Rand Paul is Filibustering John Brennan

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


.

Nice to see somebody standing up for rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An old school filibuster. Shows you how serious Rand Paul is about this issue.

Can our government kill unarmed citizens, on US soil, with no due process?

I wonder why Holder had so much trouble with that question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do realize don't you that due process is complied with when federal (or state or local) cops shoot someone dead while in the commission of a felony ... without any warrant or hearing?

That is not due process. In fact, it might even be murder if the perpetrator is not committing a violent felony at the time the police shooting him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An old school filibuster. Shows you how serious Rand Paul is about this issue.

Can our government kill unarmed citizens, on US soil, with no due process?

Depends on the situation, of course. If Lincoln had drones, do you think he wouldn't have used them?

How about Pearl Harbor?

We all said another Pear Harbor was impossible but we thought no terrorist group would attack us on our own soil either.

The nutters say they want big guns so they can overturn the US government. Never mind how ludicrous that is, why would also demand the government not be able to kill terrorists on US soil?

Because they're ignorant, knee jerking hypocrites, that's why. If Bush had gone after US born terrorists on US soil, every American would have been behind him. Since its Obama (and since the R can't take credit), the rw's are in favor of letting terrorists go.

Do you understand the difference between responding to an attack and unilateral action? You whine about how Bush supposedly did the latter when he invaded Iraq.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I watched a bit of it earlier but he didn't last very long. All show and no go. Give him something shiny and put him back in his play pen.

He went for over three hours straight without a break, and the full filibuster is now over five hours. On what basis did he not last very long?

You should remember that Duddly lives in an alternate universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Depends on the situation, of course. If Lincoln had drones, do you think he wouldn't have used them?

How about Pearl Harbor?

We all said another Pear Harbor was impossible but we thought no terrorist group would attack us on our own soil either.

The nutters say they want big guns so they can overturn the US government. Never mind how ludicrous that is, why would also demand the government not be able to kill terrorists on US soil?

Because they're ignorant, knee jerking hypocrites, that's why. If Bush had gone after US born terrorists on US soil, every American would have been behind him. Since its Obama (and since the R can't take credit), the rw's are in favor of letting terrorists go.

If the NBPP or the militia mutts go crazy and start shooting then hole up somewhere that only a frontal assault will succeed, then call in the drones if they won't surrender peacefully.

I understand why Rand filibustered, but this is an issue only of technology not liberty.

That is because, if we are to listen to you, there are no issues of liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I watched a bit of it earlier but he didn't last very long. All show and no go. Give him something shiny and put him back in his play pen.

He went for over three hours straight without a break, and the full filibuster is now over five hours. On what basis did he not last very long?

Bernie Sanders - 8 1/2 hours
D'Amato - 15 hours and 14 minutes

LOL

Three hours is a long time to filibuster?

And, then he went back to his office to lie down.

I am watching him live right now, and he is still filibustering.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Depends on the situation, of course. If Lincoln had drones, do you think he wouldn't have used them?

There is no situation where I would support that. I find it disgusting that people can even begin to support this, especially when these are some of the same people that scream "foul" over the Patriot Act.

If they are a US citizen, on US soil, and they are unarmed, you arrest them. You don't just send in a drone strike.

I don't think you'll find anyone who would support any president being given the power to kill unarmed citizens just because he feels like it.

I posted a poll that found some people that support exactly that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/281885-this-country-is-seriously-fucked.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do realize don't you that due process is complied with when federal (or state or local) cops shoot someone dead while in the commission of a felony ... without any warrant or hearing?

Police are only allowed to kill a suspect when their life, or the life of someone else, is in danger. They are not allowed to kill someone just because they're committing a felony.

You are wrong. If a person has demonstrated proclivity for continuing violence in the community and refuses to surrender, the LEO is empowered to use violence as necessary.

Exactly, he has to be defending himself, or others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The judiciary is not the Supreme Authority of the United States of America. The Legislative branch has the authority to challenge the Executive branch on anything it wants to, up to and including the constitutionality of its policies.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I don't agree with Rand Paul most of the time; however, I certainly agree with him today. This is not a Left or Right issue, this is a civil liberties issue. The Federal Government does not have the right to deprive non-combatant American citizens of life without due process on US soil.

STAND WITH RAND!

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no situation where I would support that. I find it disgusting that people can even begin to support this, especially when these are some of the same people that scream "foul" over the Patriot Act.

If they are a US citizen, on US soil, and they are unarmed, you arrest them. You don't just send in a drone strike.

I don't think you'll find anyone who would support any president being given the power to kill unarmed citizens just because he feels like it.

I posted a poll that found some people that support exactly that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/281885-this-country-is-seriously-fucked.html

Not that at all. The term unarmed US citizen was never used in that poll. It is a disheartening poll however.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about Pearl Harbor?

We all said another Pear Harbor was impossible but we thought no terrorist group would attack us on our own soil either.

The nutters say they want big guns so they can overturn the US government. Never mind how ludicrous that is, why would also demand the government not be able to kill terrorists on US soil?

Because they're ignorant, knee jerking hypocrites, that's why. If Bush had gone after US born terrorists on US soil, every American would have been behind him. Since its Obama (and since the R can't take credit), the rw's are in favor of letting terrorists go.

If the NBPP or the militia mutts go crazy and start shooting then hole up somewhere that only a frontal assault will succeed, then call in the drones if they won't surrender peacefully.

I understand why Rand filibustered, but this is an issue only of technology not liberty.

That is because, if we are to listen to you, there are no issues of liberty.

You have nothing to say to the OP? We knew that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Police are only allowed to kill a suspect when their life, or the life of someone else, is in danger. They are not allowed to kill someone just because they're committing a felony.

You are wrong. If a person has demonstrated proclivity for continuing violence in the community and refuses to surrender, the LEO is empowered to use violence as necessary.

Exactly, he has to be defending himself, or others.

You continue to make no sense. Let me help you. If you are ordered to surrender to LEO and you refuse while posing a continuing threat, the LEO may use violence to take you down. Why you are doing what you are doing can be sorted out later. It may not be used as a defense to resist.

 

[wihosa]

Rand Paul putting on a show for the right wing. Got to keep his name in the news, 2016 isn't that far off.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

Rand Paul criticized Bush, Republicans, torture, Iraq war.

Rand Paul praised Liberals and Democrats who were consistent, Democrat Senator Wyden, 2007 Barack Obama.

So don't marginalize Pauls efforts as partisan.




.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rand Paul putting on a show for the right wing. Got to keep his name in the news, 2016 isn't that far off.

The right wing like the ACLU?

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU Backs Paul's Filibuster

 

[Avatar4321]

Rand Paul putting on a show for the right wing. Got to keep his name in the news, 2016 isn't that far off.

The right wing like the ACLU?

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU Backs Paul's Filibuster

Some people can't understand acting on principle.

I'd join with the ACLU on this as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand Paul putting on a show for the right wing. Got to keep his name in the news, 2016 isn't that far off.

The right wing like the ACLU?

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU Backs Paul's Filibuster

Some people can't understand acting on principle.

I'd join with the ACLU on this as well.

If the principle is unarmed citizen, yes, this is good. If Rand is educating America, yes, this is good. But if he already knows the admin won't drone unarmed civilians as the primary targets, then he is grand standing, yes.

 

[UKRider]

Rand Paul has learned how to exploit attention. He's rather good at it so that even if one will forget his stands they likely will remember his steadfast approach in the media.

He's certainly media savvy.

2020?