Stand with Rand.

[The2ndAmendment]

I may not agree on every day policy with Rand Paul, but today he filibustering to draw attention to an issue that is neither left nor right. This is a Civil Liberties issue. How far have we fallen as Democrats to allow the Federal Government to deprive non-combatant US citizens of life on US soil without due process?

Senator Dick Durbin's objection to a resolution on this issue may have marked my official parting of ways with the entire Democratic Party.

STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!

 

[Amelia]

Rand was awesome today.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How long before Obama orders the dissolution of the Senate, declaring it hostile to US National Security?

 

[Amelia]

Well, I'm sure that will be a while yet.

 

[Avatar4321]

You dont have to agree with everything someone stands for to stand with him on the things you do agree on.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Stand with rand!

 

[g5000]

Stand with Retard!

He actually asked if the federal government was aware it was not allowed to just kill US citizens without a trial.

Why, just yesterday, the federal government took a US citizen to court for being a terrorist and nary a drone was in sight! They did not save us all a lot of time and kill the bastard. They actually arrested him and took him to court. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Apparently Rand Paul has not. Even though Obama has not killed by drone any suspected bad guys in the US in the more than four years he could have, Rand Paul felt he needed to ask Obama if he was allowed to.

The Attorney General diplomatically explained to Rand Paul that he was asking the dumbest question to come down the pike in some time, and then went on to explain what everyone else knows. The AG explained that he wasn't planning on blowing up any US citizens without trial since we already have a system for arresting and trying them which has worked just fine all this time, so why change now.

I would say yesterday's court appearance by a terrorist US citizen on US soil kind of puts an exclamation point at the end of that answer, but noooooooo. Not for Rand Paul.

But Rand's brain must have blown that part of the answer off. Because he conflated the second part of the AG's answer with his drone killling fetish.

The AG explained in the second part of his response there are hypothetical situations where the use of military force in the United States might be necessary. He then sited examples like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Again, something anyone with any kind of common sense already knows.

Apparently Retard Paul has no common sense and has a low voltage brain. So now we can enjoy watching him bash himself in the head with a wrench on the Senate floor.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Unadulterated Whackiness of Kentucky and Senator Rand Paul

First, Kentucky actually elected this imbecile to represent them in the US Senate, a deliberative body.

"We really just want [Obama] to say he won't" attack noncombatants on U.S. soil. Sounds like the next demand will be Obama prove he is really a US citizen.

The transcript of this guy's filibuster is going to be fertile ground for...

During his filibuster, Paul said the fuzziness of such language created a slippery slope that could lead to the targeting of citizens who merely have different opinions about policies than the president.

"You can't be judge, jury and executioner all in one," Paul said.

"No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty of a crime by a court," Paul said. "How can you kill someone without going to a judge, or a jury?"

Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination to lead CIA

I may not agree on every day policy with Rand Paul, but today he filibustering to draw attention to an issue that is neither left nor right. This is a Civil Liberties issue. How far have we fallen as Democrats to allow the Federal Government to deprive non-combatant US citizens of life on US soil without due process?

Senator Dick Durbin's objection to a resolution on this issue may have marked my official parting of ways with the entire Democratic Party.

STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Stand with Retard!

He actually asked if the federal government was aware it was not allowed to just kill US citizens without a trial.

Why, just yesterday, the federal government took a US citizen to court for being a terrorist and nary a drone was in sight! They did not save us all a lot of time and kill the bastard. They actually arrested him and took him to court. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Apparently Rand Paul has not. Even though Obama has not killed by drone any suspected bad guys in the US in the more than four years he could have, Rand Paul felt he needed to ask Obama if he was allowed to.

The Attorney General diplomatically explained to Rand Paul that he was asking the dumbest question to come down the pike in some time, and then went on to explain what everyone else knows. The AG explained that he wasn't planning on blowing up any US citizens without trial since we already have a system for arresting and trying them which has worked just fine all this time, so why change now.

I would say yesterday's court appearance by a terrorist US citizen on US soil kind of puts an exclamation point at the end of that answer, but noooooooo. Not for Rand Paul.

But Rand's brain must have blown that part of the answer off. Because he conflated the second part of the AG's answer with his drone killling fetish.

The AG explained in the second part of his response there are hypothetical situations where the use of military force in the United States might be necessary. He then sited examples like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Again, something anyone with any kind of common sense already knows.

Apparently Retard Paul has no common sense and has a low voltage brain. So now we can enjoy watching him bash himself in the head with a wrench on the Senate floor.

So explain why it wouldn't simply make more sense to answer the question directly.

 

[BlindBoo]

Utterly not true. It not a Civil Liberties issue, it's a Constitutional Issue.
There are no plans by the Democrats or Federal Government to do that! Nobody has fallen, if by some chance a President has the opputunity to stop an event such as the OKC bombing or 9-11 by ordering lethal force against any enemy, foriegn or domestic, and didn't take it, he should be impeached.

The Senator Grandstands.

I may not agree on every day policy with Rand Paul, but today he filibustering to draw attention to an issue that is neither left nor right. This is a Civil Liberties issue. How far have we fallen as Democrats to allow the Federal Government to deprive non-combatant US citizens of life on US soil without due process?

Senator Dick Durbin's objection to a resolution on this issue may have marked my official parting of ways with the entire Democratic Party.

STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Utterly not true. It not a Civil Liberties issue, it's a Constitutional Issue.
There are no plans by the Democrats or Federal Government to do that! Nobody has fallen, if by some chance a President has the opputunity to stop an event such as the OKC bombing or 9-11 by ordering lethal force against any enemy, foriegn or domestic, and didn't take it, he should be impeached.

The Senator Grandstands.

I may not agree on every day policy with Rand Paul, but today he filibustering to draw attention to an issue that is neither left nor right. This is a Civil Liberties issue. How far have we fallen as Democrats to allow the Federal Government to deprive non-combatant US citizens of life on US soil without due process?

Senator Dick Durbin's objection to a resolution on this issue may have marked my official parting of ways with the entire Democratic Party.

STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!
STAND WITH RAND!

That you refuse to accept the fact that Rand is not discussing situations comparable to Oklahoma City or September 11 is quite telling. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and Rand himself has made it quite clear during his filibuster.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Never forget:

RAW VIDEO: Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn.org Activist Outside KY Debate | TheBlaze.com

 

[g5000]

Stand with Retard!

He actually asked if the federal government was aware it was not allowed to just kill US citizens without a trial.

Why, just yesterday, the federal government took a US citizen to court for being a terrorist and nary a drone was in sight! They did not save us all a lot of time and kill the bastard. They actually arrested him and took him to court. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Apparently Rand Paul has not. Even though Obama has not killed by drone any suspected bad guys in the US in the more than four years he could have, Rand Paul felt he needed to ask Obama if he was allowed to.

The Attorney General diplomatically explained to Rand Paul that he was asking the dumbest question to come down the pike in some time, and then went on to explain what everyone else knows. The AG explained that he wasn't planning on blowing up any US citizens without trial since we already have a system for arresting and trying them which has worked just fine all this time, so why change now.

I would say yesterday's court appearance by a terrorist US citizen on US soil kind of puts an exclamation point at the end of that answer, but noooooooo. Not for Rand Paul.

But Rand's brain must have blown that part of the answer off. Because he conflated the second part of the AG's answer with his drone killling fetish.

The AG explained in the second part of his response there are hypothetical situations where the use of military force in the United States might be necessary. He then sited examples like the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Again, something anyone with any kind of common sense already knows.

Apparently Retard Paul has no common sense and has a low voltage brain. So now we can enjoy watching him bash himself in the head with a wrench on the Senate floor.

So explain why it wouldn't simply make more sense to answer the question directly.

He asked a retarded question and received a common sense answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How long before Obama orders the dissolution of the Senate, declaring it hostile to US National Security?

You are exactly the kind of loon that Rand Paul is marketing to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can kill American citizens without a trial. It's called deadly force and has many legal constitutional applications.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You dont have to agree with everything someone stands for to stand with him on the things you do agree on.

You mean like, Chris Christy?

Hypocrites.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Stand with Rand.

In the unemployment line.

Seriously, after him lying about being a real doctor, I'd love to see him have to actually work for a living.

And, the way voters are getting rid of the damn potters, it could happen.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rand is a complete imbecile and attention whore, but no matter. The majority of Americans do not know who he is, do not care who he is and are not going to pay attention to a Tea Party Lunatic type like Senator Rand Paul

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You can kill American citizens without a trial. It's called deadly force and has many legal constitutional applications.

 

[Lakhota]

Fuck Ayn Rand Paul and the Aqua Buddha horse he rode in on.