Rand Paul v. Barrack H. Obama

[OKTexas]

I told my reps that there should absolutely no circumstance when the US Dept. of Defense collects data on hundreds of million US Citizens. period, end of story. There is no way it is constitutional.

You told them this when? Just after the Patriot Act was passed?

Because that's when it stated happening.

As soon as it was revealed what the NSA was doing. I also argued against the passage of the original patriot act and it's subsequent reups. You know the ones your dear leader said he wouldn't approve.

 

[S.J.]

I'll support Rand Paul if he runs for President. In the meantime, we need to concentrate on replacing the RINOs in November with real conservatives. They are as guilty as the Democrats.

The more you try to purify the republican party of RINO'S, the smaller the republican party becomes. But, by all means, do not be influenced by me. What usually happens when you throw a RINO under the bus is that they pop out the other side as an independent or a <gasp> Democrat. I speak from experience.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[OKTexas]

The thieving Rand Paul brings the facepalm yet again to his theatrics.

Paul Accused of Plagiarizing Lawsuit Against NSA -- Daily Intelligencer

Poor Rand Paul has been looking forward to suing the Obama administration over NSA surveillance for months, but his announcement on Wednesday was marred by infighting among his legal team, including a charge that's particularly sensitive for Paul. Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, who has represented Edward Snowden's father, claims he wrote the complaint but the suit Paul filed lists tea party favorite Ken Cuccinelli as its author.

Mattie Fein, his ex-wife/spokeswoman, told The Washington Post's Dana Milbank that the complaint is "the work product, intellectual property and legal genius of Bruce Fein," adding that Paul, who "already has one plagiarism issue, now has a lawyer who just takes another lawyer’s work product."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8675aa-942b-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html

Paul is a plaintiff not an attorney, what good would it do for an ophthalmologist to plagiarize the works of a lawyer? Come on be specific.

 

[Politico]

Well Politico, what if Obama changes the law since he has a phone , executive orders, and a pen and supposedly he can do whatever he wants?? Who knows, he might be that much of a dictator to change the law allowing of 3 terms as President.. I wouldn't be surprised to say the least.

Exxxxxcept he can't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Umm fail. Paul is not running against Obama.

Fail is right, Genius. Well done.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well Politico, what if Obama changes the law since he has a phone , executive orders, and a pen and supposedly he can do whatever he wants?? Who knows, he might be that much of a dictator to change the law allowing of 3 terms as President.. I wouldn't be surprised to say the least.

And... [MENTION=30967]Politico[/MENTION] saved by an even bigger fail. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well Politico, what if Obama changes the law since he has a phone , executive orders, and a pen and supposedly he can do whatever he wants?? Who knows, he might be that much of a dictator to change the law allowing of 3 terms as President.. I wouldn't be surprised to say the least.

He's not planning on going anywhere.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

 

[Politico]

Yeah pointing out the law is a fail. The conspiracy section is thataway.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nice symbollic gesture, but you can't sue a sitting President.

OLC: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000"

 

[Sallow]

I told my reps that there should absolutely no circumstance when the US Dept. of Defense collects data on hundreds of million US Citizens. period, end of story. There is no way it is constitutional.

You told them this when? Just after the Patriot Act was passed?

Because that's when it stated happening.

As soon as it was revealed what the NSA was doing. I also argued against the passage of the original patriot act and it's subsequent reups. You know the ones your dear leader said he wouldn't approve.

They were always doing that.

What part did you miss when it was happening during the Bush administration?

When he lied about getting a warrant first?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Remember that?

Were you part of the Greek Chorus of Conservatives calling the NY Times "treasonous" for running that story?

Remember when Airlines and Telecommunication companies were giving up personal information to the government?

Remember when the Doctors and Librarians refused to do that?

Remember when Bush threw a lawyer in jail because she was communicating with her client?

Or were you sleeping?

 

[paperview]

Nice symbollic gesture, but you can't sue a sitting President.

OLC: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000"

It's a Civil Suit.

SCOTUS ruled you can sue a President. Paula Jones, remember?

That said, Rand's (hijacked) case will go nowhere.

 

[Sallow]

Nice symbollic gesture, but you can't sue a sitting President.

OLC: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000"

It's a Civil Suit.

SCOTUS ruled you can sue a President. Paula Jones, remember?

That said, Rand's (hijacked) case will go nowhere.

Funny that conservatives are always changing the rules when someone they don't like sits in the chair.

 

[S.J.]

Nice symbollic gesture, but you can't sue a sitting President.

OLC: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000"

It's a Civil Suit.

SCOTUS ruled you can sue a President. Paula Jones, remember?

That said, Rand's (hijacked) case will go nowhere.

Funny that conservatives are always changing the rules when someone they don't like sits in the chair.

Funny how liberals don't mind being fucked over when it's THEIR guy doing it. That one works both ways.

 

[Sallow]

It's a Civil Suit.

SCOTUS ruled you can sue a President. Paula Jones, remember?

That said, Rand's (hijacked) case will go nowhere.

Funny that conservatives are always changing the rules when someone they don't like sits in the chair.

Funny how liberals don't mind being fucked over when it's THEIR guy doing it. That one works both ways.

I'm totally against the Patriot Act.

I'd like to see the whole thing repealed. I think the FISA court should have more teeth and "independent" (civilian) review.

You folks don't really care about that.

What you want is your own guy in the white house.

Doesn't matter what road you take to make that happen.

 

[S.J.]

Funny that conservatives are always changing the rules when someone they don't like sits in the chair.

Funny how liberals don't mind being fucked over when it's THEIR guy doing it. That one works both ways.

I'm totally against the Patriot Act.

I'd like to see the whole thing repealed. I think the FISA court should have more teeth and "independent" (civilian) review.

You folks don't really care about that.

What you want is your own guy in the white house.

Doesn't matter what road you take to make that happen.

Wrong!

 

[editec]

You guys think Ron Paul would NOT use the intelligence community to keep track of those he considers domestic "enemies"?

You people truly are fools if you think that.

 

[Seawytch]

Paul...he's the guy that was against drones then said he'd like to see a drone take out the guy that robbed a liquor store? That Paul?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Nice symbollic gesture, but you can't sue a sitting President.

OLC: A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000"

It's a Civil Suit.

SCOTUS ruled you can sue a President. Paula Jones, remember?

That said, Rand's (hijacked) case will go nowhere.

Funny that conservatives are always changing the rules when someone they don't like sits in the chair.

Funny how every time a dimwit sits in the chair they break the law. Go Rand.

 

[Drake_Roberts]

Funny that conservatives are always changing the rules when someone they don't like sits in the chair.

Funny how liberals don't mind being fucked over when it's THEIR guy doing it. That one works both ways.

I'm totally against the Patriot Act.

I'd like to see the whole thing repealed. I think the FISA court should have more teeth and "independent" (civilian) review.

You folks don't really care about that.

What you want is your own guy in the white house.

Doesn't matter what road you take to make that happen.

FISA? Damnit! Is that seriously already an acronym?

 

[FA_Q2]

You guys think Ron Paul would NOT use the intelligence community to keep track of those he considers domestic "enemies"?

You people truly are fools if you think that.

The real problem here.

Liberals were completely against the PA when Bush was the one who signed the bill. Then they had the chance to completely destroy it. It was not even a matter of legislating it away – the damn thing was up for renewal and the dems had the entire government. Of course they passed it again anyway.

That really is the core reason that I am against things like the PA. Not necessarily because they are terrible in their inception but the bald faced facts are that the government does not generally cede power once it has managed to get it. The PA was a huge movement forward in that power and the dems want it just as bad as the repubs did when they were in office. Now we are likely to never see the end of it.