Sen. Rand Paul OP-ED: My filibuster was just the beginning

reply to post by eLPresidente

You put up a nice thread and it's quite likely derailed now (who wants to read through all that?) You fed the troll, and now you've paid for it. When you have this kind of thing happen again, maybe answer once or twice and then ignore it and get back on point. Or don't. The devil has fiddled down in Georgia tonight!

What? My mom's calling me up from the basement, have to go. Coming Ma!

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Of course you aren't going to address the US drone strike on a 16 year old American citizen attending a BBQ.

What exactly WAS a 16 year old doing in an active war zone anyway? Hanging out with al-Qaeda?

edit on 8-3-2013 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)

Did you just tried to justify the killing of an American TEEN, A MINOR without knowing the facts, and ASSUMING that he was in an active war zone and 'hanging out with Al-Qaeda'?

That just goes against everything you were trying to claim earlier by saying that would never happen on US soil. You just admitted your TRUST in those that are operating and finalizing drone strikes, does that mean you will still TRUST them if they said the same 16 year old boy was 'in an active war zone and hanging out with Al-Qaeda' in Manhattan, New York?

Liberal hypocrisy. People who complained like no other when Bush was the naughty boy now justify Obama for doing the same or worse.

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

You put up a nice thread and it's quite likely derailed now (who wants to read through all that?) You fed the troll, and now you've paid for it. When you have this kind of thing happen again, maybe answer once or twice and then ignore it and get back on point. Or don't. The devil has fiddled down in Georgia tonight!

What? My mom's calling me up from the basement, have to go. Coming Ma!

edit on 8-3-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Its fine, I think I've bumped heads with several trolls that ultimately ended up banned from ATS. I don't mind calling out BS. It is especially funny when the 'living in your moms basement' jokes come out, that is when you know they have pretty much given up any credibility they tried to claim when their argument started.

reply to post by eLPresidente


To edge it toward topic again, Rand Paul is being quoted and debated all across every news show, just now on Bill Maher, or radio, and even on uncyclopedia. He upped both his name recognition and probably his favorability points by 20 to 30 percent (as a rough estimate.). Bill Maher just congratulated Paul for doing what he did.

ERID HOLDER could NOT give a straight answer regarding this topic when being questioned.

Rand made sure to get the answer WE ALL needed to hear.

It was like pulling teeth out of a rabid pitt bull.


Playing the neocon side of this wont get you very far.

reply to post by Aleister


Hence the email pandering for donations immediately after his filibuster. He's likely going to run for POTUS in 2016 and he'll likely continue these types of actions on the senate floor.

I really hope he continues these types of actions and runs in 2016. The country might actually wake up and vote him in so we have a chance to be a democracy again.

reply to post by eLPresidente


As far as what was going through Rand Paul's head, I'd wager it was visions of all of the headlines and cable news airtime he would generate. Just because he's Ron Paul's son doesn't make the man the messiah - like his father, whose following I've never pretended to understand, he's a politician. The way some people hold them up as some kind of demi-God do-no-wrong golden boys of the political world is frankly hilarious to me.

Originally posted by Monger
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

As far as what was going through Rand Paul's head, I'd wager it was visions of all of the headlines and cable news airtime he would generate. Just because he's Ron Paul's son doesn't make the man the messiah - like his father, whose following I've never pretended to understand, he's a politician. The way some people hold them up as some kind of demi-God do-no-wrong golden boys of the political world is frankly hilarious to me.

Quite interesting you say that. Normally people don't care about what goes on in D.C. and mostly anybody that watches CSPAN-2 for more than an hour would fall asleep. Who could've predicted that a filibuster would generate so much interest? No..not very many people.

He had no idea what was going on in the outside world as electronic devices aren't allowed in the Senate chambers.

As for your wager, I'd wager you are wrong, and you are.

How do I know that? Heard it straight from the horses mouth. Not from random ATS members stroking their own egos deluding themselves with their 'world view' not backed by any facts (Monger).

www.mikehuckabee.com...

reply to post by eLPresidente


Oh, well that's that then. Who ever knew a career politician to be untruthful? He is a Paul after all, and they're above reproach.

Originally posted by creatives

Originally posted by eLPresidente

I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime.

A great pity they don't extend these rights to the rest of the world, and the reason why the US is viewed with contempt by many.

We are not obligated to offer enemies of the state rights under the Geneva Conventions in a foreign warzone. The same cannot be said for a US citizen on US soil who is guaranteed due process. Even in the case of high treason it takes two witnesses and Congressional oversight.

Originally posted by NiZZiM
I really hope he continues these types of actions and runs in 2016. The country might actually wake up and vote him in so we have a chance to be a democracy again.

Paul can run for both president and his Senate seat in 2016, but only if he doesn't file for president in Kentucky. fatlip.leoweekly.com... . If he takes this route, and wins the GOP nomination, he won't be able to win his own state unless there is a massive write-in campaign. But he likely will run, it's the family business (running for president), and will run again in 2020, and in 2024, and so on.

Welcome to ATS NiZZiM (or should I say WeLCoMe). Enjoy your adventure here.

reply to post by negativenihil


Nice try. There is a difference between using surveillance drones on the border and being allowed to use predator drones to attack US citizens on US soil (or anywhere else).

Did you even think before you posted this? Were you aware that surveillance drones and attack drones are two different things. How could you even possibly relate the two? How did you get that he meant use drones to attack and kill people trying to enter the country out of that op ed? What were you even thinking? It's not even remotely similar.

I mean seriously this is the kind of ignorance that blows me away.

reply to post by negativenihil


You obviously don't know what you are talking about, so that explains a lot. It was very very much on the table. They flat out said it would be considered killing them on US soil if they were enemy combatants. US citizens have already been killed abroad and they have been openly discussing using the same tactics inside the US. How can you sit there and lie like that? Or did you really just miss the last few days of politicking? Only a fool couldn't see what this has been about.

reply to post by negativenihil

I don't think you understand! The real problem is ANYONE can be called an enemy combatant today, and who makes the decision to apply that label to someone. I say you are an enemy combatant, I don't like how you are so negative in regard to my rights, so am I legally allowed to target you? I think you should get the point now!

Its funny that Rand got slammed by ONLY republicans. Republicans like that senile democrat John Mcain, who thought Romney was Obama. If people dont like what Rand was talking about, THEN DONT LISTEN. If You dont care about drone strikes and Obamas unconstitutional BS then thats YOUR problem, no one was forced to hear it. I think he did a good thing BUT like his father, they will call him crazy and not let him win any states if he runs for president.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Rand Paul is about half as smart as his Dad. It was nothing more than grandstanding. It was a 12 hour political commercial. He did NOTHING to the process. Brennan was nominated 68-32 or something like that. The examples he used were ridiculous. I was amazed at how not smart Rand was when they interviewed him on CNN. He was limited in his ideas and sounded like an idiot. Sorry just my opinion and I agree with the stance he took about drones. Just do not agree with what he did or how he went about it. If his name was Rand Williams he would not even be a Senator.

reply to post by creatives



In my life i have family whom are successful professionals ranging from dentists ,solicitors ,computer engineers to small business owners. They all, except the IT guy think the US is a evil State I point out the Constitution of America is the only domestic treaty that gives fairness to all.It's the most impressive document man has conjured, yet i'm looked at as a looney


Not by my children though who see it as normal factual view of life

THE WORLD'S FUTURE IS THE US CONSTITUTION IT PROTECTS CITIZENS FROM EXPLOITATION FROM ALL and it should have a world army to protect it and deliver it to all countries.

Originally posted by GArnold
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

It was nothing more than grandstanding. It was a 12 hour political commercial. He did NOTHING to the process.

Really? then why did the white house respond immediately the following day, sending out the response letter to ALL MEDIA OUTLETS before sending it to Paul?

Especially after they REFUSED to respond to his questions regarding the Constitutionality of the act?

If you were even half as smart as you claim Rand Paul is, you'd understand this. But you don't, and that is a shame.

People want to play this down so hard by saying it is 'political theatre' but it just falls right on its head. Straight from the horses mouth, he wasn't planning to do a 13 hour filibuster with the whole world watching, nobody could've predicted that this event went viral starting from a Cspan-2 live stream.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Really? then why did the white house respond immediately the following day, sending out the response letter to ALL MEDIA OUTLETS before sending it to Paul?

Especially after they REFUSED to respond to his questions regarding the Constitutionality of the act?

You're stretching the truth a little bit. Holder responded to questions about drones and casually suggested that it might, hypothetically, be possible to have drone strikes on US soil when asked about it initially. John Brennan responded in the same manner, using the more cautious phrase of 'unlikely scenario.'

So Sen. Paul used his power as a senator to talk for 13 hours, days after the Brennan hearing and well after he had his numerous oppurtunities to ask Eric Holder about this, to ask the same question. Ultimately, Holder gave him the answer we all knew in the first place, 'no.'