The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: GOP Congress on March 06, 2013, 01:33:19 PM
-
Rand Paul is putting on an Old School Filibuster! He's been talking since 8:45 protesting John Brennan's nomination to the CIA Director post, citing Obama's negligence in providing proof that drones will not be used over US territory.
Link to Filibuster Clock: http://tinyurl.com/GOP-Filibuster-Mar-6
Live: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
-
Yeah, it is on CSPAN-2 right now.
He has a huge thick binder full of talking points. He said he will talk until he can't anymore.
-
Rand Paul is an idiot, and he's doing this just for show.
Just watch; when he runs out of breath, he'll vote to approve Brennan just like he did F'n Kommie and Hagel. And he'll trot out the same lame excuse when people ask what the **** he was thinking:
“I’m the same way on Brennan. I want more information on drone strikes in America. On final passage though I take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative in who he appoints to political appointees. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/why-did-sen-rand-paul-vote-to-confirm-chuck-hagel-heres-his-answer/)
:thatsright: Just **** off and die, Rand. :foff:
-
I'm not happy at the earlier concessions, but at least we have someone willing to go out and actually work the floor, and hope it starts a trend. ANY port in an Obama storm is ok.
-
I'm not happy at the earlier concessions, but at least we have someone willing to go out and actually work the floor, and hope it starts a trend. ANY port in an Obama storm is ok.
Agreed. I hope someone gets him some water.
-
Agreed. I hope someone gets him some water.
Yeah, because right now the sumbitch is in drydock and he's too stupid to figure that out.
-
Yeah, because right now the sumbitch is in drydock and he's too stupid to figure that out.
:hi5:
-
TAG TEAM!!
Senaor Mike Lee takes the tag, and moves into the limelight!!
-
I'm not happy at the earlier concessions, but at least we have someone willing to go out and actually work the floor, and hope it starts a trend. ANY port in an Obama storm is ok.
Did this filibuster blindside Dingy Harry?
I can see a vote for cloture heading for the floor in 3...2...1...
-
Tag team, changed title of countdown timer to GOP Senate Filibuster
http://tinyurl.com/GOP-Filibuster-Mar-6
-
Rand Paul is an idiot, and he's doing this just for show.
Just watch; when he runs out of breath, he'll vote to approve Brennan just like he did F'n Kommie and Hagel. And he'll trot out the same lame excuse when people ask what the **** he was thinking:
:thatsright: Just **** off and die, Rand. :foff:
Yep he was on Beck the other morning and said he will eventually vote for Brennan. All because he doesn't want the dems to not approve the next repuke's appointees. We have no one in DC worth a damn right now.
-
I'm not happy at the earlier concessions, but at least we have someone willing to go out and actually work the floor, and hope it starts a trend. ANY port in an Obama storm is ok.
He is just kissing us before he screws us. Seriously other than giving the DUmmies something to gripe and laugh about what is this going to accomplish? He's going to confirm him anyway.
-
Well, a Democrat has joined into the filibuster. Sen Ron Wyden, D-Oregon is now continuing the argument, trying to rebut a few of Rand's issues. Legally, he cannot cede the filibuster; only Rand Paul can do that, at least from my old knowledge.
-
Just found out about it and turned it on, awesome!
-
Still going?
-
Still going?
It looks like it. Lee, Cruz, Moran, Cornyn, Rubio and Chamblis have all stepped in to help. Oh and a Democrat too.
It sounds to me like this is more about Obama using drones to kill Americans than about Brennan's nomination.
-
It looks like it. Lee, Cruz, Moran, Cornyn, Rubio and Chamblis have all stepped in to help. Oh and a Democrat too.
It sounds to me like this is more about Obama using drones to kill Americans than about Brennan's nomination.
Yeah that's all it is about.
Brennan is going to get confirmed and Rand Paul will vote to confirm him.
-
(http://thelookingspoon.com/images/blog/2013/rand_paul_filibuster_rejects_obama_teleprompter.jpg)
-
Yeah that's all it is about.
Brennan is going to get confirmed and Rand Paul will vote to confirm him.
At least a republican is standing up. I'm not a Rand Paul fan, but at least he's not just rolling over.
-
At least a republican is standing up. I'm not a Rand Paul fan, but at least he's not just rolling over.
He's standing up just long enough to roll over.
-
However little Paul is doing, it's far more than any other republican has done so far.
-
12 hours.
-
Good for him.
-
I think this is the best constitutional lesson the public has been given in some time.
I hope it goes on long enough that it gets lots of mainstream exposure.
-
See I told you you non believers.
-
However little Paul is doing, it's far more than any other republican has done so far.
Our standards are really that low now? All it takes is someone that does just a little something that is meaningless in the end and we heap praise on him?
I'm sorry I'm not impressed when someone takes a limited stand then rolls over and votes to confirm the preezy's pick.
I realize that Paul's vote will not be the deciding vote and that Brennan will get confirmed without it, however I wish he would have the balls to stand up and vote no. I want people in our party who will actually take a stand and continue to until the end, even if they lose.
-
See I told you you non believers.
Unless Rand votes NO then I will continue to be a non believer.
-
Hell, even the DUmpmonkeys are cheering on Paul, "cheering" relatively speaking of course. Not worth posting in the DU thread because most of the comments are actually rational.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014417219
-
I'm not a believer and Rand will probably vote for 0bama's dr0nes but I'll cheer this on!
-
I'm not a believer and Rand will probably vote for 0bama's dr0nes but I'll cheer this on!
I will start cheering when we have someone who will stand up until the end.
-
I will start cheering when we have someone who will stand up until the end.
I am with you. But, I pray every day for Ted Cruz.
-
I am with you. But, I pray every day for Ted Cruz.
I'm sure he will piss me off someday too. :-)
All I ask is if you are going to take a stand, take a stand until the end. Don't take a stand then vote for confirmation the next day.
I can just imagine the campaign in 2016 if Rand is the candidate, "I actually voted against Brennan, before I voted for him". :banghead:
-
This was the fifth story on the low-info's favorite, Yahoo front page but now it is gone. Sharks in Florida are more important.
I sent them feedback. For all the good it will do.
-
I'm sure he will piss me off someday too. :-)
All I ask is if you are going to take a stand, take a stand until the end. Don't take a stand then vote for confirmation the next day.
I can just imagine the campaign in 2016 if Rand is the candidate, "I actually voted against Brennan, before I voted for him". :banghead:
I hear what you are saying, but hang tight on Ted for a little. He's done more in two months, than more have done in their whole career. I believe in him.
-
Ah, the great St. Crispin's Day speech from Henry V.
Once more into into the breach, dear friends, once more!
-
Patton speech, PG version.
-
Liberty does not have a party affiliation.
Except it isn't affiliated with the Democrat Party by the choice of that party.
-
I like him.
-
I hear what you are saying, but hang tight on Ted for a little. He's done more in two months, than more have done in their whole career. I believe in him.
Agreed H5
-
Rand Paul, the new Energizer Bunny.
-
IT'S OVER.
The point was made. Now let's see how the R's vote tomorrow.
Hopefully, they will carry this type of filibuster on any budget issues, particularly those involving Obamacare.
-
IT'S OVER.
The point was made. Now let's see how the R's vote tomorrow.
Hopefully, they will carry this type of filibuster on any budget issues, particularly those involving Obamacare.
If it is GOP business as usual tomorrow, then the Yahoo front page will win.
-
If it is GOP business as usual tomorrow, then the Yahoo front page will win.
Dr. Nutz Jr. is already on record saying he'll march in lockstep with the (RINO) GOP leadership, and affirm Brennan's nomination when the roll is called, so what, precisely, did li'l Randy accomplish by grandstanding for the flagging support of the conservative base?
Him who speaks (incessantly) with forked tongue will not tell me as much about his character by his words, so much as he'll show me his character by what he does, and tomorrow, Dr. Nutz Jr. is going to bend each of you over at the waist and - in chorus with the rest of the RINOs - gang rape every last one of you who thought this little day of political kabuki theater mattered a fraction of a rats ass.
Don't forget your rape whistles, kids. :thatsright:
-
IT'S OVER.
The point was made. Now let's see how the R's vote tomorrow.
Hopefully, they will carry this type of filibuster on any budget issues, particularly those involving Obamacare.
I can tell you how they will vote. Rand Paul, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and probably several other "GOP" senators will happily push the yes button and help Brennan become the next CIA director.
-
But it's not about the Brennan vote, I don't think. It's about a very real threat of executive branch overreach where drones are concerned. This just happened to be the issue that got filibustered.
That an R actually did an honest-to-God filibuster on an important point of Constitutional law makes me happy. I guess I'm not as jaded as I thought.
-
But it's not about the Brennan vote, I don't think. It's about a very real threat of executive branch overreach where drones are concerned. This just happened to be the issue that got filibustered.
That an R actually did an honest-to-God filibuster on an important point of Constitutional law makes me happy. I guess I'm not as jaded as I thought.
Yeah well wake me up when they actually back up their words by actually doing something.
The fact that a meaningless filibuster has everyone so happy shows how pathetic the political state of this country has become.
At the end of the day Brennan will be confirmed with plenty of help from the GOP, and the preezy will still reserve the right to use drones on anyone he wishes and even if he does go as far as to use one, all that will happen is some bellyaching, but no one will actually do anything to act on it.
I have a theory that the whole drone thing is a set up to begin with. Holder answers the questions like he did, some of the repukes throw a fit, then 0bama can go around and say, 'Gee those republicans are some nutty people" and the low information voters will eat it up.
-
But it's not about the Brennan vote, I don't think. It's about a very real threat of executive branch overreach where drones are concerned. This just happened to be the issue that got filibustered.
That an R actually did an honest-to-God filibuster on an important point of Constitutional law makes me happy. I guess I'm not as jaded as I thought.
Werd! H5
-
Yeah well wake me up when they actually back up their words by actually doing something.
The fact that a meaningless filibuster has everyone so happy shows how pathetic the political state of this country has become.
At the end of the day Brennan will be confirmed with plenty of help from the GOP, and the preezy will still reserve the right to use drones on anyone he wishes and even if he does go as far as to use one, all that will happen is some bellyaching, but no one will actually do anything to act on it.
I have a theory that the whole drone thing is a set up to begin with. Holder answers the questions like he did, some of the repukes throw a fit, then 0bama can go around and say, 'Gee those republicans are some nutty people" and the low information voters will eat it up.
Who pissed in your Wheaties
-
Who pissed in your Wheaties
Grumpy Cat. :-)
-
Yeah well wake me up when they actually back up their words by actually doing something.
The fact that a meaningless filibuster has everyone so happy shows how pathetic the political state of this country has become.
At the end of the day Brennan will be confirmed with plenty of help from the GOP, and the preezy will still reserve the right to use drones on anyone he wishes and even if he does go as far as to use one, all that will happen is some bellyaching, but no one will actually do anything to act on it.
I have a theory that the whole drone thing is a set up to begin with. Holder answers the questions like he did, some of the repukes throw a fit, then 0bama can go around and say, 'Gee those republicans are some nutty people" and the low information voters will eat it up.
Well stated, sir. :yeahthat: :agree: :werd:
-
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.
-
Well stated, sir. :yeahthat: :agree: :werd:
I'm glad I'm not the only one not guzzling the Paul flavored koolaid.
Hi5
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.â€
That inconvenient constitution keeps getting in Obummer's way. It keeps telling him what he can't do.
-
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.
-
Glenn Beck is annoying me, he's on the Rand bandwagon.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah this will inspire others to make a stink then vote yes the next day.
Your avatar suits you today. :tongue:
-
Your avatar suits you today. :tongue:
Grumpy cat does not impress easily.
-
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
-
Grumpy cat does not impress easily.
Understatement
I love you 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.
How can the vote for or against Brennan be irrelevant, when Brennan is the one going to be giving this "theoretical" :whatever: 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.
-
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
-
How can the vote for or against Brennan be irrelevant, when Brennan is the one going to be giving this "theoretical" :whatever: 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?
-
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.
-
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:
-
You all realize that Rand is going to vote the same way the establishment guys are, right?
-
You all realize that Rand is going to vote the same way the establishment guys are, right?
I wouldn't bet on any other outcome, but I would be pleasantly surprised if he didn't.
-
I'm on board with Freep and D6.
Rand Paul's bloviating, while a seeming breath of fresh air in a Senate notoriously devoid of any sort of meaningful activity at all (save sequestering Dingy Harry's old man farts), in the end will accomplish nothing.
He will meekly line up at the trough and strap on the feedbag and vote according to his master's (McConnell, et. al.) wishes.
What everybody is so ga-ga about isn't that Rand Paul did a bunch of overdue bloviating - it's simply that the Senate chambers have been so quiet over the past 4 years due to inactivity that ANY kind of shitstirring is seen as overwhelming show of force for Truth, Right, and the American Way.
Bullshit.
:yawn: Wake me up when Brennan's confirmed.
In the meantime, Juan McLame and the Kelsey Grammer wannabe are mad because they got upstaged. They're angry because Dr. Nutz Jr. decided that moving stale farts around the Senate chambers by bloviating for 13 hours was a new way of doing business.
Drones aren't the issue, and neither is Brennan. Dr. Nutz jr. is making political hay because he's angling for the 2016 GOP nomination.
Yeah, let's see how THAT one goes. :whatever:
-
I wouldn't bet on any other outcome, but I would be pleasantly surprised if he didn't.
Interesting, as long as he says the right things then he's a hero. His vote doesn't matter.
-
You all realize that Rand is going to vote the same way the establishment guys are, right?
I swear they're all doing this: :lalala: I know I've said it straight out at least 4 different times in this thread. Apparently though, the vote won't matter, but 12 hours of doing this (http://usmilnet.com/smf/Smileys/default/jerkit.gif) in front of the C-SPAN II cameras is pivotal.
-
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:
Point taken.
I guess that I'm so starved for something--ANYTHING--that shows the tiniest of backbone from a GOP Senator, that this small act, however insignificant, gave me some hope. Hell, Graham and McCain were DINING with 0bama while this was going on.
Better 12 hours of :jerkit: than the :leghump: that those two were doing with teh Won.
Who knows? If others see a positive reaction from the grassroots, maybe this idea that we need to stand up will take root.
-
Point taken.
I guess that I'm so starved for something--ANYTHING--that shows the tiniest of backbone from a GOP Senator, that this small act, however insignificant, gave me some hope. Hell, Graham and McCain were DINING with 0bama while this was going on.
Better 12 hours of :jerkit: than the :leghump: that those two were doing with teh Won.
Who knows? If others see a positive reaction from the grassroots, maybe this idea that we need to stand up will take root.
That was what I was trying to say, but I didn't match your eloquence. Thanks and H5.
-
I swear they're all doing this: :lalala: I know I've said it straight out at least 4 different times in this thread. Apparently though, the vote won't matter, but 12 hours of doing this (http://usmilnet.com/smf/Smileys/default/jerkit.gif) in front of the C-SPAN II cameras is pivotal.
I had to turn off Beck and Rush I'm so sick of hearing what a hero he is.
-
Splash, I think the point still isn't getting across.
While Rand Paul was blowing smoke up everybody's ass by exercising his vocal cords and moving stale air around the Senate chambers, Juan McLame and Kelsey Grammer were blowing smoke up everybody's ass by breaking bread with Barry and company.
The only difference was, Barry's bread wasn't stale.
The upshot is, these three so-called GOP senators are not in the game for you and me. They're in the game FOR THEMSELVES.
-
That was what I was trying to say, but I didn't match your eloquence. Thanks and H5.
I'm not saying that nothing good can come out if this. I'm saying Rand is not a hero and this filibuster is not going to change a damn thing in DC. When they start voting for what is right then I may join in the party, but all we have is pretty speeches and no action to back it up.
-
Splash, I think the point still isn't getting across.
While Rand Paul was blowing smoke up everybody's ass by exercising his vocal cords and moving stale air around the Senate chambers, Juan McLame and Kelsey Grammer were blowing smoke up everybody's ass by breaking bread with Barry and company.
The only difference was, Barry's bread wasn't stale.
The upshot is, these three so-called GOP senators are not in the game for you and me. They're in the game FOR THEMSELVES.
Exactly. How is Dr. Nutz Jr's vote to affirm Brennan different from Juan McLame's?
Last night, Paul was shoring up his power base by blowing sunshine up the asses of the conservative base. McLame was also shoring up his power base by sucking off Dear Leader.
-
That was what I was trying to say, but I didn't match your eloquence. Thanks and H5.
LOL :rotf:
-
I'm not saying that nothing good can come out if this. I'm saying Rand is not a hero and this filibuster is not going to change a damn thing in DC. When they start voting for what is right then I may join in the party, but all we have is pretty speeches and no action to back it up.
The subject changed didn't it? Who the hell was talking about this subject before on such a public scale?
-
LOL :rotf:
Wha? It's true!
-
The night before Paul started the fillibuster, he received a letter from Holder stating that Obama had the authority to use drones on Americans inside the country without due process. Rand Paul had written to Holder a month ago asking the Holder the question and threatened to fillibuster Brennan's nomination.
It was Brennan who told Paul to ask Holder.
Republicans don't get any attention from the MSM so as to get their messages out to the public, but having a 12 hour fillibuster sure did.
Rand Paul is on Rush's show right now, and said this is not about Brennan.
-
The subject changed didn't it? Who the hell was talking about this subject before on such a public scale?
Yeah the subject changed. No more gun control talk or sequester talk. Now we are squabbling over this. 0bama will come out with a statement saying he won't use drones in the US then there will be rejoicing throughout the land as the people all love 0bama again and no one will remember the sequester and how the country didn't collapse.
I honestly believe that Holder did this on purpose and we played right in to it.
-
Wha? It's true!
I was laughing at the :jerkit: & :leghump:
-
Yeah the subject changed. No more gun control talk or sequester talk. Now we are squabbling over this. 0bama will come out with a statement saying he won't use drones in the US then there will be rejoicing throughout the land as the people all love 0bama again and no one will remember the sequester and how the country didn't collapse.
I honestly believe that Holder did this on purpose and we played right in to it.
You are being a Debbie Downer today Freeper.
I still love you though.
-
I thought it was awesome, and no, it wasn't about Brennan's nomination. He wanted an answer about drones on U.S. Soil. This is what the Dems objected to. Objecting to this should make everyone on this board pause to think about where we're headed. You see anything in here about a nomination? No.
(http://i.imgur.com/1ylmA4W.jpg)
-
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/droneattacks_zps7c214107.png)
-
I thought it was awesome, and no, it wasn't about Brennan's nomination. He wanted an answer about drones on U.S. Soil. This is what the Dems objected to. Objecting to this should make everyone on this board pause to think about where we're headed. You see anything in here about a nomination? No.
(http://i.imgur.com/1ylmA4W.jpg)
H5
-
You are being a Debbie Downer today Freeper.
I still love you though.
I still love you guys but I am not celebrating. Someone has to be grounded in reality.
-
I still love you guys but I am not celebrating. Someone has to be grounded in reality.
Did that question that was the basis for the filibuster not deserve an answer? I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why Rand is a nut. Ron? Nuttier than a Payday. Rand? I'm not seeing it and I've followed him for a while.
-
I thought it was awesome, and no, it wasn't about Brennan's nomination. He wanted an answer about drones on U.S. Soil. This is what the Dems objected to. Objecting to this should make everyone on this board pause to think about where we're headed. You see anything in here about a nomination? No.
(http://i.imgur.com/1ylmA4W.jpg)
I'm mad about that too. But I expect the dems to act like that. I don't expect a conservative to confirm people like Brennan, Hagel, and Kerry.
-
Did that question that was the basis for the filibuster not deserve an answer? I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why Rand is a nut. Ron? Nuttier than a Payday. Rand? I'm not seeing it and I've followed him for a while.
I love you more more more more more...
-
Did that question that was the basis for the filibuster not deserve an answer? I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why Rand is a nut. Ron? Nuttier than a Payday. Rand? I'm not seeing it and I've followed him for a while.
Go bucks called him a nut not me. I simply said he is not the hero that he has been made out to be. If I wanted a Senator to rubber stamp all of 0bama's picks I would support the dem.
-
How about this lets say that Rand is president the house and senate are dem controlled. They pass a massive tax hike. Would Rand veto it or decide that since congress passed it he better sign it because someday a GOP house and senate will be under a dem president and he would want the dem to not veto.
This is how he is on appointments.
-
The night before Paul started the fillibuster, he received a letter from Holder stating that Obama had the authority to use drones on Americans inside the country without due process. Rand Paul had written to Holder a month ago asking the Holder the question and threatened to fillibuster Brennan's nomination.
It was Brennan who told Paul to ask Holder.
Republicans don't get any attention from the MSM so as to get their messages out to the public, but having a 12 hour fillibuster sure did.
Rand Paul is on Rush's show right now, and said this is not about Brennan.
WSJ had an op-ed on this in today's paper. In short, they said (and I agree), Senator, put down the f'n crack pipe and stop prancing like the fool you are.
What Holder said (poorly) was that yes, Obama and his Boys in the Hood have the authority to go after enemy combatants, regardless where they're at - even on American soil.
The analogy was made of Hanoi Jane being an "enemy combatant" to the point that Barry could send a drone after her ass. (As much as the idea appeals to me, the fact is, from a legal perspective, Hanoi Jane is NOT an enemy combatant. She's a fruitloop moonbat socialist/marxist/communist, but she's not an enemy combatant.)
This was not the case with al Lawaki who, as a member of al Qaeda, most definitely was an enemy combatant.
Holder is such a ****ing tool that he had to publish a 'clarification' a few minutes ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/07/obama-holder-paul-drone-strikes/1970819/
-
I thought it was awesome, and no, it wasn't about Brennan's nomination. He wanted an answer about drones on U.S. Soil. This is what the Dems objected to. Objecting to this should make everyone on this board pause to think about where we're headed. You see anything in here about a nomination? No.
(http://i.imgur.com/1ylmA4W.jpg)
Documents like this cause hemmorrhoids when I use them to wipe my ass.
-
Splash, I think the point still isn't getting across.
Eupher, just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean we don't know how to read. Your case is based on characterizing this as "blowing sunshine up" asses, "moving farts around the senate floor" and name-calling "Dr. Nutz, Jr." This has not sold me on your case.
I do not think Rand Paul is a crackpot or a nut. That case hasn't been proven to me, either.
-
Eupher, just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean we don't know how to read. Your case is based on characterizing this as "blowing sunshine up" asses, "moving farts around the senate floor" and name-calling "Dr. Nutz, Jr." This has not sold me on your case.
I do not think Rand Paul is a crackpot or a nut. That case hasn't been proven to me, either.
Karin, will Dr. Nutz Jr's own words be sufficient to convince you?
"I filibustered him twice because I wanted more information, and I think when Republicans stick together we could get information. I was disappointed several on my side after they filibustered him immediately announced they wouldn’t continue the filibuster so we never got the information,†said Sen. Paul.
“I’m the same way on Brennan. I want more information on drone strikes in America. On final passage though I take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative in who he appoints to political appointees.
“So I would like to get as much information as we can. I will stick with the party, if the party will stick together to try to get more information. In the end I voted for John Kerry also although I agree with almost nothing that John Kerry represents,†he added.
<snip>
Oh, by the way, as noted by BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray, Sen. Paul told reporters Tuesday he never got the information he was looking for on Hagel.
The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/why-did-sen-rand-paul-vote-to-confirm-chuck-hagel-heres-his-answer/)
-
Eupher, just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean we don't know how to read. Your case is based on characterizing this as "blowing sunshine up" asses, "moving farts around the senate floor" and name-calling "Dr. Nutz, Jr." This has not sold me on your case.
I do not think Rand Paul is a crackpot or a nut. That case hasn't been proven to me, either.
He hasn't earned my trust.
-
Karin, will Dr. Nutz Jr's own words be sufficient to convince you?
What surprised me was Beck was not happy with Rand's explanation of why he voted for Hagel. Yet today Rand was the next sliced bread. I had to turn off Rush and Hannity too. They are all dancing in the streets.
-
What surprised me was Beck was not happy with Rand's explanation of why he voted for Hagel. Yet today Rand was the next sliced bread. I had to turn off Rush and Hannity too. They are all dancing in the streets.
I turned off Rush about 5 minutes into his interview with Dr. Nutz Jr, about the time I heard the clown start recycling the same crap in the same sequence that he did on Beck's show. It reminded me of those old morning radio shows that would get a set of canned interview answers from some celebrity or other, and the show hosts would ask the questions, and their sound engineer would play the canned answers right on cue. Some of the better ones could re-arrange the answers so that the hosts could ask questions in the order they wanted to, but it was the same, identical answer.
-
Eupher, just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't mean we don't know how to read. Your case is based on characterizing this as "blowing sunshine up" asses, "moving farts around the senate floor" and name-calling "Dr. Nutz, Jr." This has not sold me on your case.
I do not think Rand Paul is a crackpot or a nut. That case hasn't been proven to me, either.
Uh, Karin, nobody accused you of reading comprehension problems -- least of all me.
I think, based on what I've read, that Rand Paul was performing a publicity stunt. (BTW, I came to this conclusion before I read the WSJ op-ed, FWIW.)
But I like the way the WSJ put it -- that basically all that Rand Paul did was incite the Libertarian kids in their dorm rooms. That he (Dr. Nutz Jr.) doesn't know what he's talking about.
Don't be surprised if Dr. Nutz Jr. throws his hat in the GOP ring for 2016. :whatever: But hell, it's a dirty job -- someone's got to do it.
-
Uh, Karin, nobody accused you of reading comprehension problems -- least of all me.
I think, based on what I've read, that Rand Paul was performing a publicity stunt. (BTW, I came to this conclusion before I read the WSJ op-ed, FWIW.)
But I like the way the WSJ put it -- that basically all that Rand Paul did was incite the Libertarian kids in their dorm rooms. That he (Dr. Nutz Jr.) doesn't know what he's talking about.
Don't be surprised if Dr. Nutz Jr. throws his hat in the GOP ring for 2016. :whatever: But hell, it's a dirty job -- someone's got to do it.
He has Glenn Beck's support for president.
-
He has Glenn Beck's support for president.
:lmao: :rotf:
Glenn Beck and his chalkboard.
How charming. :rofl:
-
He has Glenn Beck's support for president.
Charles Krauthammer said his fillibuster was a brilliant political move.
-
I see another division coming. Just sayin'.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, it's when you denigrate others opinions that you drive them away.
Again, just saying...
-
Charles Krauthammer said his fillibuster was a brilliant political move.
As compared to what? Eric Holder's letter to Dr. Nutz Jr.? I'd definitely agree with that.
In a couple of days, all of this will die off. Brennan goes to CIA, drones continue to fly, and the Fed keeps printing money.
-
I'm doing this from my phone. Any word on how he voted?
-
I'm doing this from my phone. Any word on how he voted?
Rand Paul voted nay.
-
Cruz and Cornyn also voted Nay. Proud of my Texan Senators. Curious, Paul votes Nay, Rubio votes Yay??
-
Cruz and Cornyn also voted Nay. Proud of my Texan Senators. Curious, Paul votes Nay, Rubio votes Yay??
Rubio worries me more than Paul.
.
-
I have never been a Rand Paul fan as I see way too much of his dear old dad in him, but I have to applaud his efforts and I give him props for having the courage to do what they all should be doing.
McCain bitching about it totally turns my stomach.
-
Charles Krauthammer said his fillibuster was a brilliant political move.
It absolutely was.
-
I have never been a Rand Paul fan as I see way too much of his dear old dad in him, but I have to applaud his efforts and I give him props for having the courage to do what they all should be doing.
McCain bitching about it totally turns my stomach.
My sentiments exactly.
-
It absolutely was.
In what way?
I didn't see Krauthammer's commentary, so I don't know on what basis he gives a rousing "thumbs-ups" to Paul's bladder-busting performance.
-
In what way?
I didn't see Krauthammer's commentary, so I don't know on what basis he gives a rousing "thumbs-ups" to Paul's bladder-busting performance.
In the sense of him getting name recognition with more people it was a good move.
-
In what way?
I didn't see Krauthammer's commentary, so I don't know on what basis he gives a rousing "thumbs-ups" to Paul's bladder-busting performance.
Senator Paul’s filibuster is a great demonstration of what the Senate is for: putting the brakes on things, slowing things down, forcing debate and discussion.
He united the tea party, far right conservatives with libertarians on an extreme issue that the White House walked right into, and most importantly he highlighted to the Senate and the country that there is absolute limits on the President's authority.
He is not a god. He is not a dictator. We are a Republic.
Pathetic the reminder needed to come, but he delivered that reminder loud and clear.
-
In the sense of him getting name recognition with more people it was a good move.
He lit a fire under the asses of those who are otherwise complacent. I think he made a brilliant move that will prove to be good for the party in the long run.
-
There isn't a conservative Superman out there. There just isn't, probably because there's no such thing. We have to go with the guys we've got.
Maybe Rand Paul is "Dr. Nutz II: Return of the Crazy." Maybe not. Either way, it was good to see someone stand up.
-
I didn't hear about the filibuster until it was already over. But I did like some of the excerpts that I heard the next day.
He said what needed saying IMO.
-
There isn't a conservative Superman out there. There just isn't, probably because there's no such thing. We have to go with the guys we've got.
Maybe Rand Paul is "Dr. Nutz II: Return of the Crazy." Maybe not. Either way, it was good to see someone stand up.
The fact that he voted no makes me feel a little better, but I don't think this filibuster is going to change a damn thing.
This reminds me very much of the first debate between R-Money and Lord Zero, we were all celebrating and thinking that we won the election that night. We all know what happened, so I learned my lesson I will not get excited or think that any event is going to impact anything in the future in a positive way.
-
The fact that he voted no makes me feel a little better, but I don't think this filibuster is going to change a damn thing.
This reminds me very much of the first debate between R-Money and Lord Zero, we were all celebrating and thinking that we won the election that night. We all know what happened, so I learned my lesson I will not get excited or think that any event is going to impact anything in the future in a positive way.
After the disappointment of Robert's vote on Obamacare, I braced myself for Obama's re-election. What Rand Paul did maybe wasn't any big deal, but I keep looking for Politicans who might have enough back-bone to risk their careers to bring issues out into the open. Rand wasn't just bucking up against Obama, he was also bucking the Republican establishment. And that part I loved. :-)
-
After the disappointment of Robert's vote on Obamacare, I braced myself for Obama's re-election. What Rand Paul did maybe wasn't any big deal, but I keep looking for Politicans who might have enough back-bone to risk their careers to bring issues out into the open. Rand wasn't just bucking up against Obama, he was also bucking the Republican establishment. And that part I loved. :-)
Don't get me started on Roberts. :-)
-
He united the tea party, far right conservatives with libertarians on an extreme issue that the White House walked right into, and most importantly he highlighted to the Senate and the country that there is absolute limits on the President's authority.
He is not a god. He is not a dictator. We are a Republic.
Pathetic the reminder needed to come, but he delivered that reminder loud and clear.
I'll grant you it's pathetic that the Republican strategy is to allow Dr. Nutz Jr. to babble for 13 hours. And it's pathetic that Barry and his Butt Buddies get exactly what they want because the Republicans are too weak to put much of a dent in his agenda.
You're right - Barry is not a god and he is not a dictator. But we stopped being a republic when Congress failed to pass a budget 4 years ago. Now, what was that about Barry's not being a god and dictator?
I'm just disgusted with the whole freakin' mess. Boehner is completely ineffective, McConnell is portrayed as a mean, vicious old man (unlike Dingy Harry who IS a mean, vicious old man) and it's business as usual.
Rand Paul goes on a rant, everybody marvels at his bladder control capability, and it's right back to the status quo. :whatever:
-
I'll grant you it's pathetic that the Republican strategy is to allow Dr. Nutz Jr. to babble for 13 hours. And it's pathetic that Barry and his Butt Buddies get exactly what they want because the Republicans are too weak to put much of a dent in his agenda.
You're right - Barry is not a god and he is not a dictator. But we stopped being a republic when Congress failed to pass a budget 4 years ago. Now, what was that about Barry's not being a god and dictator?
I'm just disgusted with the whole freakin' mess. Boehner is completely ineffective, McConnell is portrayed as a mean, vicious old man (unlike Dingy Harry who IS a mean, vicious old man) and it's business as usual.
Rand Paul goes on a rant, everybody marvels at his bladder control capability, and it's right back to the status quo. :whatever:
I don't think that was or is the Republican strategy, but I'll take it.
-
I wonder...
Are some holding the sins of the father against the son?
-
I wonder...
Are some holding the sins of the father against the son?
Not me, particularly.
But I do have a problem with this:
Scarcely a day passes that we don’t find out something new and objectionable about Dr. Rand Paul. The risk in the pile-on is that a real doozie will get missed, lost in the daily torrent. The recent news—his lack of standard certification as an ophthalmologist and its relationship to his self-anointing and self-created National Board of Ophthalmology—is just such a Big Deal. Its specifics, however, are so complicated and unrewarding to follow as to threaten to place it on the endangered scandal list.
I am here to make certain that we don’t let this one slide. His decision to sidestep the standard way doctors are certified in America is—even by summer politician standards—slimy, lazy, self-serving, and, important to remember as we sink deeper into his muck, revealing of the real reason for his me-against-the-Man shtick. (Hint: He’s not looking out for you, Mr. Little Guy). But before we read from the latest entry of the Randiad, let me guide you through the mind-numbing world of American physician credentialing.
Rest at the link. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/15/rand-paul-opthamology-certification-scandal-why-it-matters.html)
I'm convinced this particular "slimy, lazy, self-serving" senator is just that. And his political grandstanding was nothing more than a gimmick to get him air time -- which, of course, we're gloriously accommodating.
-
I don't think that was or is the Republican strategy, but I'll take it.
That's precisely my point. The Republican leadership did nothing but stare back in awestruck wonder at the Man With The Granite Bladder.
No plan, no strategy, just let the man strut his stuff.
Disgusting.
-
the Man With The Granite Bladder
Maybe he planned ahead (http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A20100112000).
-
Not me, particularly.
But I do have a problem with this:
Rest at the link. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/15/rand-paul-opthamology-certification-scandal-why-it-matters.html)
Um, that's a Daily Beast article.....just saying.
-
Maybe he planned ahead (http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A20100112000).
"Urine Collection Device (UCD), Contingency Bag"
:rotf:
-
Um, that's a Daily Beast article.....just saying.
Don't like that one?
Okay, try this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/tea-party-favorite-dr-rand-paul-board-certified-doctor-claims-report-article-1.179495
Or this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007639-503544.html
(that one goes into a little more detail about his excuse-making and chicanery, but that may not matter to you Rand Paul worshipers)
And here's yet another one:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/15/rand-pauls-medical-certification-challenged/
No matter where you read it or how you slice it, here you have evidence of a politician who likes to pad his resume.
Where I come from, that's grounds for instant dismissal. And yet the poor, misguided children from the Commonwealth of Kentucky voted that chump into office.
Game, set, and match, Dori.
-
For me, the jury is still out on Rand Paul. I wrote his dad off as a foreign policy whackjob a long time ago.
While I'm glad to have seen this filibuster because someone in the Republican party finally showed some backbone, I agree with other posters that the real proof will be how he votes.
-
For me, the jury is still out on Rand Paul. I wrote his dad off as a foreign policy whackjob a long time ago.
While I'm glad to have seen this filibuster because someone in the Republican party finally showed some backbone, I agree with other posters that the real proof will be how he votes.
He's already voted.
-
Did someone post the vote? I didn't see it if they did.
-
Did someone post the vote? I didn't see it if they did.
Upthread some, I believe. The upshot is, Rand Paul did NOT vote for Brennan.
-
Upthread some, I believe. The upshot is, Rand Paul did NOT vote for Brennan.
Thanks. At least he backed it up with something that mattered--voting NO on Brennan--even though enough of the Republicans caved. What's new?
-
Agt least he backed it up with something that mattered--voting NO on Brennan--even though enough of the Republicans caved. What's new?
Yeah, I give him credit for sticking to his principles. Juan McLame and Kelsey Grammer have principles too -- RINO principles.
-
Here are the NO votes (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/03/senators-who-voted-no-on-brennan-nomination-158790.html).
-
Here are the NO votes (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2013/03/senators-who-voted-no-on-brennan-nomination-158790.html).
I don't see Dan Coates on that list. He lost my vote.
-
Don't like that one?
Game, set, and match, Dori.
It is? I read the articles. They are referring to an article originally written by the Courier-Journal, but it's no longer posted on their website. However the CBS article in your link did give Rand the opportunity to explain himself a little better. It appears he is not the only opthamologist to have done this. He said there are 200 others If this was a serious issue, wouldn't the state have yanked his license?
-
It is? I read the articles. They are referring to an article originally written by the Courier-Journal, but it's no longer posted on their website. However the CBS article in your link did give Rand the opportunity to explain himself a little better. It appears he is not the only opthamologist to have done this. He said there are 200 others If this was a serious issue, wouldn't the state have yanked his license?
So you don't deny that he padded his resume?
Making excuses and pointing toward others is the first sign of someone who won't take accountability for his actions. Does this sound like a person like this should be a senator?
If anything, Rand Paul should be held to a slightly tougher standard than your average freshly-graduated college boy who interned at a Boy Scout camp and called it "youth counseling" on his resume.
Looks to me like you're making excuses for him.
-
I don't see Dan Coates on that list. He lost my vote.
Didn't see Rubio either. At least Rand Paul voted against, also my old senator Blunt of Mo. voted against him.
-
So you don't deny that he padded his resume?
Making excuses and pointing toward others is the first sign of someone who won't take accountability for his actions. Does this sound like a person like this should be a senator?
If anything, Rand Paul should be held to a slightly tougher standard than your average freshly-graduated college boy who interned at a Boy Scout camp and called it "youth counseling" on his resume.
Looks to me like you're making excuses for him.
Um, Euph, I think you may be a little.........."picky".
The organization that works with the American Medical Association to approve specialty boards of this nature, as the Courier-Journal notes, is called the American Board of Medical Specialties. And it does not recognize Paul's group.
Seriously, the AMA ? a left wing group ? Only 20% of doctors belong to the AMA. :whatever:
.
-
Um, Euph, I think you may be a little.........."picky".
Your opinion is noted.
Seriously, the AMA ? a left wing group ? Only 20% of doctors belong to the AMA. :whatever:
.
Did the man make an unsubstantiated claim regarding his certification (or lack thereof) or didn't he? That's a straight up question -- either yes or no.
Excusing this kind of behavior makes you both look...."unpicky."
Again, where I come from, this kind of shit results in getting the boot. No excuses. You publish a CV or resume, it had better be accurate especially concerning certifications. This guy forms his own "group" for Christ's sake and certifies himself. AYFKM?
You can look the other way all day long, but that doesn't change the facts.
-
This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.
-
This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.
Okay from now on I will blindly follow whoever the conservative hero of the day is.
This has nothing to do with purity it has nothing to do will his dad it has to do with he has not earned my trust because of his own actions.
-
Okay from now on I will blindly follow whoever the conservative hero of the day is.
This has nothing to do with purity it has nothing to do will his dad it has to do with he has not earned my trust because of his own actions.
Where did I infer anything about blind following?
-
This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.
Add this to the fact that if he becomes a national figure, the media will be ready to rip him to shreds.
-
Where did I infer anything about blind following?
You are complaining that some of us haven't jumped on the Randwagon.
-
You are complaining that some of us haven't jumped on the Randwagon.
Nice. :-)
h5
I see the schmuck not in the same manner as I see his father.
Rand might be worse because he's smarter about his bullshit than his father is.
-
Nice. :-)
h5
I see the schmuck not in the same manner as I see his father.
Rand might be worse because he's smarter about his bullshit than his father is.
Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.
Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.
-
This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.
:clap:
-
So you don't deny that he padded his resume?
Making excuses and pointing toward others is the first sign of someone who won't take accountability for his actions. Does this sound like a person like this should be a senator?
If anything, Rand Paul should be held to a slightly tougher standard than your average freshly-graduated college boy who interned at a Boy Scout camp and called it "youth counseling" on his resume.
Looks to me like you're making excuses for him.
I don't know what you mean by "padding his resume", when he wrote it, or making excuses for him. I'm not challenging your opinion of Rand Paul. Like I've said twice, I don't really know anything about Rand as I have not followed him, but I did like what he did in the filibuster (for many reasons) and I take it you didn't and that you don't like Rand Paul. Your also of the opinion that I'm defending him, yet you seem to want to post information to use against him.
What I did wonder about was your reference. Opinion pieces referencing an article that is no longer available does make me ask questions about who wrote it and why. I am always suspect of today's news regarding Republicans. The "Daily Beast" (refering to the "Journal" article) was attempting to rebroadcast Rand Paul as a dishonest person. It didn't give Rand's side of the story. I also don't know who the person writing the article is and what his purpose was for bringing it up.
Like I said before, the CBS article did quote Rand. I don't know if Rand lied on his resume or not, as I have never seen it. (but I will look for it, along with other things). Was he a member of the board your talking about? Yes he was and it ran out after ten years, and apparently (according to the article) thousands of other doctors who received certifications have not been re-certified either. Not sure what it's importance is. My other question being, if this was an issue now, wouldn't the state have pulled his license over it? Maybe they did, I don't know yet.
I'm also not sure what you meant by your other point, regarding what the differences are between Boy Scout interns and youth counselors. When I went to Girl Scout camp we called our interns counselor.
-
Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.
Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.
Very true ... it's a start ....
It's how the (R) in our N. IL county went from "Elitest , self serving(R)ino to a very conservative (R) party ... one small step at a time ....
-
I don't know what you mean by "padding his resume", when he wrote it, or making excuses for him. I'm not challenging your opinion of Rand Paul. Like I've said twice, I don't really know anything about Rand as I have not followed him, but I did like what he did in the filibuster (for many reasons) and I take it you didn't and that you don't like Rand Paul. Your also of the opinion that I'm defending him, yet you seem to want to post information to use against him.
What I did wonder about was your reference. Opinion pieces referencing an article that is no longer available does make me ask questions about who wrote it and why. I am always suspect of today's news regarding Republicans. The "Daily Beast" (refering to the "Journal" article) was attempting to rebroadcast Rand Paul as a dishonest person. It didn't give Rand's side of the story. I also don't know who the person writing the article is and what his purpose was for bringing it up.
Like I said before, the CBS article did quote Rand. I don't know if Rand lied on his resume or not, as I have never seen it. (but I will look for it, along with other things). Was he a member of the board your talking about? Yes he was and it ran out after ten years, and apparently (according to the article) thousands of other doctors who received certifications have not been re-certified either. Not sure what it's importance is. My other question being, if this was an issue now, wouldn't the state have pulled his license over it? Maybe they did, I don't know yet.
I'm also not sure what you meant by your other point, regarding what the differences are between Boy Scout interns and youth counselors. When I went to Girl Scout camp we called our interns counselor.
:banghead: Never mind. Just chalk up the whole damned thing to a "spirit of the moment" reflex.
-
Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.
Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.
Gotta start somewhere and be bold.
-
Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.
Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.
Sure, I'll give him points for being semi-creative. There hadn't been an old-fashioned, bladder-bustin' filibuster since way, way back in.....
wait for it......
2010.
Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? :whatever:
Personally, I think that Rand is positioning himself for a run in 2016 -- and I can see the media eating him for lunch. Why? Well, I'll admit he's not nearly the kind of shitstick that Biden is - plagiarizer par excellence - but he's second tier schmuck with a granite bladder.
But ****it -- makes me no never-mind. When the sorry bastard throws his hat in the ring and the liberal media clamor to remove his head right at the neckline, allow me to be the first to do one of these:
:whistling:
-
Sure, I'll give him points for being semi-creative. There hadn't been an old-fashioned, bladder-bustin' filibuster since way, way back in.....
wait for it......
2010.
Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? :whatever:
Personally, I think that Rand is positioning himself for a run in 2016 -- and I can see the media eating him for lunch. Why? Well, I'll admit he's not nearly the kind of shitstick that Biden is - plagiarizer par excellence - but he's second tier schmuck with a granite bladder.
But ****it -- makes me no never-mind. When the sorry bastard throws his hat in the ring and the liberal media clamor to remove his head right at the neckline, allow me to be the first to do one of these:
:whistling:
To be fair the media is going to work overtime to ruin anyone on the repuke side.
I do agree with your points though.
-
Sure, I'll give him points for being semi-creative. There hadn't been an old-fashioned, bladder-bustin' filibuster since way, way back in.....
wait for it......
2010.
Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? :whatever:
The SecDef doesn't have anything to do with drones?
BTW, it was the CIA director.
-
The SecDef doesn't have anything to do with drones?
BTW, it was the CIA director.
:lmao:
I sit corrected. I had Hagel on the brain with his visit to A-stan and his Taliban Welcoming Committee.
Say whatchawanna. Rand Paul is not my idea of a rousing "let's win this one for the Gipper." You guys wanna have a love fest with him in the center, hey, have at it.
I am impressed, however, with his granite bladder. Holy Pissoir, Batman, I can't go 4 hours without makin' a trip to the loo.
-
Your opinion is noted.
Did the man make an unsubstantiated claim regarding his certification (or lack thereof) or didn't he? That's a straight up question -- either yes or no.
Excusing this kind of behavior makes you both look...."unpicky."
Again, where I come from, this kind of shit results in getting the boot. No excuses. You publish a CV or resume, it had better be accurate especially concerning certifications. This guy forms his own "group" for Christ's sake and certifies himself. AYFKM?
You can look the other way all day long, but that doesn't change the facts.
I was merely pointing out that a LEFT WING doctor organization changed the rules in the middle of the game (according to the CBS report) while exempting "some doctors".
Paul reportedly had certification from the American Board of Ophthalmology - a recognized group - before letting it lapse in favor of certification from the board he heads.
"I thought this was hypocritical and unjust for the older ophthalmologists to exempt themselves from the recertification exam," he writes. "... Is it fair that the ophthalmologist down the street can claim board certification, without renewing it, but that a younger ophthalmologist, who passed the same boards, is disallowed?"
It seems to me Paul is being consistant in his personal views e.g., "hypocritical actions of authority".
Is Paul the answer for our nation ?
I have no idea, but he does seem to have back bone. Back bone is something lacking in Washington these days.
I have written off most politicians (which is why I usually vote third party) but I am open to someone who can put principle ahead of politics.
.
-
1) I'm glad Rand Paul did the filibuster thing, if for no other reason it was a finger in the eye of Obama.
2) I'm glad he voted against Brennan.
3) Me and my dad are polar opposites when it comes to politics, having said that Rand is set to be the successor to the kingdom of Dr. Nutz so that gives me pause. I don't trust Rand any farther then I can throw him, he has a tonne of work to do for my vote.
4) 2016 is a ways off so he has time.
-
Repubs are like jumping jacks. One week/month, it is Rubio, then Cruz and now Paul. They did the same thing in the last election. I do not think Paul is a serious candidate for 016. I hope not just I do not want Jebb to run either. I do give Paul props for the filibuster. Hope he keeps poking Obummer and the Democrats. About time someone did it.
-
Repubs are like jumping jacks. One week/month, it is Rubio, then Cruz and now Paul. They did the same thing in the last election. I do not think Paul is a serious candidate for 016. I hope not just I do not want Jebb to run either. I do give Paul props for the filibuster. Hope he keeps poking Obummer and the Democrats. About time someone did it.
The funny thing is, and this is just me of course.
The repubs don't choose who goes into orbit around them. It's the folkes that choose who to go into orbit around.
Of course there are alot of other things that can be discussed. But in the end the voter makes the choice, not the candidate.
-
Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? :whatever:
Unless I'm mistaken and since SecDef Hagel was already winging his way to Afghanistan when the filibuster happened...Sen. Paul gave his long winded protest during the vote on John Brennan the nominee for CIA...which does make when he did and when he did it relevant.
So the argument that he did this at the wrong place and time is a non-starter.
-
Unless I'm mistaken and since SecDef Hagel was already winging his way to Afghanistan when the filibuster happened...Sen. Paul gave his long winded protest during the vote on John Brennan the nominee for CIA...which does make when he did and when he did it relevant.
So the argument that he did this at the wrong place and time is a non-starter.
Yeah, it's already been pointed out on another thread that I got Brennan and Hagel momentarily confused. Must've been the heady rush of still being whirlwinded by Rand's bladder-busting performance.
-
I was merely pointing out that a LEFT WING doctor organization changed the rules in the middle of the game (according to the CBS report) while exempting "some doctors".
I hear ya on the AMA being as left wing as they come. IIRC, the AMA slopped at the Obamacare trough.
It seems to me Paul is being consistant in his personal views e.g., "hypocritical actions of authority".
I just don't see it that way. Paul should've publicly denounced the AMA and, instead of merely allowing his certification to lapse (thereby being less than proactive about a credential on which he is likely to earn money), he should've taken measures other than form his own little group. You don't see the potential and appearance of impropriety here?
I submit that potential senators - as he was at the time all this came out - must adhere to a higher standard. I see shucking and jiving with this guy.
YMMV.
[/quote]
-
Yeah, it's already been pointed out on another thread that I got Brennan and Hagel momentarily confused. Must've been the heady rush of still being whirlwinded by Rand's bladder-busting performance.
And I apologize for being repetitive on pointing it out...didn't see the other post until after I'd hit send. :thatsright:
-
And I apologize for being repetitive on pointing it out...didn't see the other post until after I'd hit send. :thatsright:
No problem. :lmao: I'm used to being wrong. Just ask Mrs. E. :rotf: