Rand Paul is belting out an Old School Filibuster!!

[Freeper]

Who pissed in your Wheaties

No one I'm just not impressed with a half ass gesture. I'm tired of pretty speeches followed by no action. You can't make a stand then vote to confirm the next day and expect me to sing your praises.

[Freeper]

Well stated, sir. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one not guzzling the Paul flavored koolaid.

Hi5

[Splashdown]

I'm glad I'm not the only one not guzzling the Paul flavored koolaid.

Hi5

It's not Paul-flavored koolaid, at least not in my case. I just think it's refreshing to see a politician take a principled stand.

The thing that distinguishes conservatives from DUmmies and Paulbots, IMHO, is the idea that we KNOW our leaders are flawed. We're not looking for a savior or messiah, we're looking for the government to stay out of our way and have the least amount of direct influence in our daily lives as possible.

Nobody on this board, for example, voted for Romney because he was the elusive "perfect" candidate. We voted for him because he was the best alternative.

Similarly, I'm under no illusions about Rand Paul. I just appreciate when Senators do their part.

Shit, who stood up and voted down Geitner or Holder? Not the point. I guess I was just happy to see somebody actually DO a filibuster over something they think is important rather than just threaten one.

[thundley4]

This wasn't about Brennan, but more about drawing attention to Obama's drone policy and unwillingness to say that use of drones in the US to target US citizens is unconstitutional.

[DefiantSix]

It's not Paul-flavored koolaid, at least not in my case. I just think it's refreshing to see a politician take a principled stand.

What "principled stand" are you referring to?  Dr. Nutz Jr's dog and pony show for conservative cred yesterday, or the stand he's going to make today, voting to AFFIRM the guy who's all for enabling the president's authority as final judge, jury and executioner?

[Freeper]

This wasn't about Brennan, but more about drawing attention to Obama's drone policy and unwillingness to say that use of drones in the US to target US citizens is unconstitutional.

That makes me feel so much better that he is going to vote yes on Brennan.

I'm not impressed by this stunt that will lead nowhere.

[Dori]

This wasn't about Brennan, but more about drawing attention to Obama's drone policy and unwillingness to say that use of drones in the US to target US citizens is unconstitutional.

Ted Cruz;

“You keep saying appropriate.  My question isn’t about propriety.  My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

That inconvenient constitution keeps getting in Obummer's way.   It keeps telling him what he can't do.  

[Freeper]

What "principled stand" are you referring to?  Dr. Nutz Jr's dog and pony show for conservative cred yesterday, or the stand he's going to make today, voting to AFFIRM the guy who's all for enabling the president's authority as final judge, jury and executioner?

Thank you for understanding why I'm not impressed and expressing it better than I did.

[Freeper]

Glenn Beck is annoying me, he's on the Rand bandwagon.

[Splashdown]

What "principled stand" are you referring to?  Dr. Nutz Jr's dog and pony show for conservative cred yesterday, or the stand he's going to make today, voting to AFFIRM the guy who's all for enabling the president's authority as final judge, jury and executioner?

The principled stand of going against Holder's DOJ in favor of the Constitution. The vote, at least to me, is irrelevant--especially where it concerns the CIA position. Would he approve Holder again as AG? That's a more interesting question to me.

[Freeper]

The principled stand of going against Holder's DOJ in favor of the Constitution. The vote, at least to me, is irrelevant--especially where it concerns the CIA position. Would he approve Holder again as AG? That's a more interesting question to me.

If you look at his record, he would vote to confirm Holder because the preezy picked him and its not Rand's job to oppose his picks.

[Splashdown]

If you look at his record, he would vote to confirm Holder because the preezy picked him and its not Rand's job to oppose his picks.

And that's what would concern me more--especially after what Holder has said in front of Congressional hearings.

Like I said, no koolaid here. Just happy that someone with an (R) after his name did something.

[Freeper]

And that's what would concern me more--especially after what Holder has said in front of Congressional hearings.

Like I said, no koolaid here. Just happy that someone with an (R) after his name did something.

So that is our standard now, he did something?

If he stands up and votes no then I will give him kudos, if not I will continue to call this nothing but a stunt.

[IassaFTots]

So that is our standard now, he did something?

If he stands up and votes no then I will give him kudos, if not I will continue to call this nothing but a stunt.

Fair enough.  And for the moment, "doing something" is better than what has been the status quo for the last several years.   I hear what you are saying, but just maybe the reaction of the people who are invigorated by his actions will get the attention of other congresspeople, who might do MORE of something. 

That would be something, indeed. 

[Freeper]

Fair enough.  And for the moment, "doing something" is better than what has been the status quo for the last several years.   I hear what you are saying, but just maybe the reaction of the people who are invigorated by his actions will get the attention of other congresspeople, who might do MORE of something. 

That would be something, indeed.

Yeah this will inspire others to make a stink then vote yes the next day.

[IassaFTots]

Yeah this will inspire others to make a stink then vote yes the next day.

Your avatar suits you today.   

[Freeper]

Your avatar suits you today.   

Grumpy cat does not impress easily.

[BEG]

It's not Paul-flavored koolaid, at least not in my case. I just think it's refreshing to see a politician take a principled stand.

The thing that distinguishes conservatives from DUmmies and Paulbots, IMHO, is the idea that we KNOW our leaders are flawed. We're not looking for a savior or messiah, we're looking for the government to stay out of our way and have the least amount of direct influence in our daily lives as possible.

Nobody on this board, for example, voted for Romney because he was the elusive "perfect" candidate. We voted for him because he was the best alternative.

Similarly, I'm under no illusions about Rand Paul. I just appreciate when Senators do their part.

Shit, who stood up and voted down Geitner or Holder? Not the point. I guess I was just happy to see somebody actually DO a filibuster over something they think is important rather than just threaten one.

Exactly H5

[BEG]

Grumpy cat does not impress easily.

Understatement








I love you Freeper. 

[DefiantSix]

The principled stand of going against Holder's DOJ in favor of the Constitution. The vote, at least to me, is irrelevant--especially where it concerns the CIA position. Would he approve Holder again as AG? That's a more interesting question to me.

How can the vote for or against Brennan be irrelevant, when Brennan is the one going to be giving this "theoretical" judge, jury and executioner president the data he needs to decide who to target and with those drones, and where to target them - and APPROVES of the president assuming this extra-constitutional authority? Rand Paul is on record is ON RECORD, saying that for all of his wind and bluster yesterday, when the vote is called, he's going to meekly sit down and say "yes sir" to President Obama and his Imperial ambitions.

Words don't matter. Actions do.

[Dori]

The old ruling class of the GOP are not happy about Rand Paul doing this.  But while Paul was filibustering, they were out to dinner with Obama making deals.


John McCain and Lindsey Graham Declare War on Rand Paul

The anti-Rand Pauls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, took to the Senate floor this morning to defend killing American citizens at presidential discretion. Graham is doing so live on C-SPAN2 right now, saying that everything you do is a danger to America no matter who or where you are, as long as the U.S. government has decided you have "joined al-Queda," whatever the hell that means.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-declare-w

[Splashdown]

How can the vote for or against Brennan be irrelevant, when Brennan is the one going to be giving this "theoretical" judge, jury and executioner president the data he needs to decide who to target and with those drones, and where to target them - and APPROVES of the president assuming this extra-constitutional authority? Rand Paul is on record is ON RECORD, saying that for all of his wind and bluster yesterday, when the vote is called, he's going to meekly sit down and say "yes sir" to President Obama and his Imperial ambitions.

Words don't matter. Actions do.

Drone use in the US wouldn't be a CIA action, would it? Wouldn't it be under HSA or DOJ?

[IassaFTots]

The old ruling class of the GOP are not happy about Rand Paul doing this.  But while Paul was filibustering, they were out to dinner with Obama making deals.


John McCain and Lindsey Graham Declare War on Rand Paul

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-declare-w

This is why I am happy with the filibuster.  The old ruling class of the GOP needs to suck it.

[DefiantSix]

Drone use in the US wouldn't be a CIA action, would it? Wouldn't it be under HSA or DOJ?

All the intel has to come from sources which nominally answer to CIA. NSA, NRO, the whole toot & stumble; on paper they're all subordinate to the CIA director.

It's not like the CIA has never done intelligence gathering against Americans on American soil, is it? :cough: Echelon :cough:

[Freeper]

You all realize that Rand is going to vote the same way the establishment guys are, right?