So Rand Paul, who spends most of his time trying to eliminate abortion rights for women, safety regulations for coal companies, and engaging in witch hunts over Benghazi, is so concerned about Drones. A more disingenuous , meaningless filibuster has never existed.

  • MusclFurPeX

    Posts: 166

    Mar 07, 2013 2:37 AM GMT
    So Rand Paul, who spends most of his time trying to eliminate abortion rights for women, safety regulations for coal companies, and engaging in witch hunts over Benghazi, is so concerned about Drones. A more disingenuous , meaningless filibuster has never existed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 2:48 AM GMT
    It's ok, as long as it's a democrat that has unlimited power. God Forbid a republican gets elected, that's another story.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 4:17 AM GMT
    What Rand Paul is doing is great! On this issue. he is very much in the correct. He doesn't want the President to have power to send a drone against somehow he doesn't like.

    Love how this is getting attention.

    Plus, he is showing the older senators (who may have forgotten) how to properly do a filibuster.

    Oh, and the title should just be about Rand Paul filibustering without all the other shit attached.
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Mar 07, 2013 6:06 AM GMT
    Jasonfest saidWhat Rand Paul is doing is great! On this issue. he is very much in the correct. He doesn't want the President to have power to send a drone against somehow he doesn't like.

    Love how this is getting attention.

    Plus, he is showing the older senators (who may have forgotten) how to properly do a filibuster.

    Oh, and the title should just be about Rand Paul filibustering without all the other shit attached.

    You're post makes me gag. You're feeding into the idiotic right winged propaganda that Obama is going to start offing people he doesn't care for. Gimmie a fuckin break.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 6:09 AM GMT
    TheBizMan said
    You're post makes me gag. You're feeding into the idiotic right winged propaganda that Obama is going to start offing people he doesn't care for. Gimmie a fuckin break.


    There is no need for any President to have that power. Do you agree or disagree?
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Mar 07, 2013 6:14 AM GMT
    Never have a seen a group of people so paranoid than the current crop a republicans and their followers. Look I don't think Obama's every move is the right one, but you guys who predict gloom and doom under his presidency need to take a fucking seat. You sound like children babbling on and on about Obama's every move and how it gives you a lil tummy ache. When the sequester cuts your medicade, you geriatric fucks will probably be singing a different tune.

    Honestly I can't hate on you too much though. People reacted similarly under Bush's presidency so I suppose this is just I dunno... calling it even?
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Mar 07, 2013 6:16 AM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    TheBizMan said
    You're post makes me gag. You're feeding into the idiotic right winged propaganda that Obama is going to start offing people he doesn't care for. Gimmie a fuckin break.


    There is no need for any President to have that power. Do you agree or disagree?
    I disagree. If it is an eminent threat, as in he is in the act of, or has already committed a crime against the country in the form of terrorism, his rights to a trial should be forgone and he should be eliminated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 6:20 AM GMT
    Take the party politics out of this. There is no need for any president to order a drone to take a American citizen out. People did not like the Patriot Act and people do not like this either. Take a deep breath. I hope your still not gagging from my earlier post.

    One of the arguments for this ability, is that the President will not decide to use his authority on this. Well, then don't have it. Easy solution
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Mar 07, 2013 6:24 AM GMT
    Jasonfest saidTake the party politics out of this. There is no need for any president to order a drone to take a American citizen out. People did not like the Patriot Act and people do not like this either. Take a deep breath. I hope your still not gagging from my earlier post.

    One of the arguments for this ability, is that the President will not decide to use his authority on this. Well, then don't have it. Easy solution

    Wholeheartedly disagree. We'll leave it at that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 6:29 AM GMT
    I respect your opinion. I do still think however, that the headline of the thread can be shortened and be a little bit less loaded to the side the OP takes so people could have a more stable discussion.
  • arinano

    Posts: 81

    Mar 07, 2013 12:40 PM GMT
    Jasonfest saidWhat Rand Paul is doing is great! On this issue. he is very much in the correct. He doesn't want the President to have power to send a drone against somehow he doesn't like.

    Love how this is getting attention.

    Plus, he is showing the older senators (who may have forgotten) how to properly do a filibuster.

    Oh, and the title should just be about Rand Paul filibustering without all the other shit attached.


    Agreed. The title was a biased, offering more for rants than an actual discussion. Just wanted to say I thought Rand Paul was a libertarian? No way in hell would he criminalise abortion.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 07, 2013 4:24 PM GMT
    It's SO ironic that a republican .... who basically have hijacked our system of govt and turned it into a filibuster hurdle republic where the minority party has to verify Everything that the majority attempts to pass

    Rand Paul uses the instrument that was framed by the originators of our govt
    to do a rendition of Clint Eastwood's Chair speech
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 4:57 PM GMT
    Hmmm....when Bush was busily using drones certain people here took no issue with it.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/drones-explained

    "How long has the US been using drones as a weapon in the war against terrorism? The first known US drone strike against Al Qaeda operatives took place in Yemen on November 4, 2002. The attack, conducted by the CIA, took out a car carrying six suspected militants, including Abu Ali (a.k.a., Qaed Senyan al-Harthi), a former security guard for Osama bin Laden. Ali was wanted for playing a critical role in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which left 17 American sailors dead.

    Where did things go from there? After that initial strike, the Bush administration gradually ramped up the frequency of drone strikes, and then drastically ratcheted up the rate of drone strikes in Pakistan in the final year of his administration.

    Under President Obama, the program has grown bigger and more lethal: In Pakistan alone, Obama ordered five times as many drone strikes in his first term as Bush did in eight years. Or, as Peter Bergen noted last year:

    During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike there every four days."

    It appears Prez Obama is continuing the tradition.

    I find it creepy, but if you look at the article and the other countries up to the same mischief, you'll see it is yet another arms race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 5:08 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    meninlove said Hmmm....when Bush was busily using drones certain people here took no issue with it.

    You totally miss the point as usual. The issue with Rand Paul filibuster is not the use of drones in a military context. It is simply the failure of the Administration to agree with the unconstitutionality of using drones against US Citizens on US soil not engaged in an ongoing activity of insurrection.


    No I didn't miss the point, I made an observation in general about drones.

    Shouldn't you be complaining about the Left or something?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2013 6:59 PM GMT
    Nearly 13 hours long. Congrats to Rand. Republicans and/or Democrats could take this opportunity to propose scrapping this part of the law. Sadly though, this issue might just fade away.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 08, 2013 1:00 AM GMT
    Jasonfest said Congrats to Rand. Republicans and/or Democrats could take this opportunity to propose scrapping this part of the law. Sadly though, this issue might just fade away.


    Of course it's going to fade away: it never was an issue.

    No American has, will, or ever will be killed on American soil by a drone strike. That's called a NON-issue. It was a stunt, empty theater, sound and fury signifying nothing.

    The White House should not have dignified this silly claptrap by responding, any more than they should respond to a filibuster on any other made-up issue. What's next? "THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO RULE OUT BANNING SUMMER ICE CREAM SALES -- WHY WILL OBAMA NOT RESPOND???"

    I can't believe Democrats and progressives are falling for this utter foolishness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2013 1:27 AM GMT
    Then you do not need to legalize the ability for a drone TO kill an American citizen on American soil. Really that simple. But that was added onto a defense bill. Why? For no reason?

    * And I am waiting for this title to be shortened, so people can have a reasonable debate about this issue without the partisan goo slopped all over.
  • MusclFurPeX

    Posts: 166

    Mar 08, 2013 2:28 AM GMT
    "Executive assassinations, hyperinflation leading to populist dictatorships, ordinary Americans protecting themselves by launching insurgencies against the state - these are themes of Rand Paul's politics, now endorsed by his Republican Senate colleagues. Out of what doom-haunted imagination are such dark fantasies born? The Republican party used to be the party more serious about defending America. Now it provides a home to those more doubtful that America is worth defending."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2013 2:35 AM GMT
    Are you for the Patriot Act MusclFurPex?

  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 08, 2013 8:16 AM GMT
    Jasonfest saidThen you do not need to legalize the ability for a drone TO kill an American citizen on American soil. Really that simple. But that was added onto a defense bill.


    Oh really? What defense bill? Pray tell, what defense authorization act includes language allowing drones to kill Americans on American soil? Which Congressperson added the language? When did Obama sign this 'sure-to-be-found-Unconstitutional' imaginary defense bill authorizing the killing of American citizens in the streets of America into law?

    (I'm fascinated to see how these factless and ridiculous 9/11-Truther conspiracy theories get started and propagated by gullible psuedo-libertarian types.)
  • mybud

    Posts: 11838

    Mar 08, 2013 3:13 PM GMT
    He stopped his filibuster after 13 hours cause "nature called"....I'm going to send his Washington office a adult sized depends...Fox compared his speech to, "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington". NAHHHHH...watch the movie. Mr. Smith fought big business interests over those of the common man. The Republicans are living in this conceived world of make believe. I just wonder if they would be against drone attacks on our soil when Bush was in our office..They'd give a long winded answer but the short of it is NO. If an enemy combatant lives next door to me...bomb his ass to hell....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2013 6:35 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Jasonfest saidThen you do not need to legalize the ability for a drone TO kill an American citizen on American soil. Really that simple. But that was added onto a defense bill.


    Oh really? What defense bill? Pray tell, what defense authorization act includes language allowing drones to kill Americans on American soil? Which Congressperson added the language? When did Obama sign this 'sure-to-be-found-Unconstitutional' imaginary defense bill authorizing the killing of American citizens in the streets of America into law?

    (I'm fascinated to see how these factless and ridiculous 9/11-Truther conspiracy theories get started and propagated by gullible psuedo-libertarian types.)


    Actually, Eric Holder said that in a hypothetical situation such as the 9/11 attacks, drones can be used. Which means a drone can be used to kill Americans on a plane. Which means you are wrong.

    However, Eric Holder clarified the position after Rand's filibuster. In his letter he states:

    "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

    Sincerely,

    Eric H. Holder, Jr.


    I think it is good for the White House to ease fears over this situation which many people are concerned about. Especially, since the Patriot Act has been renewed.

    You also can have a debate with someone without being vile, which was how you were acting.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Mar 08, 2013 7:51 PM GMT
    Jasonfest said
    Actually, Eric Holder said that in a hypothetical situation such as the 9/11 attacks, drones can be used. Which means a drone can be used to kill Americans on a plane. Which means you are wrong.

    However, Eric Holder clarified the position after Rand's filibuster. In his letter he states:

    "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

    Sincerely,

    Eric H. Holder, Jr.


    I think it is good for the White House to ease fears over this situation which many people are concerned about. Especially, since the Patriot Act has been renewed.

    You also can have a debate with someone without being vile, which was how you were acting.


    No I am not wrong, you are lying and moving the goalposts: I didn't say anything about Eric Holder. i was responding to your specious claim that "it was added to a defense bill." Eric Holder is not a "defense bill," and neither did either holder ever say explicitly that Americans could be killed on American soil by drones. Please provide an exact quote, or stop telling lies.

    So....again, what DEFENSE BILL said it was okay to kill Americans on Americans soil? Still waiting for you to back up this claim. You said this was added to a DEFENSE BILL. Please provide evidence that language authorizing the killings of Americans on American soil was added to a DEFENSE BILL or retract your statement and stop spreading lies and false conspiracies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2013 9:13 PM GMT
    Eric holder explained what was authorized in the defense bill. I can look for the language if you are willing to be civil. If you continue to be vile I will not have this debate. If you want to convince someone, don't call them names. Take a deep breath and relax.