Rand Paul's filibuster

OH SHIT!!! The administration is going to kill the Easter Bunny?!? DAY-UM! And at this time of the year, too. Hell, we gotta do something about that!

Its good that you have an opinion. It would be pretty boring if everyone agreed with each other. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

My opinion is that I ain't buying no shark repellant , I don't care how long the seller filibusters!

OH SHIT!!! The administration is going to kill the Easter Bunny?!? DAY-UM! And at this time of the year, too. Hell, we gotta do something about that! Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

No need to fear...Rand Paul is here!

something tells me this is Pauls opening bid to get his name on the 2016 ballot ...

clever move IMO ...

something tells me this is Pauls opening bid to get his name on the 2016 ballot ...

clever move IMO ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Correct-o-mundo. To get the nomination, you have to start with the far right, our Tea Lovers. Mission accomplished on that front.

The only thing accomplished was to sell some folks (Tea Folks) shark repellant. Originally Posted by WTF

Why on earth wouldn't you agree with his substantive position? You think the U.S. has a right to kill it's own citizens on it's own soil without due process??!!!! And if so, why, for God's sake??!!!! Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Because I can envision a scenario, however unlikely, where the use of a drone strike might lessen the danger of loss of life to law enforcement and military personnel in suppressing a terrorist attack on US soil. And, I am mystified why you, and the rest of the idiots on the board who don't understand that such a thing is possible, would oppose a drone strike in that type of scenario.

You guys slay me with your over the top due process arguments. Criminals are killed on a regular basis in the United States without any sort of due process....because the criminals choose to act in a way that poses a direct and imminent threat to the lives of law enforcement personnel and innocent bystanders and, as a result of that, due process is removed from the equation due to the immediate threat of death and injury to cops and bystanders. Why should the choice of the weapon being used (cops with rifles and handguns versus a drone strike) influence the decision that deadly force is authorized based on the circumstances? With the key being "the circumstances"? Taking drones out of the equation removes a viable law enforcement option that might result in lives being saved.

Because I can envision a scenario, however unlikely, where the use of a drone strike might lessen the danger of loss of life to law enforcement and military personnel in suppressing a terrorist attack on US soil. And, I am mystified why you, and the rest of the idiots on the board who don't understand that such a thing is possible, would oppose a drone strike in that type of scenario.

You guys slay me with your over the top due process arguments. Criminals are killed on a regular basis in the United States without any sort of due process....because the criminals choose to act in a way that poses a direct and imminent threat to the lives of law enforcement personnel and innocent bystanders and, as a result of that, due process is removed from the equation due to the immediate threat of death and injury to cops and bystanders. Why should the choice of the weapon being used (cops with rifles and handguns versus a drone strike) influence the decision that deadly force is authorized based on the circumstances? With the key being "the circumstances"? Taking drones out of the equation removes a viable law enforcement option that might result in lives being saved. Originally Posted by timpage

Perhaps you're thinking like the FBI and USMS when they went after Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge!?!

I don't even want weaponized drones flying in contiguous US airspace. That includes the border. Originally Posted by gnadfly

How about drones without weapons? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Interesting in that this is the only response to my statements. So everyone else is good with weaponized drones flying in contiguous US airspace?

I asked a question too ...

Interesting in that this is the only response to my statements. So everyone else is good with weaponized drones flying in contiguous US airspace? Originally Posted by gnadfly

No, no and fucking hell no...that was my point with Rand Paul. The real questions were not asked! He actually provided cover for the admin IMHO. Drone problem solved, is the take folks come away with...

Well, this time, anyway.

Hard to get off your knees, Whiny?

Been gone for a few days but nothing has changed. Stupid, useless remarks from Whatzup, deflections from Timmy, and a few gay remarks thrown in for good measure.

The only two things worth responding to are WTF: he was called Underdog (your little theme)

Timmy; no one is talking about a terrorist ATTACK. If you had listened to the debate or read about it from a neutral source it is about an alleged terrorist planning, supplying, or otherwise supporting a FUTURE terrorist attack in public and being killed on orders from the White House. That killing could be by drone, manned plane, or elite commandos. It would be a killing without due process of an American on American soil by the wishes of one man without appeal. It has nothing to do with an attack. Now, if your hypothetical attack did occur then all bets are off. I like to think that both law enforcement and civilians will rally to the defense of the country.

Conclusion: This is not about an attack but the preplanning which could be taken care of in a more efficient and safe manner through regular means. (Don't let the ATF be involved, they screwed up WACO big time)*

*Not that I agree with what they did at WACO but their tactics and preparation sucked.

The village idiots, McCain and Graham, sure went into panic mode and shit their nests. It is way past time to rid the village of the idiots.

Been gone for a few days but nothing has changed. Stupid, useless remarks from Whatzup, deflections from Timmy, and a few gay remarks thrown in for good measure.

The only two things worth responding to are WTF: he was called Underdog (your little theme)

Timmy; no one is talking about a terrorist ATTACK. If you had listened to the debate or read about it from a neutral source it is about an alleged terrorist planning, supplying, or otherwise supporting a FUTURE terrorist attack in public and being killed on orders from the White House. That killing could be by drone, manned plane, or elite commandos. It would be a killing without due process of an American on American soil by the wishes of one man without appeal. It has nothing to do with an attack. Now, if your hypothetical attack did occur then all bets are off. I like to think that both law enforcement and civilians will rally to the defense of the country.

Conclusion: This is not about an attack but the preplanning which could be taken care of in a more efficient and safe manner through regular means. (Don't let the ATF be involved, they screwed up WACO big time)*

*Not that I agree with what they did at WACO but their tactics and preparation sucked. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I suppose YOU are the one qualified to tell us what this thread is about, or even try to moderate it. Your simplistic views denigrate the very premise of the thread... Rand Paul's 13-hour Hand Solo...

Reading your conclusion only reveals a cracked foundation and slipshod construction.

You got nothing!