Rand Paul filibuster of Brennan nomination

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Would Paul be filibustering if it was a GOP nominee? Doubt it. These are ultimately pointless questions though.

I am sure he would be filibustering if a GOP President said he had the constitutional right to assassinate American citizens on American soil with out even being read their rights and the nominee agreed with him. Most conservatives on here would support him as well. It's shameful the way the left and the LMSM has turned a blind eye to the egregious assaults on our Constitution from this administration..

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Would Paul be filibustering if it was a GOP nominee? Doubt it. These are ultimately pointless questions though.

Would Paul, one of the Tea Party guys that the Beltway GOP leadership always talks down to, be filibustering a nominee by a President probably elected from their ranks? He wouldn't owe him anything. Paul is one of those guys who is a true believer. Kucinich would be a guy I think of on the other side.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

I am sure he would be filibustering if a GOP President said he had the constitutional right to assassinate American citizens on American soil with out even being read their rights and the nominee agreed with him. And most conservatives on here would support him as well. It's shameful the way the left and the LMSM has turned a blind eye to the egregious assaults on our Constitution from this administration..

Everything I regularly read has widely reported on the drone program, and been highly critical. If you think the "Left" has ignored the issue, then you arent paying attention or reading/watching any "left-wing" media. Now, perhaps the dynamics of power of made it less of an issue with Democrats in the gov't, but that's why I questioned whether Paul would have made the same gesture had this been a GOP nominee. It would probably be a Democrat filibustering. Who knows? The point is, its not like the GOP has suddenly got a spine on civil liberties, or the Dems lost theirs from the Bush years (save for a few individuals, they never had one). Its mostly political posturing. Partisans have looked hypocrtical on the National Security State for at least the last decade. I really hope you're right about "most" conservatives caring, but history leads me to believe they are more interested in pointing out hypocrisy to score sort-term political points, and once its their guy in office, they'll revert back to their Bush-era mentality too, and the Democrats suddenly are concerned with exective power.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Would Paul be filibustering if it was a GOP nominee? Doubt it. These are ultimately pointless questions though.

Paul actually specifically said about 50 times during his filibuster he would be doing the same thing if it was a republican president. He said this goes well above political lines, but I guess the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is only a partisan issue to you. I wish I could view politics so myopically, it's probably blissful.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by channingcrowderhungry

Paul actually specifically said about 50 times during his filibuster he would be doing the same thing if it was a republican president. He said this goes well above political lines, but I guess the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is only a partisan issue to you. I wish I could view politics so myopically, it's probably blissful.

It's pretty amazing actually. We could be watching the new Republican-party starting to form and take afoot. A lot of this stuff is bucking all of the old RINO-type Republicans.

[rivergator]

Rand Paul on how to secure our borders:

Border security, including drones, satellite and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and would be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the Government Accountability Office.

Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...#ixzz2MsJu5QT6
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Rand Paul on how to secure our borders:

And what of it exactly?

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Rand Paul on how to secure our borders:

Is this suppose to be a "gotcha?" There is quite a difference between using drones to patrol the borders and using drones to target non-combat US citizens domestically without trial.

That was the question Rand wanted answered. Does the federal government feel it has the power to assassinate its citizens without trial? Perhaps for some it does.

[gator1986]

Love how Holder couldn't give a direct answer to the question. Would you send drone strikes to kill an American who isn't an immediate threat. Obama is killing this country, and all the idiots who keep him in office should really be ashamed of themselves. The people he appoints on his staff first Maxine who says " 179 million Americans will lose their jobs " ( dumbass ) and now Holder and co. This country is going to hell.....

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Rand Paul on how to secure our borders:

There is a difference between patrolling public areas with a drone and the POTUS having the authority to kill anyone he wants wherever without due process.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Here is the text of the 5th amendment for those interested in debating the issue.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Tim85

It's pretty amazing actually. We could be watching the new Republican-party starting to form and take afoot. A lot of this stuff is bucking all of the old RINO-type Republicans.

McCain and Graham denounced the filibuster as they were eating dinner with Obama last night.

No joke.

While the far right hijacked the tea party for a bit, this was a glimpse of what the tea party initially stood for. And frankly what many of the current core members stand for, who've just been overshadowed by the far right who saw a political opportunity. That would be: constitutional conservatism, which naturally has a libertarian bent.

Those folks don't give a damn if you have a R or D next to your name. They are fighting for the Constitution.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

There is a difference between patrolling public areas with a drone and the POTUS having the authority to kill anyone he wants wherever without due process.

This is above the POTUS having the authority. This goes for all of government.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by channingcrowderhungry

Here is the text of the 5th amendment for those interested in debating the issue.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Correct. Paul and the Tea Party are not against lethal force when someone is posing a danger. They are against lethal action against US citizens on US soil that are not posing a threat.

It seems incredibly obvious that those folks deserve due process, and it's absolutely amazing that the POTUS cannot guarantee that.

It's almost too absurd to be true.

[FlyingGatorII]

Even John Stewart gets this one right..

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywo...rt-stands-rand

[JohnC1908]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Rand Paul on how to secure our borders:

And?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

This is a portion that Cruz was quoting from:

Damn that man could speak!

Or, as Slim Pickens might say, "God darnit, Mr. Reagan, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore."

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Would Paul be filibustering if it was a GOP nominee? Doubt it. These are ultimately pointless questions though.

Actually, yeah. Based on his track record, I sincerely believe he would.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Would Paul be filibustering if it was a GOP nominee? Doubt it. These are ultimately pointless questions though.

I think he's also on record as saying that he will support the nomination (yes vote), but he wants clarity on this issue. That they won't give it to him, IMO, is the political move here.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by gator1986

Love how Holder couldn't give a direct answer to the question. Would you send drone strikes to kill an American who isn't an immediate threat. Obama is killing this country, and all the idiots who keep him in office should really be ashamed of themselves. The people he appoints on his staff first Maxine who says " 179 million Americans will lose their jobs " ( dumbass ) and now Holder and co. This country is going to hell.....

That was just wierd. Not sure why he couldn't just say "no."