Rand Paul is Filibustering John Brennan

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it is a question aimed for political points not for governmental philosophy.

The question is disrespectful, very much so, and the great majority of the country in this case would support a "fuck you" from Obama.

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Any citizen who resists the lawful attempts of LEO to arrest and detain him is fair game.

That means you, that means me.

We are not talking about lawful attempts to arrest someone, we are talking about the government killing people without trial.

 

[candycorn]

If it wasn't orchestrated I'd agree. It's just another ploy and sadly some people can't see that.

Are you telling me that Republicans and Democrats are orchestrating a filibuster for civil liberties? OMG, how can we let them get away with that?

I wonder if the lefties would cheering for Paul if this was a Bush or the nominee of a Republican President? Personally I find this to be one of the most interesting things to happen in Washington in a very long time dam refreshing if you ask me.

NOW THAT I will agree with. Wonderful civics lesson. I wish the Senate would force all filibusters to hatch this way.

Good post.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well, considering the President didn't respond 8 1/2 hours ago, one has to ask why is the President so hesitant to say he wont kill American citizens without due process?

Because it is a question aimed for political points not for governmental philosophy.

The question is disrespectful, very much so, and the great majority of the country in this case would support a "fuck you" from Obama.

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Absent taking up arms against the country or being an imminent threat of some of horrific nature, I don't believe that is the AG's position.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Obummer believes he can murder Americans anywhere, anytime, and the Dem party has gone along with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm really surprised by the reaction of some of the left here over this it's a good old fashion Mr Smith goes to Washington filibuster that I understand has the support of the ACLU and Code Pink what is there not for the left to like here?

Code Pink was in the Senate hearing room demanding the same answers Paul wants.

 

[g5000]

Well, considering the President didn't respond 8 1/2 hours ago, one has to ask why is the President so hesitant to say he wont kill American citizens without due process?

Because it is a question aimed for political points not for governmental philosophy.

The question is disrespectful, very much so, and the great majority of the country in this case would support a "fuck you" from Obama.

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Thanks for saying that.

Look at the video here:
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Holder stated to Senator Cruz that killing Americans on US soil absent immiment danger is unconstitutional. So your claim that Holder has been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process is an outright lie.

And since it is a lie, then this really is not an issue, as you so graciously stipulated.

It is a manufactured issue by a fearmongering, self-aggrandizing, demagogue named Rand Paul.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it wasn't orchestrated I'd agree. It's just another ploy and sadly some people can't see that.

Are you telling me that Republicans and Democrats are orchestrating a filibuster for civil liberties? OMG, how can we let them get away with that?

No.

The way a filibuster is supposed to work if you have to balls to do one is that you hold the floor and yield for spontaneous questions that arise from your filibuster....

For example, if you don't want John Brennan to be seated as CIA director, you bring up something about Brennan, other senators hear your concerns and ask questions.

The way this is working is that there is an orchestration of questions being asked to sustain the act itself.

Perfectly "legal" under RROO but much like winning with a stacked deck, not honorable.

He declared he was going to filibuster, and went it alone for hours. Wyden didn't ask a question until almost 4 hours after it started.

Want to try again, or do you prefer to see absurd conspiracies just because Twitter shamed them to #StandwithPaul.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it is a question aimed for political points not for governmental philosophy.

The question is disrespectful, very much so, and the great majority of the country in this case would support a "fuck you" from Obama.

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Absent taking up arms against the country or being an imminent threat of some of horrific nature, I don't believe that is the AG's position.

Then he should say that.

 

[candycorn]

Because it is a question aimed for political points not for governmental philosophy.

The question is disrespectful, very much so, and the great majority of the country in this case would support a "fuck you" from Obama.

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Thanks for saying that.

Look at the video here:
Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Holder stated to Senator Cruz that killing Americans on US soil absent immiment danger is unconstitutional.

So as you just admitted, this is not an issue.

Rand Paul is a self-aggrandizing demagogue, manufacturing fear.

The outrage du jour is usually not this remarkable. Man, I hope this goes on until the weekend.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you telling me that Republicans and Democrats are orchestrating a filibuster for civil liberties? OMG, how can we let them get away with that?

I wonder if the lefties would cheering for Paul if this was a Bush or the nominee of a Republican President? Personally I find this to be one of the most interesting things to happen in Washington in a very long time dam refreshing if you ask me.

NOW THAT I will agree with. Wonderful civics lesson. I wish the Senate would force all filibusters to hatch this way.

Good post.

I completely agree. The noisy fillibuster is the actual fillibuster. This silent fillibuster crap has to end.

 

[candycorn]

Are you telling me that Republicans and Democrats are orchestrating a filibuster for civil liberties? OMG, how can we let them get away with that?

No.

The way a filibuster is supposed to work if you have to balls to do one is that you hold the floor and yield for spontaneous questions that arise from your filibuster....

For example, if you don't want John Brennan to be seated as CIA director, you bring up something about Brennan, other senators hear your concerns and ask questions.

The way this is working is that there is an orchestration of questions being asked to sustain the act itself.

Perfectly "legal" under RROO but much like winning with a stacked deck, not honorable.

He declared he was going to filibuster, and went it alone for hours. Wyden didn't ask a question until almost 4 hours after it started.

Want to try again, or do you prefer to see absurd conspiracies just because Twitter shamed them to #StandwithPaul.

This is the same "the polls are wrong" wishful thinking that we saw in November.

 

[BlindBoo]

Funny thing is, Im sure if anyone asked Hitler whether he was killing jews, the Hitler supporters would have said the exact same thing about thatbeing an idiotic question. Don't you think the people might have been better off knowing?

PS: Points off for invoking the Nazi card.

Points off of what? You cant excuse yourself of looking at applicable analogies simply because you don't like them. The analogy is on point. In fact, it's very apt since in both instances we are talking about over intrusive government and their power to kill people without due process.

Points for (best MIA) playing the Nazi card. Keeps the circus going round. The analogy was most idiotic.

 

[BlindBoo]

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Absent taking up arms against the country or being an imminent threat of some of horrific nature, I don't believe that is the AG's position.

Then he should say that.

He's a lawyer. He's required to turn in at least a page.

 

[g5000]

Asking a President a question to clarify statements his administration has made is disrespectful?

If Holder hadn't been claiming that they could kill Americans without due process, this wouldnt be an issue.

Absent taking up arms against the country or being an imminent threat of some of horrific nature, I don't believe that is the AG's position.

Then he should say that.

He did.

Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Rand Paul is misleading you. His intent is to manufacture fear so you will follow him.

 

[waltky]

Has he stopped to reach fer a drink o' water?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Absent taking up arms against the country or being an imminent threat of some of horrific nature, I don't believe that is the AG's position.

Then he should say that.

He did.

Ted Cruz Gets Holder To Admit That Killing Americans With Drones On U.S. Soil Is Unconstitutional | Flopping Aces

Rand Paul is misleading you. His intent is to manufacture fear so you will follow him.

Strange, I don't see a direct quote from Holder in that article.

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”
When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

That makes me wonder what he actually said. It turns out that what he said is "Translate my 'appropriate' to no. I thought I was saying no." If we take him at his word, when he said it would not be appropriate, he meant it would not be no.

 

[bronxkid1]

Twelve hours and still going strong. Almost as much gab as the POTUS!

 

[Dubya]

Twelve hours and still going strong. Almost as much gab as the POTUS!

Get the fool to ask about shooting down an airliner, while he's at it!

 

[Wroberson]

Rand Paul said NOTHING. It was in fact Cruz who made the speech of the evening where he used Flight 93 as an example of excessive force being used by the USA against it's own people as being constitutional to prevent the plane from crashing into another building.

As we can read in the history books, Flight 93 is said to have gone down into the field at the hands of the passengers and was said NOT to have been shot down by the US Government.

This is the only good to have come from the filibuster. PERIOD

 

[ba1614]

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.


.

Paul said during his filibuster that his opposition was not about Brennan himself, but the constitutional issues involved. "We really just want [Obama] to say he won't" attack noncombatants on U.S. soil.

Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination to lead CIA

Of course the filibuster has nothing to do with whether the nominee is qualified or not; rather, we have yet another case of partisan grandstanding by an ignorant and incompetent politician from the right.

Otherwise, it's not the role of Congress, and Rand Paul in particular, to determine the constitutionality of policies of the Executive, that’s the responsibility of the Judiciary. And the courts are not allowed to weigh in on the issue per separation of powers doctrine, in addition to the fact that Congress, and again Rand Paul in particular, lacks standing to bring suit.

The courts have wisely and correctly determined this to be a political matter, subject to the democratic process, where the people decide the appropriateness of the Administration’s actions.

The people made their determination last November.

If he doesn't have the balls to say "No, the President does not have that authority", then NO, he isn't qualified.