Rand Paul.... you been warned but people don't care

Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
You are going to regret the day when the gov't reserve the right to kill US citizens or allow collateral murder to stop a "suspected" terrorist or want to be terrorist

I can't believe that a president much less someone who wins a NObel Peace prize would ever allow such powers to be on the books

Considering the gov't never have a define clear cut description of what a terrorist actually consist of. Where the word terrorist is use so liberally anyone can be labeled as one
 
I don't know anything can be precieved as a threat these days...

Hey that kid that bit his sandwich into looking like a gun.... got expelled from school...:applause:
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']You are going to regret the day when the gov't reserve the right to kill US citizens or allow collateral murder to stop a "suspected" terrorist or want to be terrorist

I can't believe that a president much less someone who wins a NObel Peace prize would ever allow such powers to be on the books

Considering the gov't never have a define clear cut description of what a terrorist actually consist of. Where the word terrorist is use so liberally anyone can be labeled as one[/QUOTE]

Something tells me you don't know your American history if you think this is the first time that the government has killed citizens illegally.
 
I was glued to C-SPAN all night. I was disappointed more senators did not show up to debate him. Durbin was about the only person pushing back.

If Rand Paul does run in 2016, it'll probably be the first time I vote for a Republican presidential candidate.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Welcome back shocker![/QUOTE]
I see his name as the thread creator, yet I see no post, odd.:lol:
 
At least Paul forced a clarification, or rather backpedal, from the Obama admin's asserion that it has the legal right to murder US citizens on US soil at will. Oh yeah, and they (paraphrasing) "of course, won't use this."

I have major issues with Rand (besides his namesake) but I supported him in this move. Too bad he didn't filibuster the nomination of this scumbag Brennan. At least he brought attention to the issue of drones.
 
Well Paul only force a clarification, that the gov't won't murder you if you aren't in "armed" combat against the USA

Now if you are "armed" I am pretty sure you and everyone within your vicinity is fair game.

The USA didn't have a problem murdering a 16yr old american boy to kill his father tho... So you get the message
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']At least Paul forced a clarification, or rather backpedal, from the Obama admin's asserion that it has the legal right to murder US citizens on US soil at will. Oh yeah, and they (paraphrasing) "of course, won't use this."

I have major issues with Rand (besides his namesake) but I supported him in this move. Too bad he didn't filibuster the nomination of this scumbag Brennan. At least he brought attention to the issue of drones.[/QUOTE]

Yah, I'm not a huge Rand Paul fan, but this filibuster had bi-partisan support, and made Holder have to say, No, of course we won't use drones to kill Americans! -Not that I trust a damn thing Holder says, but at least he's on record now. As an Oregonian, our democratic senators are a couple of the most non-party platform guys in the Senate. I love it. Wyden is a champ, and Merkeley is on his way.
 
But bi partisan politics aside. What Rand Paul did was highlight an issue that would have flew under the radar for many a casual viewer of news/politics, he was a credit to his country and he stood up for what he believed in and what he believed to be right.
 
[quote name='granturismo']But bi partisan politics aside. What Rand Paul did was highlight an issue that would have flew under the radar for many a casual viewer of news/politics, he was a credit to his country and he stood up for what he believed in and what he believed to be right.[/QUOTE]

You're assuming that non-political junkies even care. Hell, even self-described political junkies have problems conceptualizing and articulating the issues surrounding drones as seen in the two threads here. Half the talk is about bullshit like "principles" and the rest is regarding who qualifies for being droned. Being against the droning of US citizens that have committed no crimes is one of the most basic an uncontroversial stances any politician can take. It's like saying that we shouldn't be beating our kids for breathing or wiping their ass after taking a shit.

He stood around talking for 13 hours? Good for him. We could've used that bullshit the second Obama got elected instead of the Republicans crying wolf for the last 4 years. That way, we'd have front row seats to see how they've been rendering the government impotent and obstructing Obama at every turn. But he doesn't get any credit from me by taking the safest bet in the house.
 
I wonder - if it's such a safe and "no brainier" of a stand, why is it pulling teeth to get the Obama administration to address it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder - if it's such a safe and "no brainier" of a stand, why is it pulling teeth to get the Obama administration to address it?[/QUOTE]

perhaps they incorrectly assumed that a US senator didn't need things explained to him like he was a child.
 
[quote name='usickenme']perhaps they incorrectly assumed that a US senator didn't need things explained to him like he was a child.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's fair to say. Holder's earlier statements were wishy washy and full of opportunities to claim loopholes. It makes for great politics for Paul and the others to support the filibuster due to the drone issue, but I do think some of the less self-aggrandizing politicians that supported him are worthy of compliment. They say it's a big issue to them, it IS a big issue to me, so anything they do to make the general public at least think about it, is a win for me.
 
MOST of the US SENATORS could give two shits about us as the people, they will all do their own thing while finding new ways to control us.

Paul brought up many points but it was all dismissed, which is a huge mistake.

It boggles my mind how we we started with the Patriot Act 1, 2, 3 etc etc, to allowing what basically amounts to a sexual assault in order to get in a plane, and now in 10 years we have reach the point where the gov't can legally just send a unarmed drone to kill you.

WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!PEOPLE......

While the other thread had bunch of gun nuts ramblings on, I can't help but maybe they might be right in their fear ...
 
[quote name='usickenme']perhaps they incorrectly assumed that a US senator didn't need things explained to him like he was a child.[/QUOTE]

The institution doing the explaining drone bombs hospitals, schools, funerals, and weddings. Oh, and they murdered a 16 year old American citizen because his dad (also an American citizen) wasn't politically correct. So yeah, they need to explain it as though they're talking to a child.

[quote name='joeboosauce']At least Paul forced a clarification, or rather backpedal, from the Obama admin's asserion that it has the legal right to murder US citizens on US soil at will. Oh yeah, and they (paraphrasing) "of course, won't use this."

I have major issues with Rand (besides his namesake) but I supported him in this move. Too bad he didn't filibuster the nomination of this scumbag Brennan. At least he brought attention to the issue of drones.[/QUOTE]

That's what his 13 hour thing on Wednesday was, a filibuster of Brennan's nomination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']The institution doing the explaining drone bombs hospitals, schools, funerals, and weddings. Oh, and they murdered a 16 year old American citizen because his dad (also an American citizen) wasn't politically correct. So yeah, they need to explain it as though they're talking to a child.

.[/QUOTE]

1.) that doesn't even make sense.

2.) that's NOT what Paul's filibuster was about.

3.) Stop listening to Alex Jones...It's not good for you
 
[quote name='usickenme']the only thing Paul did right was showing how great talking filibusters are....it's good theatre[/QUOTE]

So then what was Wyden's (D-OR) speech during the filibuster for? He's a senior senator who doesn't need the press for a run at President in 2016. I think you're drastically underestimating the impact. I don't think it was the greatest thing since a founding father speech, but he had one, very specific point that he wanted clarification on, and he forced Holder's hand to state when they wouldn't use a drone strike on a US citizen on American soil. It brought the idea prominently onto the public stage, and actually used the appropriate platform to get the point across. It would have been nice if Reid, or that pathetic wretch Lindsey Graham stepped up in a leadership role and demanded clarification, but they're gutless cowards.

I'm most impressed by Wyden in all of this, but thankful of Paul for organizing it.
 
[quote name='usickenme']1.) that doesn't even make sense.

2.) that's NOT what Paul's filibuster was about.

3.) Stop listening to Alex Jones...It's not good for you[/QUOTE]

1. If the government is going to assassinate American citizens abroad, has wholesale murdered Native Americans in its past, and is currently slaughtering foreign peoples every day in a global war on terror, it's a legitimate question to ask if it will use drone strikes on people it deems to be enemy combatants - the term used to describe Anwar Al-Awlaki - here in the U.S.

2. Then why did he bring up Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son?

3. Glenn Greenwald has written dozens of articles on the government's drone program. You should read more of him. It'll be good for you.
 
Paul did seem to have one 'question' that needed to be answered before he ended the filibuster: can Americans be targeted by predator drones while they're on American soil?

He did talk about other things but the condition of ending his filibuster seemed to be hinged on that one question being answered. And needing to take a wicked piss.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']1. If the government is going to assassinate American citizens abroad, has wholesale murdered Native Americans in its past, and is currently slaughtering foreign peoples every day in a global war on terror, it's a legitimate question to ask if it will use drone strikes on people it deems to be enemy combatants - the term used to describe Anwar Al-Awlaki - here in the U.S.

2. Then why did he bring up Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son?

3. Glenn Greenwald has written dozens of articles on the government's drone program. You should read more of him. It'll be good for you.[/QUOTE]


sure but what does any of that have to do with explaining things like a child would understand?

Paul mentioned a lot of things during the speech but (as noted) it was about one issue. As said by Paul

" No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court". I personally would removed the words "by a drone" but hey, that's just me.

Clearly Paul seems okay with drones being used as intended on foreign soil on suspected terrorists. He's called for the use of drones on the border. If he wants more oversight-THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE NOMINEE BRENNEN HAS SAID HE WANTS TO DO. Move it from the CIA to DOD. If it was about due process- he didn't need drones to start the conversation. If it was about action- where is the legislation (although he did introduce after the fact)


One ridiculous, sensationalized, unlikely, "hasn't even come close to happening" issue. And as soon as the White House clarifies it further for him. Paul fucking rolled over! Some hero.

I've read Greenwald but that doesn't mean I need to worship him.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So then what was Wyden's (D-OR) speech during the filibuster for? [/QUOTE]

He agreed with the question being raised. What I am saying is that there are real and legit questions about due process in this country / drone use worldwide/ executive powers. But the Venn diagram of these issue was such a tiny silver, it hardly had any real meaning at all.
 
[quote name='usickenme']And as soon as the White House clarifies it further for him. Paul fucking rolled over![/QUOTE]

Wasn't that what Paul wanted - clarification on the White House's stance?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wasn't that what Paul wanted - clarification on the White House's stance?[/QUOTE]

Keep up. The post I was responding mentioned other issues like drone strikes on Americans outside the US. (i.e. al-awlaki and his son). Neither Holder or Paul mentioned this
 
Paul wanted, all along, the official stance from the White House regarding the use of drone strikes within US borders.

The White House clarified their stance.

If he then went on and asked about drone strikes outside the US, the chicken gallery would be clucking stuff about "moving the goal posts" and such. Maybe, one day, Paul will pull another stunt like this and ask for official policy on overseas drone strikes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Paul wanted, all along, the official stance from the White House regarding the use of drone strikes within US borders.

The White House clarified their stance.

If he then went on and asked about drone strikes outside the US, the chicken gallery would be clucking stuff about "moving the goal posts" and such. Maybe, one day, Paul will pull another stunt like this and ask for official policy on overseas drone strikes.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, Bob. I personally think the drone use internationally is terrifying too, but Paul asked for clarity on the specific issue of drone strikes on Americans, which would violate due process. Assuming he's even remotely like his dad, Paul would be a fierce Constitutionalist, so while his view may be hurray international drones, or boo international drones, his request for clarification was on how the feds could apply drone strikes to US citizens, in the United States. You can lament him for not using the same filibuster to take on big oil, health care, or even ongoing international conflicts, but his point was regarding a specific issue, and one that Holder finally had to clarify, pretending like his first letter already did that, when it clearly did not.

I just don't get usickme's point (?) that we shouldn't celebrate Paul fighting for clarification, because that means he tacitly approves international drone strikes. I haven't seen anyone accuse him of that politically, in the news, or anywhere else, beyond usickme.

It's not fair to say Paul used the filibuster for just a sliver of good, so therefore fuck his efforts. Any good from it is a win, especially considering our Congress was involved, and a member of Congress actually achieved a positive goal. That's a rarity these days.
 
It still amazes me we've moved from the George Bush's Constitutional violations to this, Constitutional violations by a supposed Constitutional lawyer.
In fact on the drone issue Obama behaves like a fucking king. "Don't question me!!! I'm your President!!!!"(see: King in his behavior). It doesn't help that people like Bradley Manning have seen maximum charges being levied against them for just embarrassing our country in face. As an American I don't give a RATS ASS if my country(see: senators and others in government) are embarrassed by leaked material. Embarrassment alone does not make a set of documents confidential.
I imagine one day, if Eric Holder's policy stands true, I'll be vacationing overseas and be shot dead by a drone on a bullshit terrorist charge(see: disagreeing with our President/perhaps King at the time). Honestly, all of this information on drones and their abilities should terrify people. Besides the complete invasion of privacy considering we're talking fully roving cameras, it's only a matter of time, if you're lucky they'll arrest on some bullshit trumped up charge.
Heck when Obama's term is over will it truly be over? All my parents do is shrug their shoulders about this shit because they're Democrats. Well my mom says, "I know you feel strongly about this.". I don't think she fucking understands, most every "Freedom Of Speech" is being effected short of "Freedom Of Religion" and possibly "Right To Petition". What will happen with "Freedom Of Assembly" when people peaceably assemble and protest? People just shrug their shoulder and are fucking resigned. Jeez people, stop being so high, wake up out of your daze and shout this nonsense down.
edit: Hopefully since there are other jamming devices someone has a drone jamming device you can buy so some government degenerate won't try to play peek in your windows.
 
[quote name='berzirk']

I just don't get usickme's point (?) that we shouldn't celebrate Paul fighting for clarification, because that means he tacitly approves international drone strikes. I haven't seen anyone accuse him of that politically, in the news, or anywhere else, beyond usickme.

.[/QUOTE]


Hey celebrate it all you want. Want I am saying is that it really doesn't mean much. The "clarification" doesn't change the policy. (not to mention Paul was clearly exaggerating the policy parameters to score points with his base with the idea Obama is out to bomb people who disagree with him). If you read Paul's original letter to Brennen he posed a lot of good questions. Letter #2 zeros in on US citizens and the 3rd letter is only about US citizen's on US soil. The cynic in me thinks this is the result of which is politically looks good. And what do you know...Paul is parlaying his "stand" into a nice little fundraising effort.


National Review has a good summation http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342375/rand-paul-s-drone-war-editors

I'm not quite sure what Paul's stance on international drone strikes are. I do know that Drone are part of his border strategy.

It also strikes me as tremendously hypocritical when the some same people #standingwithRand, are largely the same people who cheered the Patriot Act because now they can get to criticize Obama.
 
[quote name='usickenme']sure but what does any of that have to do with explaining things like a child would understand?[/QUOTE]

Because the statement released by Holder is vague and either means nothing, or something much worse. "Enemy combatant" has been proven by both the Bush and Obama administrations (Jose Padilla, Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son for highest profile examples) to mean something other than someone actively engaging in acts of aggression. In reading Holder's statement in that context it is evident that the administration believes it does have the authority to assassinate an American citizen inside the US.

Paul mentioned a lot of things during the speech but (as noted) it was about one issue. As said by Paul

" No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court". I personally would removed the words "by a drone" but hey, that's just me.
Click to expand...
The filibuster was about due process and its relation to drone strikes and Brennan's nomination, so of course using "drone" is appropriate.

Clearly Paul seems okay with drones being used as intended on foreign soil on suspected terrorists. He's called for the use of drones on the border. If he wants more oversight-THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE NOMINEE BRENNEN HAS SAID HE WANTS TO DO. Move it from the CIA to DOD. If it was about due process- he didn't need drones to start the conversation. If it was about action- where is the legislation (although he did introduce after the fact)
Click to expand...
Yes, he is okay with drone use in US airspace, as evidenced by previous legislation (legalizing use of drones with a warrant) and his calls for using them on the border. Speaking of needing to explain things as though you were talking to a child... Brennan is the mastermind of the drone program, so it is perfectly appropriate to use the drone issue as the headline act.

One ridiculous, sensationalized, unlikely, "hasn't even come close to happening" issue. And as soon as the White House clarifies it further for him. Paul fucking rolled over! Some hero.
Click to expand...
An American citizen has been declared an enemy combatant and deprived of his rights. In America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29

Two other American citizens have been declared enemy combatants and then murdered. It's hardly ridiculous or sensationalized to raise concerns about the logical conclusion of these actions.

However, as noted, Rand Paul is no hero on this issue, and his milquetoast attack on executive authority attests to that. But I didn't call him a hero or claim his actions to be heroic, so this is irrelevant.

I've read Greenwald but that doesn't mean I need to worship him.
Click to expand...
Try harder next time.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']It still amazes me we've moved from the George Bush's Constitutional violations to this, Constitutional violations by a supposed Constitutional lawyer.
In fact on the drone issue Obama behaves like a fucking king. "Don't question me!!! I'm your President!!!!"(see: King in his behavior). It doesn't help that people like Bradley Manning have seen maximum charges being levied against them for just embarrassing our country in face. As an American I don't give a RATS ASS if my country(see: senators and others in government) are embarrassed by leaked material. Embarrassment alone does not make a set of documents confidential.
I imagine one day, if Eric Holder's policy stands true, I'll be vacationing overseas and be shot dead by a drone on a bullshit terrorist charge(see: disagreeing with our President/perhaps King at the time). Honestly, all of this information on drones and their abilities should terrify people. Besides the complete invasion of privacy considering we're talking fully roving cameras, it's only a matter of time, if you're lucky they'll arrest on some bullshit trumped up charge.
Heck when Obama's term is over will it truly be over? All my parents do is shrug their shoulders about this shit because they're Democrats. Well my mom says, "I know you feel strongly about this.". I don't think she fucking understands, most every "Freedom Of Speech" is being effected short of "Freedom Of Religion" and possibly "Right To Petition". What will happen with "Freedom Of Assembly" when people peaceably assemble and protest? People just shrug their shoulder and are fucking resigned. Jeez people, stop being so high, wake up out of your daze and shout this nonsense down.
edit: Hopefully since there are other jamming devices someone has a drone jamming device you can buy so some government degenerate won't try to play peek in your windows.[/QUOTE]

I believe most Americans with knowledge and information together would come roundabout to your conclusion. But the nation is polarized with a lot of misinformation, uneducated or uninformed people, spin, allegiance that you get such fierce opinions that allow the government and courts to basically break the law or make up bogus charges if anybody threats the elite establishment way of things.

People have said the police are the biggest gang on the streets for awhile. But if our government act like big terrorists themselves and courts like mafia men really the average mans voice becomes so insignificant. This is why Rand Paul's actions were very important.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']

blah, blah, blah

Try harder next time.[/QUOTE]


Speaking of trying hard. You didn't have to...just cutting and pasting Greenwald's most recent (albeit flawed) column wholesale instead of lifting out bits would've saved you a lot of time.

If you want to party because Paul "raised questions on the Senate Floor"...by all means. But I would recommend raising your bar. I was far more happy with the legislation he put forth on Friday after the publicity stunt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the more important questions to me would be what 'imminent threat' is defined as. THat should've been a more important issue for Paul to go to bat for. But as we've established, apple falls far from the tree.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Speaking of trying hard. You didn't have to...just cutting and pasting Greenwald's most recent (albeit flawed) column wholesale instead of lifting out bits would've saved you a lot of time.

If you want to party because Paul "raised questions on the Senate Floor"...by all means. But I would recommend raising your bar. I was far more happy with the legislation he put forth on Friday after the publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]

I think the point for me, and perhaps others who are thankful for what Paul did, is that it at least brought it up, made it a news story, and it even made Holder squirm a little and clean up his statement, then that's a win. It may not be a crushing 36-0 defeat for Holder, maybe a 3-0 Paul win, but he showed how to use the Filibuster properly, and over something that could impact ALL Americans, not just Tea Party, far right conservatives, or registered Republicans. So I do celebrate Paul, but more in an attempt to condemn his colleagues, who didn't have the sack or the motivation to do it, if they wanted clarification. A couple Congressman hashtagging isn't the same as a Senator speaking on the floor about the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually I believe Obama said only republicans would be targeted.

Pretty sure I read that somewhere.
 
[quote name='Clak']Actually I believe Obama said only republicans would be targeted.

Pretty sure I read that somewhere.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we need a stay irrelevant Clak thread to go with the keep it classy threads.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']....[/QUOTE]

[quote name='granturismo']+1[/QUOTE]

they must not teach satire in school anymore.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Speaking of trying hard. You didn't have to...just cutting and pasting Greenwald's most recent (albeit flawed) column wholesale instead of lifting out bits would've saved you a lot of time.

If you want to party because Paul "raised questions on the Senate Floor"...by all means. But I would recommend raising your bar. I was far more happy with the legislation he put forth on Friday after the publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]

I guess everyone should have just STFU and not raised this issue. Even if this so-called publicity stunt raised some publicity on drones. No, no, if you dissent don't bother doing anything at all.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think the point for me, and perhaps others who are thankful for what Paul did, is that it at least brought it up, made it a news story, and it even made Holder squirm a little and clean up his statement, then that's a win. It may not be a crushing 36-0 defeat for Holder, maybe a 3-0 Paul win, but he showed how to use the Filibuster properly, and over something that could impact ALL Americans, not just Tea Party, far right conservatives, or registered Republicans. So I do celebrate Paul, but more in an attempt to condemn his colleagues, who didn't have the sack or the motivation to do it, if they wanted clarification. A couple Congressman hashtagging isn't the same as a Senator speaking on the floor about the issue.[/QUOTE]

This.
 
[quote name='usickenme']they must not teach satire in school anymore.[/QUOTE]
:rofl: Just ignore them, I have. Perd offers so little as to make me ask why he posts here. Granny here is another bob/knoell clone, we've got plenty of those already.
 
I'm confused by some of the reactions here.

I, of course, question Rand's motives and timing, but I support his putting focus on the issue when nearly no one else in Congress has.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Maybe we need a stay irrelevant Clak thread to go with the keep it classy threads.[/QUOTE]

I think Clak is the most useless and ignorant person here. Now where is that ignore button?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top