Rand Paul Filibustering Over Drones: I Will Not Let Obama ‘Shred the Constitution’

reply to post by burntheships


Well you have to give it to him on the actual filibuster thing. That's a good example to set, I think. The filibuster creates dialogue. We need more of that. As to the drone thing? Well it"s a fairly relevant topic, albeit, I believe a distraction. If the CIA wanted to take out someone in this country, It would be hard to deny involvement, if cause of death was a drone strike. Nothing covert about that.

I did however feel his appeal to duty in the way of defending the Constitution, was a little self serving and provocative.

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Great for Rand, but this is nothing more than a "dog and pony "show. He will not get results no matter how long he talks. The main reason you will NEVER see a "drone strike" on US soil, is because they can't even hit their intended targets in other countries without killing innocent women and children. That would be too much a risk. I GUARANTEE you will NEVER see a drone fire on civilians on US soil...

edit on 6-3-2013 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)

The government is just trying to assert their authority over what is quickly becoming a police state. It does not happen overnight however, so they will propose and try and use scare tactics, and word every law just right, to give them the total power that they seek, and will eventually have.

edit on 6-3-2013 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)

Hate to say it but I told you so..... There is no way you will ever see this come to fruition.

Two leading figures within the Obama administration now insist that the president of the United States does not have the authority to launch drone strikes on US soil.

\

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

There you have it, dog and pony show, nothing more, nothing less.rt.com...

Originally posted by cornucopia

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by cornucopia
Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement
www.youtube.com...

We confront Rand Paul on endorsing a Goldman Sachs flip flopping war mongering Bilderberg puppet.

LOL


rand is a shill...lol

truth is truth and shall be known.

You mean the truth that he has always said he would endorse the republican nominee? This has been debunked a long time ago.

So now that we know you want to attack his character, how about we discuss the actual topic at hand? Or are you avoiding the address of obamas drone strikes?

edit on 6-3-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

hey character is important, tells me something about a person.

i'm not for drone strikes, but don't get carried away little princess...

the guy is still a shill.


playing a part...

got you

You didn't get diddly squat. In fact, you admitted that you are not even here to discuss the OP, instead only here to promote your agenda.

I regret that debate on ATS is reduced to this level, your level.

but don't get carried away little princess...

Originally posted by thesmokingman

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Great for Rand, but this is nothing more than a "dog and pony "show. He will not get results no matter how long he talks. The main reason you will NEVER see a "drone strike" on US soil, is because they can't even hit their intended targets in other countries without killing innocent women and children. That would be too much a risk. I GUARANTEE you will NEVER see a drone fire on civilians on US soil...

edit on 6-3-2013 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)

The government is just trying to assert their authority over what is quickly becoming a police state. It does not happen overnight however, so they will propose and try and use scare tactics, and word every law just right, to give them the total power that they seek, and will eventually have.

edit on 6-3-2013 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)

Hate to say it but I told you so..... There is no way you will ever see this come to fruition.

Two leading figures within the Obama administration now insist that the president of the United States does not have the authority to launch drone strikes on US soil.

\

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

There you have it, dog and pony show, nothing more, nothing less.rt.com...

You didn't tell anybody anything, if anything you contradicted yourself. You said Rand Paul will not get results, HE GOT RESULTS. The premise of your argument was under the fact that they COULDN'T hit their target, not because they're NOT ALLOWED to, under the Constitution.

What is weird is that after all this, you still think you're right. If you're going to quote yourself, make sure it doesn't contradict what you're trying to prove with your, 'told ya so'.

reply to post by eLPresidente


He was not even filibustering the nomination, that was a sham. Go back and read news articles that know what they are talking about, this was not about drone strikes, nor the nomination of cia chief. Publicity stunt, dog and pony show.

The perspective of a TRUE LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE on the Rand Paul filibuster.

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

He was not even filibustering the nomination, that was a sham. Go back and read news articles that know what they are talking about, this was not about drone strikes, nor the nomination of cia chief. Publicity stunt, dog and pony show.

Everybody knew Rand Paul was filibustering for an answer, he said this REPEATEDLY during his filibuster and he said it REPEATEDLY to reporters afterwards.

Also...of course you aren't going to address your self-contradiction from your last post.

Lastly, if it was an actual dog and pony show, he would've PRE-PLANNED the entire thing, dried his bladder out and put some food in his stomach to go for the 24 hour filibuster record. No, instead, he went in not knowing he was going to filibuster for so long, only making the decision as he walked in the senate floor. Fellow congressmen had to leave their offices in the spur of the moment to support him and bring him candy.

reply to post by burntheships

“The actions that we take on the counterterrorism front, again, are to take actions against individuals where we believe that the intelligence base is so strong and the nature of the threat is so grave and serious, as well as imminent, that we have no recourse except to take this action that may involve a lethal strike,” he said.

Sure...just like the 'intelligence base' sold to the entire Western world about Iraqi WMD's was a threat 'so grave, serious and imminent' that we had no recourse except to take action that involved lethal strikes on up to a million innocent people, all based on ABSOLUTE LIES.

That kind of imminent and serious threat?

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Everybody knew Rand Paul was filibustering for an answer, he said this REPEATEDLY during his filibuster and he said it REPEATEDLY to reporters afterwards.

So do you have a link to a copy of the actual letter from Paul to Holder?

This should not be a partisan issue. Giving the POTUS or anyone the ability to kill citizens without due process would effect everyones individual rights negatively. The more powers you give the current POTUS, the more powers you give the following POTUS. The next POTUS may not be to your liking. Nevertheless they would have the same powers. Just because you support the current POTUS and trust his judgement does not mean you will trust the next 10. The next 10 will have the same powers you give this one. Americans should not be partisan on this issue.

reply to post by burntheships

There were so many epic moments from that filibuster. This was definitely one of them.

I think my favorite had to be when he shattered the Left Right paradigm by blaming BOTH Parties.

Originally posted by YouSir

Originally posted by burntheships
Well, it appears that Holder and Obama were too little too late.

Cruz, Paul Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.

“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”

Key bill text:
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.

www.cruz.senate.gov...

Ummm.....is this what all the hubbub was about so that these two asshats could tell us that there will be no use of killer drones........unless?

Lets disect that "unless"...shall we? "The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual." So with this wide as manifest destiny brush we can paint in just about any scenario we can imagine. TSHTF your defending your family from confiscations, be they resources or infrastructure........BOOM, down from 30,000 ft streaks a missile with a picture of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul's smiling mugs stenciled on the body...or...Your one of those wrong addresses that swat loves to hit, barricaded there behind the door of your safe room from the jack boots.....it goes eerily quiet...............BOOM...another "Paul Cruz missile"......while the perps three streets over slink away......wrong house, wrong neighborhood.....wrong policy.

Meanwhile tthe Senate photographer redies the set for another cameo for the..."Paul, Cruz, Missile"... PCM's...for those times when..."The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual.".....

What a freaking joke........just not a funny, funny...ha ha

YouSir

Ummm.....I'm not in the habit of quoting my own posts but I felt the following would help frame the points I was trying to ellucidate...

Ummm........define "engaged in combat" in the context of this letter.........What exactly does that mean?......According to their list of terrorist who's who....YOUR...on that list and possibly/probably considered an enemy combatant......how is this considered a win,win...in your opinion?

Read the text of Rand Pauls new drone ammendment.....it's just ludicrous for you to keep claiming that this blizzardbuster was a win.............smoke...and...mirrors................nothing more.

YouSir

Then Today we have this


www.infowars.com...

The key to this is the phrase “engaged in combat.” What does the administration consider to represent an act of “combat.”

This, at least in my mind is the whole meat of this drone use discussion and if you read the story in the link you will already find...

Given that the Department of Defense now considers the act of protest to be a form of “low-level terrorism,” how far removed is criticizing U.S. foreign policy and hegemonic domination from the views which Awlaki was summarily executed for advocating?

And this.

The federal government has defined a laundry list of banal behaviors and political activities as potential terrorism, from paying for a cup of coffee with cash to buying storable food in bulk. The definition of a potential terrorist – and remember the government only has to accuse someone of being a terrorist as a pre-cursor to killing them with a drone strike – has been watered down to such an extent that the Department of Homeland Security now considers Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as potential terrorists.

Food for thought.....just not palatable...

YouSir

Originally posted by MajorKarma


Meanwhile, Lyndon La Rouche once again states my perspective on Obama and all those with them:

edit on 7-3-2013 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)

Lyndon Larouche is as wacko as they come. He is corrupt, criminal, paranoid and so far left that he makes folks like Chavez and Castro look like far right wingers.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Great for Rand, but this is nothing more than a "dog and pony "show.

Rand Paul IS the "Dog and Pony" show. His father Ron? I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he is an honest man. Rand? A panderer and BSer riding his fathers coat-tails...his fathers Principles are nothing but a convenient bumper sticker in his campaign for more power.

Here is the deal bro. If you can show me another honest republican other than ron and rand paul, and an honest democrat other than dennis kucinich, then I have a beautiful house on the moon for you complete with a tennis court

Again...idealogy aside...whether I agree on platform or policy....I will give you Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as "Honest men"...or at least more honest than 90% of DC...But I don not include Rand Paul in that category by a long shot.

Ron Paul created a movement. Rand Paul is exploiting one.

Ron Paul recieved press coverage for speaking his truth...and often didn't recieve press coverage for speaking his truth....

But, for the most part, speaking the honest truth was/is Ron Paul's intent...and whether or not the News Media gave him attention for it was secondary.

With Rand Paul...it's the reverse. He pursues media attention. He picks and chooses from his fathers platform depending on what will benefit his ambitions. He is a Media hound, desperate for attention.

Two different animals...and only one honest man amongst that father/son duo in my strong opinion.

Than, what to do, TURN ON THE MACHINE

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Great for Rand, but this is nothing more than a "dog and pony "show.

Rand Paul IS the "Dog and Pony" show. His father Ron? I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he is an honest man. Rand? A panderer and BSer riding his fathers coat-tails...his fathers Principles are nothing but a convenient bumper sticker in his campaign for more power.

Here is the deal bro. If you can show me another honest republican other than ron and rand paul, and an honest democrat other than dennis kucinich, then I have a beautiful house on the moon for you complete with a tennis court

Again...idealogy aside...whether I agree on platform or policy....I will give you Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as "Honest men"...or at least more honest than 90% of DC...But I don not include Rand Paul in that category by a long shot.

Ron Paul created a movement. Rand Paul is exploiting one.

Ron Paul recieved press coverage for speaking his truth...and often didn't recieve press coverage for speaking his truth....

But, for the most part, speaking the honest truth was/is Ron Paul's intent...and whether or not the News Media gave him attention for it was secondary.

With Rand Paul...it's the reverse. He pursues media attention. He picks and chooses from his fathers platform depending on what will benefit his ambitions. He is a Media hound, desperate for attention.

Two different animals...and only one honest man amongst that father/son duo in my strong opinion.

Exploiting? No. Emulation? Maybe.
There is nothing wrong with politicians fighting for individual liberty. Even if it WAS a "dog and pony" show, it brings the issue of civil liberties in general to a lot of citizens. Even if after this, only a small amount of Americans think twice about how many rights they really have, it's a victory.

reply to post by thesmokingman


POTUS doesn't have the authority YET. I've been called crazy before, but I for one am extremely wary of anything that could potentially snowball. Obama's administration is setting a precedent for the authority of the President that makes me more than a little uneasy. I think many people have become too tolerant of the federal government (and the presidency in particular) overstepping its authority.

reply to post by Indigo5


Ron Paul is courting the media, but I think he's just shooting to get a hot new wife like Dennis Kucinich.

I'm not a fan of Mr. Paul, but have to admit he filibustered for a good cause and he did get results. The administration wrote him a letter specifically addressing the issue of Drone attacks on Americans, within our countries borders. The administration committed to never, ever doing this. Rand Paul has a win and is one step closer to a Dennis Kucinich type girlfriend!!

Originally posted by averageGuy505
The administration committed to never, ever doing this. Rand Paul has a win

Next up Rand Paul will filibuster the next nominee untilt he administration promises not to detain US citizens in Fema camps.

There is a reason that conservative outlets like the WSJ as well as GOP slammed Rand Paul for this...it was theater...

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by cornucopia

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by cornucopia
Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement
www.youtube.com...

We confront Rand Paul on endorsing a Goldman Sachs flip flopping war mongering Bilderberg puppet.

LOL


rand is a shill...lol

truth is truth and shall be known.

You mean the truth that he has always said he would endorse the republican nominee? This has been debunked a long time ago.

So now that we know you want to attack his character, how about we discuss the actual topic at hand? Or are you avoiding the address of obamas drone strikes?

edit on 6-3-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

hey character is important, tells me something about a person.

i'm not for drone strikes, but don't get carried away little princess...

the guy is still a shill.


playing a part...

got you

You didn't get diddly squat. In fact, you admitted that you are not even here to discuss the OP, instead only here to promote your agenda.

I regret that debate on ATS is reduced to this level, your level.

but don't get carried away little princess...

LOL

and you are so righteous?

my level is very high and i will call anyone out if they are corrupt in any way, i will call out Obama if need be...

i support Obama, i support socialism...

i believe in service to others and sharing, i believe this is a team game called Humanity...

i do not believe in rich/poor class systems..

i do not believe in caste systems..

i do not believe in draconian systems..

i am here to abolish them and will, thank you God


Thank You