's been fun nonetheless, Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I always enjoy discussing matters with you, Kevin_Kennedy.

 

[blackhawk]

Why did it take a 12 to 13 hour filibuster for Rand Paul to finally get the simple yes or no answer he was looking for?

 

[candycorn]

Why did it take a 12 to 13 hour filibuster for Rand Paul to finally get the simple yes or no answer he was looking for?

He was treated like a fly on the White House windshield.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Appropriately so, because he deliberately misframed the question. No unarmed citizen or and who is willing to surrender to LEO has any reason to fear such an attack. That was already known. Rand was playing for points and fouled out.