Rand Paul is Filibustering John Brennan

[GeoLaureate8]

View attachment 24805

LMAO! That is pitiful. When has Rand ever worshiped the NRA? Which is absurd anyways because a drone is not a firearm, look up the definition.

You guys are beyond desperate.

.

 

[Dubya]

View attachment 24805

LMAO! That is pitiful. When has Rand ever worshiped the NRA? Which is absurd anyways because a drone is not a firearm, look up the definition.

You guys are beyond desperate.

.

The Constitution says arms and not firearms. Arms are weapons.

 

[Rinata]

It wasn't a drone filibuster. It was a presidential nominee filibuster.

The idea that Paul was expressing is one that real liberals can find merit in. Too bad nutters have a need to condemn and accuse the duly elected President with every issue. They make real discussion toxic and poison the process.

Maybe the duly elected President shouldn't be issuing statements and doing things that contradict his oath of office creating questions for the people and honest representatives.

Such bull!!! You people found fault with NOTHING Bush 43 did. But you find fault with EVERYTHING President Obama does. No wonder the Republicans are going down the drain.

 

[Rinata]

View attachment 24805

LMAO! That is pitiful. When has Rand ever worshiped the NRA? Which is absurd anyways because a drone is not a firearm, look up the definition.

You guys are beyond desperate.

.

Can you read????

 

[rdean]

Rand Paul with the help of Ted Cruz is filibustering drone strike murderer John Brennan.

Live on C-SPAN now!

Rand Paul intends to speak as long as it takes to stop Obama from drone bombing you so every American should express gratitude to Senator Paul.


.

Confusing.

Liberals will read this and instantly see "Satire".

Conservatives will read it and thank Paul for making them "safe".

 

[rdean]

.

First of all, I definitely wouldn't put Rand Paul and Sarah Palin in the same sentence. She's not in his intellectual zip code, county, state or hemisphere.

From what I gather, Paul wanted to "humiliate" the President into providing answers to his questions. Was it a political act? Hell, of course, our politics have devolved into professional wrestling status. But his general point was relatively valid. Hell, he could have been filibustering to shut down half a dozen governmental agencies, at least he arguing a point with which both sides could agree.

I like the fact that he did something that both silly ends could respect, even if just slightly.

.

I'm glad you qualified that with the "silly ends".

I think Paul and Palin are most definitely in the same ball park. Rand is the very same guy who said we never should have made racial discrimination "illegal" because even racist have a right to be "free" and that they express that freedom through discrimination.

Truly one of the most retarded lines of reasoning I have ever heard.

 

[rdean]

I give him credit for filibustering in the first place. I give him credit for shining a light on tyranny. Who knew it was such a hard question to answer?

Are you saying it's an easy question?

What if an airliner was headed for the Sears Tower, and the only way to save thousands of lives was to shoot it down?

"Oh, wait, I think the pilot might be an American citizen!"

Again, the problem here is not the policy. We have a remedy for executive abuses, it's called "impeachment".

It's a question of whether the GOP has become so deranged in its hate for Obama that it will embrace anyone who opposses him for whatever whacky reasons.

in bold...

You have been spending way too much time on leftg wing blogs. How do I know? Becuase that was the scenario left wing blogs were using.

The problem?

The left wing bloggers neglected to inform you that such a scenario was pre addressed by Paul when he made it clear that he was referring to "NON IMMEDIATE threats" to American lives.

See how those bloggers dont care if they make you look like an ass?

Actually, he was saying "non combatants", which means anyone walking down the street or sitting in a restaurant. Which is why the question was retarded.

 

[rdean]

Even the Democrats are trying to turn Rand Paul's babbling into something coherent.

Rand was asking if the president had the power to kill Americans who were non-combatants on American soil, yes or no. What does that mean? He is asking if the president has the right to kill anyone, anywhere just because he "feels like it". And the White House didn't answer. Why? Because it's "stupid". Even John McCain and Lindsey Grahame both thought it was "stupid". Lindsey asked if Democrats ever asked Bush if were OK if he went around killing people? Then pointed out that's a stupid question.

Worse, Rand comes out and says he only did it to "humiliate" the president. That's the word he used, "Humiliate". And all he humiliated was "reason".

Now you have Gene Robinson and other prominent Democrats saying Rand has a point. What are the limits of using this technology in the US? Hello! That wasn't Rand's point. Of course that's a good discussion to have. Just like discussing the limits of science. Just because you can make a two headed baby, should you? Of course not. That's how many Republicans see stem cell research. So they do have a valid point, whether you disagree or not.

But Rand wasn't asking a "deeper" question. He told us he wanted to humiliate the president. He was asking a dumb question. The president should have just said "no" instead of ignoring a LooneyToon.

Now, any deeper discussion will be attributed to Rand Paul. It's like Sarah Palin saying, "I can see Russia from my house" and then giving her credit for any Russian negotiations past that stupid comment.

Just pointing out, what Rand said wasn't even a discussion. If we are going to discuss the use of this technology, fine. Like I said, it's on the same level as stem cell research and morality of using strains from infant cells.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

View attachment 24805

LMAO! That is pitiful. When has Rand ever worshiped the NRA? Which is absurd anyways because a drone is not a firearm, look up the definition.

You guys are beyond desperate.

.

The Constitution says arms and not firearms. Arms are weapons.

I was talking about the NRA. The NRA is purely about small arms, not bombs or drones. I can't believe I have to explain this.


.

 

[Dubya]

LMAO! That is pitiful. When has Rand ever worshiped the NRA? Which is absurd anyways because a drone is not a firearm, look up the definition.

You guys are beyond desperate.

.

The Constitution says arms and not firearms. Arms are weapons.

I was talking about the NRA. The NRA is purely about small arms, not bombs or drones. I can't believe I have to explain this.


.

I've discussed the arms issue with higher ups in the NRA. They will reluctantly concede that there are weapons, like nukes, that the people shouldn't have, but if you think they only care about firearms, you are mistaken. They believe the 2nd gives them much more rights than just guns and that's why they don't want to give an inch.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

I'm glad you qualified that with the "silly ends".

I think Paul and Palin are most definitely in the same ball park. Rand is the very same guy who said we never should have made racial discrimination "illegal" because even racist have a right to be "free" and that they express that freedom through discrimination.

Truly one of the most retarded lines of reasoning I have ever heard.

You made that up. Rand did not make that argument. The standard Libertarian position is that government can't tell businesses what to do. If businesses want to make bad business choices that's their choice and they will be punished by the free market.

Rand Paul doesn't believe the government even has the ability to physically stop people from discriminating against people. Martin Luther King Jr. ended discrimination, not the government.

"You can't legislate morality."
-- Barry Goldwater

.

 

[beagle9]

Oh the faux outrage.

Oh the idiocy of ones comedic rage when someone speaks out in dis-belief of the things in which they are seeing now, in which are things that have never been seen before in this nation, yet people like you are so willing to follow like good little kool aid drinkers right on down onto the mat.

Indeed. You're quite comedic.

Cheers..

 

[Dubya]

I'm glad you qualified that with the "silly ends".

I think Paul and Palin are most definitely in the same ball park. Rand is the very same guy who said we never should have made racial discrimination "illegal" because even racist have a right to be "free" and that they express that freedom through discrimination.

Truly one of the most retarded lines of reasoning I have ever heard.

You made that up. Rand did not make that argument. The standard Libertarian position is that government can't tell businesses what to do. If businesses want to make bad business choices that's their choice and they will be punished by the free market.

Rand Paul doesn't believe the government even has the ability to physically stop people from discriminating against people. Martin Luther King Jr. ended discrimination, not the government.

"You can't legislate morality."
-- Barry Goldwater

.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many libertarians on the internet and very few in real life?

When normal people talk about the gold standard and you show them what the price of gold would have to be to cover our money supply, they look at the facts and say, I guess that isn't a good idea afterall. Libertarians don't think like that and that's why very few people will ever become libertarians.

 

[beagle9]

You do realize don't you that due process is complied with when federal (or state or local) cops shoot someone dead while in the commission of a felony ... without any warrant or hearing?

That is not due process. In fact, it might even be murder if the perpetrator is not committing a violent felony at the time the police shooting him.

Ruby Ridge comes to mind..

 

[Dubya]

You do realize don't you that due process is complied with when federal (or state or local) cops shoot someone dead while in the commission of a felony ... without any warrant or hearing?

That is not due process. In fact, it might even be murder if the perpetrator is not committing a violent felony at the time the police shooting him.

Ruby Ridge comes to mind..

That's really brilliant! Let's glorify fools who shoot it out with federal law enforcement and have their families with them. I guess facing a weapons charge is worth putting your family's lives in danger, right? In the case of Ruby Ridge, the guy made an illegal shotgun by cutting off the barrel. Would he have received anything more than a fine for that?

 

[beagle9]

I think that's every administration's opinion and people like Rand Paul know it. RP is just showing off.

This discussion is going in circles now. I've demonstrated why we don't feel the administration has adequately answered the question. You can either accept that we at the very least have some ground to stand on, or that we're just showing off.

So you don't believe all the past Presidents have the same policy on such issues of being COC? If the British attacked after the government was formed, do you think they would be using due process for loyalist citizens?

And you are comparing this thought to whom or what maybe (America or Americans), as in comparison to ? Do you feel war will be eminent in this nation someday again, and so is Obama and his crowd maybe preparing for a possible future uncivil war to someday come, as is thought about with these introduced potential drone policies and/or his flirtings with such ideas as these, otherwise in which he may have within himself a futuristic vision or notion of such things to come maybe ?

 

[beagle9]

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen

I often wonder how serious Obama Derangement Syndrome has gotten on the right, until I read statements like this, bewailing the fact an Al Qaeda terrorist in a Terror training camp was killed by Obama, and therefore becomes a Martyr to those who live in mortal fear that their health care might be government run.

Yes, we're assured he was an evil bad person by the administration. Yet he was still an American citizen, and as such was most certainly entitled to due process if anybody was.

Disagree on this one, as he was an enemy combatant, who had left this nation to forsake it for another, and had done this in order to kill Americans by his teaching of killing Americans to others, and by his training recieved in this darkness as well. He got what he deserved and that is that.

The topic of drones over America is a totally different beast in which is being set to battle. It is one that is as far removed from the war over the seas as it can be. I disagree with drones over our skies, unless used and controlled strictly by local law enforcment in some areas whom may desire such a surveilence vehicle, type weapon and it's program in order to add to their tactics or crime fighting arsenal used, but the feds should absolutely have no part in any drone program on American soil period.

Otherwise it would be run and paid for by say a state or state agency, who would have it for their rangers on patrol (i.e. maybe to be used for surveilence, and possible defensive measures against violent criminals who seek to kill American law officers or border patrol agents and/or to assist or help innocent citizens who are placed in harms way), so yes this might be great if NO FEDS are ALLOWED anywhere near it.

We must never have another WACO, Ruby Ridge and/or etc. type situation to occur, in which was totally botched by an idiotic arrogant style of leadership in which was found in our government at the time. These cases should set the precident for No Federal drone program over American soil, except that it be purchased and fully operated by an individual state law enforcement agency only.

 

[Dubya]

This discussion is going in circles now. I've demonstrated why we don't feel the administration has adequately answered the question. You can either accept that we at the very least have some ground to stand on, or that we're just showing off.

So you don't believe all the past Presidents have the same policy on such issues of being COC? If the British attacked after the government was formed, do you think they would be using due process for loyalist citizens?

And you are comparing this thought to whom or what maybe (America or Americans), as in comparison to ? Do you feel war will be eminent in this nation someday again, and so is Obama and his crowd maybe preparing for a possible future uncivil war to someday come, as is thought about with these introduced potential drone policies and/or his flirtings with such ideas as these, otherwise in which he may have within himself a futuristic vision or notion of such things to come maybe ?

I said all Presidents take the job of COC seriously and they will do what they have to do to defend this country. Let me give you a hint, they aren't going to ask whacky libertarians what their opinion is!

 

[Lakhota]

Rand Paul Exploits Drones Grandstanding With False Fundraising Letter

 

[JoeB131]

Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen

I often wonder how serious Obama Derangement Syndrome has gotten on the right, until I read statements like this, bewailing the fact an Al Qaeda terrorist in a Terror training camp was killed by Obama, and therefore becomes a Martyr to those who live in mortal fear that their health care might be government run.

Yes, we're assured he was an evil bad person by the administration. Yet he was still an American citizen, and as such was most certainly entitled to due process if anybody was.

I think when you are planting your ass in a middle eastern country in the middle of a Jihadist camp, you pretty much forfeit the whole "Due Process" thingee.