Stand with Rand.

[Sarah G]

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.

I was hoping for Santorum in 2016. Screw that...give us Rand!

Then we'll have Rand and Ron running in every election.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I was hoping for Santorum in 2016. Screw that...give us Rand!

Then we'll have Rand and Ron running in every election.

When I woke up this morning, I was shocked to find that the filibuster had ended. I guess that principle expired when people stopped watching.

Still, we've got to get this guy nominated in 2016.

 

[editec]

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!

The DEMS who voted NDAA into law have a lot of explaining to do.

As do the Reps who voted for that law in even greater numbers, I note.

 

[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.

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

That's the worst rationalization ever. The question regarding Obama's birth certificate was far more ridiculous by any measure, and yet he answered it directly.

 

[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.

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.

I was responding to The2ndAmendment, not Senator Rand.

Considering that that poster was supporting Rand's position it would make sense if you actually got Rand's position correct.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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!

I'm glad to know that if a commercial airliner is hijacked and the hijackers are carrying a dirty bomb which they are going to detonate as they crash the plane into one of our major cities, you do not approve of that plane being shot down in order to stop what would be a catastrophe of epic proportion. You will wait to see what happens because we cannot kill a US citizen without due process. So we will allow that US citizen who is a terrorist of the worst kind, to possibly kill hundreds of thousands of people because it would be unconstitutional to kill him/her in order to prevent him carrying out his plan. While shooting down a commercial airliner would not be done with a drone, it is the same exact idea, so you must be against this also.

I really don't recall anyone saying that the president could randomly call for drone strikes against people he just doesn't like.

I'm glad to know you can construct a straw man and knock it down.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Rand Paul is manufacturing fear. The man has no shame.

Wait... what fear?

A fear of DROOOOOONZZZZ!

Teh gubmint going to blow yo ass sky high wifout a trial!

There is no answer anyone could give that would stop Rand Paul from doing what he is doing. He has a drone obsession and nothing is going to stop him from manufacturing a bogus fear.

Obama has used drones to kill American citizens without dur process of law.

Why do you ignore that fact?

Are you willfully ignorant or innocently ignorant?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm glad to know that if a commercial airliner is hijacked and the hijackers are carrying a dirty bomb which they are going to detonate as they crash the plane into one of our major cities, you do not approve of that plane being shot down in order to stop what would be a catastrophe of epic proportion. You will wait to see what happens because we cannot kill a US citizen without due process. So we will allow that US citizen who is a terrorist of the worst kind, to possibly kill hundreds of thousands of people because it would be unconstitutional to kill him/her in order to prevent him carrying out his plan. While shooting down a commercial airliner would not be done with a drone, it is the same exact idea, so you must be against this also.

I really don't recall anyone saying that the president could randomly call for drone strikes against people he just doesn't like.

Apparently you didn't watch the Filibuster at all. We all agree that the US government has the right to protect and defend against invasion and other imminent attacks. No one contests this.

The problem is that the only known Drone Program in existence today, frequently kills unarmed suspects while they are sleeping/eating dinner with their families. Since this happens outside of US Territory, there really isn't much to argue about, since its nearly impossible to enforce the Constitution outside our borders anyway.

However, once we talk about using drones to kill US citizens WITHIN the boundaries of the United States, that question becomes quite relevant. Should the US government be able to kill an UNARMED SUSPECT with a drone strike on US soil; especially since capturing instead will allow him to defend himself in court OR allow us to obtain more information if he actually is guilty?

Read Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. There is a crime called "TREASON" that is explicitly described. Unless someone is armed and prepared to use deadly force to resist arrest, we should adhere to Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution on OUR OWN SOIL.

There are MANY Constitutional protections and clauses that are being violated or have potential to be violated under the Attorney General's latest reasoning and justification. The Constitution is FUNDAMENTAL LAW and is SUPREME to common law.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION PLACES UPON GOVERNMENT, THEN BY ALL MEANS ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE 3/4 OF THE STATES TO RATIFY AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. OH WAIT, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT SINCE IT WOULD DRAW MASSIVE PUBLIC OUTCRY. MAY GOD BLESS OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naR2WS9Nw38&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Why's he insist on wearing that piece o' shag-carpeting on his head??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

 

[The2ndAmendment]

STAND WITH RAND

Hell, 2016 here it comes! If Rand also intended this Filibuster to be a Presidential stunt, then I commend him, because it was very well done and heart felt.