If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "And so it's come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. It is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse...of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 57
    More: Sad, Rand Paul, White House, filibusters  
•       •       •

10961 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-07 10:28:34 AM
5 votes:
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Paul's accusation of the media circling wagons is true. Fox is by all accounts the top-rated 'news' channel out there. Does anyone tune into Brian Williams with the same sort of zeal they do Fox? No, it's just the news, usually just playing in the background. Do people specifically tune in because he's helping to circle the wagons around Obama?

Do people tune into CNN for any other reason but a missing white girl or a sinkhole that killed a guy?

And even MSNBC - does anyone actually watch it? I'm one of the biggest libtards here and I've only seen it through Maddow clips posted at Fark. When I still used cable I had it, but never bothered with it.

Who, precisely, is this media circling the wagons when you guys own the most powerful infotainment/propaganda machine out there? Can't have it both ways.
2013-03-07 09:59:10 AM
5 votes:
*click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*
2013-03-07 11:42:12 AM
4 votes:
The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.


/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!
2013-03-07 11:20:26 AM
4 votes:
So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.
2013-03-07 08:55:37 AM
4 votes:

GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.


Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.
2013-03-07 12:03:19 PM
3 votes:
pbs.twimg.com

Sen. Graham on the floor.
2013-03-07 11:59:04 AM
3 votes:
If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.
2013-03-07 11:46:31 AM
3 votes:

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I don't get the distinction that makes drones a huge problem that didn't exist before.  The debate should be about using lethal force on citizens on US soil, whether it's through a remote-controlled drone, a well-trained sniper, or a heavily armed SWAT team.

Ditto on places that are up in arms about surveillance drones, but have never had any problem with police helicopters.
2013-03-07 11:27:00 AM
3 votes:
I wish we had a functioning Congress.  *not amused*
2013-03-07 11:22:48 AM
3 votes:

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.
2013-03-07 01:27:03 PM
2 votes:
Remember how when you were a kid you would narrate your actions like a sports commentator? "Clambam moves in from the outside, he shoots, he scores... touchdown!" (suffice to say I was not athletic). The repubs are the same way. Each one moves around in a self-narrated movie in which evil brown people get mowed down by your righteously wielded concealed carry, where the bad guy looks at you in dawning disbelief and terror as you pronounce "Immunity... revoked!", where the president tearfully pins the Medal of Honor on your blood-stained camos after you single-handedly fight off the Red Menace while Michelle Malkin makes "call me" gestures in the background. For thirteen glorious hours Rand Paul got to pretend he was Jimmy Stewart. The eyes of the nation were upon him, it was a glorious validation of his superior moral fiber and dedication. It accomplished nothing, except to provide him with some video for his next campaign. He delayed John Brennan's confirmation by exactly zero hours. Just when he could have demonstrated his commitment to his principles, he called it quits because he had to pee. He is a hero in his own mind, and those of his followers. Actually accomplishing something is beside the point--he fulfilled the cinematic requirements for heroism, who cares about the actual ones?  Rand Paul is an attention whore.
2013-03-07 12:15:57 PM
2 votes:

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


On social issues I lean liberal, and I have to agree with you...shiat would have surely hit the fan if ol' GW suggested using drones domestically.
Our politics have come down to my team verses yours, with both sides now incapable of stepping back and examining their parties policies with any objectivism.
/the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.
2013-03-07 12:12:20 PM
2 votes:

Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.


/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!


So Obama should update the NDAA, the Posse Comitatus Act and/or the Insurrection Act.

Wait, did I say "Obama"? I meant, um...the legislative body that makes law for the US. What's it called again - the one where the crazy old Texan libertarian's son is now a member in good standing of one part, and can draft and introduce legislation (and if he can convince the right number of his colleagues, the president's opinion matters not a fart in a windstorm)?

Holder defined the scope of the law that body passed. If the Legislature doesn't like the interpretation (or the law that gave rise to it), there are at least two means of righting that wrong without involving the president.
2013-03-07 12:06:10 PM
2 votes:
It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.
2013-03-07 12:05:49 PM
2 votes:
But the excessive reliance on drones is troublesome from a policy standpoint, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

If you actually listen to what Holder said when he was asked whether drones could be used in the US instead of what the Washington Post and Rand Paul think they heard, you'd realize that that's the exact position Holder took - that using drones in the US is entirely hypothetical and would not happen except under some extraordinary circumstance.

As for the 'excessive use'?  What makes hellfiring by drone so much less honorable method of warfare than shooting someone with a rifle or kicking someone when they're down?  For farks sake - my drill instructors told me that the BEST time to kick someone.

Republicans might be tough on national defense, but Iraq, Afghanistan, the hunt for bin Laden, and being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.
2013-03-07 12:04:23 PM
2 votes:

Bastard_Lunatic: I can't stand Rand, but he is 100% right on this issue.


Not really. He's taken a core idea which isn't absurd and just piled on bullshiat, fear, what ifs, slippery slopes, and dogpiling friends. It's an opportunistic act, not the principled move of a man fighting for something right.
2013-03-07 12:04:22 PM
2 votes:

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.

Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.

Yes, I do give him plenty of credit for that.  And it was on a legitimate issue, though I don't think he's sincere about it.

But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.


Was it?  He was filibustering something that was completely unrelated to the military drones.  Why couldn't he filibuster during, I don't know, actual legislation regarding the war on terror?  Why couldn't he do like a certain democrat did over actual legislation, alone.

Why couldn't he do this during the NDAA, instead of just dropping the cheater's filibuster and give s hort speech and let it go?  and why couldn't the GOP rally behind him then?

Oh yeah, because Obama didn't actually support that.
2013-03-07 11:58:19 AM
2 votes:
Well, it's a real filibuster.  Got to give him props for that, considering all the "filibusters" we've had in in the past decade have basically been "we promise we'll filibuster so don't even try it" and then nothing, but the media still calls it one
2013-03-07 11:41:22 AM
2 votes:
www.sbm21.com

b-b-b-b-but BENGHAZI!!1!
2013-03-07 10:48:26 AM
2 votes:

dickfreckle: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 307x164]


I think using phone books is cheating. Make them filibuster on the topic at hand, and don't let them use notes. It would be fun to see what they make up when they don't have anything to refer to.
2013-03-07 09:38:18 AM
2 votes:
Tag teams were used in the past, The Golden Days of Filibustering, but were so painful the rules were changed.  They should go back to the old ways.
2013-03-07 09:02:37 AM
2 votes:

EatHam: GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.

Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.


Yes, I do give him plenty of credit for that.  And it was on a legitimate issue, though I don't think he's sincere about it.

But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.
2013-03-07 08:34:32 AM
2 votes:
Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.
2013-03-08 02:24:28 AM
1 votes:
Rand...
i.imgur.com
2013-03-07 11:53:26 PM
1 votes:

frymeupasteak: i just re-read the classic fear and loathing on the campaign trail 1972.

now i try to imagine hunter thompson, nat hentoff, the new york times, and every single college student
reacting to richard nixon's use of drones for surveillance, infra red and otherwise, killing american citizens
on foreign soil, and taking two days of dancing around before he could agree not to use them to kill americans on american soil.except it's not nixon, it's a progressive democrat!
 besides the drone issue obama is finishing a huge data center in utah that will house combined records of every citizen including health, criminal, financial, etc etc.
and of course the IRS will administer and oversee obamacare.  i can imagine the uproar,  the outcry if all this took place under nixon. but today, under obama, that faction of the left is silent and approving.
only the ACLU has thrown its full weight against these issues of personal privacy, liberty, and the threat of full government control and oversight of every aspect of our lives.

in this thread i've read that drones flying overhead is no different than police helicopters. i think you should do a little reading. for one thing, why approve of police helicopters unless there is a specific problem? i don't want them just flying around, spying with cameras and infra red. drones however, are getting very small and can invade privacy in many different ways. the potential for abuse both now and in the future is huge.

for the life of me i can't understand how conservatives are on the correct side of this issue IMO while libs, who in past decades would be against this don't seem to care at all.


see that's what you are steadfastly ignorant about: context: If we thought conservatives gave two tugs of a dead dogs cock about killing anyone, we might have a conversation.

What do we have? Conservatives trying to ignite loyalty in the younger groups through faux concern.. so they can get back in the white house and start killin' 'em again.

We're not fooled.
2013-03-07 09:19:26 PM
1 votes:
i46.tinypic.com
2013-03-07 05:52:42 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...

That has the force of law and applies to all Presidents, both present and future? No? Then he didn't really solve the problem he's identified, has he?


No, but he asked a question and got an answer. Which was his stated intention right? He wasn't trying to get another law passed, he was demanding an answer that they initially refused to give.

(am I mistaken?)
2013-03-07 05:50:07 PM
1 votes:
The local news said this corksucker spoke for 6 hours.... According to CNN one hour of congress' time costs taxpayers $600,000. Way to waste $3.6 million just to make a point. Jackass.
2013-03-07 05:18:12 PM
1 votes:
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...
2013-03-07 02:11:43 PM
1 votes:

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


It's actually old news at this point.  A lot of people were (and still are) upset about the blatantly unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA, to say nothing of Bush's signing statements et al., but none of that outrage seems to have made any difference.  Nor will it make any difference as long as either major party is willing to put its own interests above the good of the country.
2013-03-07 02:04:48 PM
1 votes:
pbs.twimg.com
2013-03-07 01:29:41 PM
1 votes:
The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.
2013-03-07 01:24:46 PM
1 votes:

Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"



There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.
2013-03-07 12:44:08 PM
1 votes:
I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual famine, we will not cook and eat small children."
2013-03-07 12:42:07 PM
1 votes:
pbs.twimg.com
2013-03-07 12:21:56 PM
1 votes:

sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.


Like this?

i5.photobucket.com
2013-03-07 12:17:32 PM
1 votes:

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?

Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?


Maybe Congress shouldn't have granted the power to make that determination solely to the executive in the first place. Maybe they should undo that, since they have the ability to do so.
2013-03-07 12:16:06 PM
1 votes:

Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.


Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.
2013-03-07 12:14:14 PM
1 votes:

MugzyBrown: So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?


When has that ever been on the table?  All Holder said was that drones could be used in the case of an imminent threat.  How is piloting a drone any different than authorizing lethal force for a sniper or SWAT team?
2013-03-07 12:10:21 PM
1 votes:

Karac: I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

If you actually listen to what Holder said when he was asked whether drones could be used in the US instead of what the Washington Post and Rand Paul think they heard, you'd realize that that's the exact position Holder took - that using drones in the US is entirely hypothetical and would not happen except under some extraordinary circumstance.


I think you answered your own question. I don't think the administration thought it needed to specifically set an unwavering barrier on the least likely possible thing to happen.

They may not have been right, because clearly someone thought it warranted fillibustery. I guess you should never assume that everyone is on the same page.
2013-03-07 12:09:22 PM
1 votes:

jshine: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Lucky for you then that most of them are aircraft; they don't really operate on soil.


i.imgur.com

Not yet they don't.
2013-03-07 12:09:06 PM
1 votes:

MugzyBrown: Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO


And he tried to close it.  Republican obstruction stopped him.
2013-03-07 12:08:38 PM
1 votes:

MugzyBrown: It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.


Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.
2013-03-07 12:08:30 PM
1 votes:
If I was a U.S. senator; I'd filibuster everything until they did away with the patriot act and the TSA.

/ I'd probably do the entire musical H.M.S. Pinafore
2013-03-07 12:05:14 PM
1 votes:
Rand Paul is an asshole, but I will at least give him props for actually performing a filibuster (or much of it, anyways).  If you're gonna be an asshole, at least own it.
2013-03-07 12:04:26 PM
1 votes:

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

kxnet.images.worldnow.com

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?
2013-03-07 12:03:25 PM
1 votes:

qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?


Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?
2013-03-07 11:57:16 AM
1 votes:
The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/
2013-03-07 11:55:29 AM
1 votes:
I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.
2013-03-07 11:54:08 AM
1 votes:
I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.
2013-03-07 11:52:27 AM
1 votes:
Rubin is a neo-con spineless bandwagoner.

Rand Paul actually believes what he says and stands up for it.
2013-03-07 10:32:12 AM
1 votes:

MrBallou: GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.

Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.


He is the standard for how to do a filibuster though. It's never really been about winning a vote but delaying one you don't want passing.

But he has the standard simply because he has the longest in history.
2013-03-07 09:58:27 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.


Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.
2013-03-07 09:47:01 AM
1 votes:

EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.


I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.
2013-03-07 09:34:37 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.


Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.
2013-03-07 08:51:40 AM
1 votes:
You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.
2013-03-07 08:38:45 AM
1 votes:

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report