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.

(Think Progress)   Rand Paul filibuster was not only against drones, but also the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week. Get back to work serf   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 151
    More: Obvious, Rand Paul, Robert Bork, Brown v. Board of Education, filibusters, federal laws  
•       •       •

2422 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2013 at 12:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 11:21:17 AM
Nevertheless, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took several minutes out of his lengthy talking filibuster yesterday to praise this "abomination" of a decision on the Senate floor:

You get to the Lochner case. The Lochner case is in 1905. The majority rules 5-4 that the right to make a contract is part of your due process. Someone cannot deprive you of determining how long your working hours are without due process. So President Obama's a big opponent to this, but I would ask him - among the other things I'm asking him today - to rethink the Lochner case. . . . I think it's a wonderful decision.


*sigh*
 
2013-03-07 11:24:04 AM
You mean his filibuster hasn't stopped him from being a total dick?  Shocking!
 
2013-03-07 11:25:45 AM

Nadie_AZ: *sigh*


"This 1905 decision was invalidated in 1938! WE MUST RETURN TO 1905!"
 
2013-03-07 11:30:22 AM
Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.
 
2013-03-07 11:36:34 AM
I'm sure he covered a lot of heavy stupidity in his time.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:56 AM
I hope this precedent will allow them to change the rules of the filibuster to make it actually require blabbing endlessly from now on.
 
2013-03-07 11:59:15 AM
I'm glad Paul did a *real* filibuster, by standing there talking for hours. And the issue of whether or not the President alone can kill an American citizen without due process is worthy of attention.
 
2013-03-07 12:01:38 PM
So he blathered about a lot of things, so what?

/what did he ultimately accomplish?
 
2013-03-07 12:09:07 PM

mrshowrules: I hope this precedent will allow them to change the rules of the filibuster to make it actually require blabbing endlessly from now on.


Bernie Sanders didn't, why would this?

Oh, right... The "liberal media".
 
2013-03-07 12:09:54 PM

vernonFL: I'm glad Paul did a *real* filibuster, by standing there talking for hours. And the issue of whether or not the President alone can kill an American citizen without due process is worthy of attention.


What was he actually filibustering again?
 
2013-03-07 12:10:08 PM

Lionel Mandrake: You mean his filibuster hasn't stopped him from being a total dick?  Shocking!

 
2013-03-07 12:10:21 PM

GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.


Yep. We're talking about having trials for terrorists. This was already discussed before Obama was president, and Republicans were firmly against allowing accused terrorists to have trials. They were also ok with suspending the civil liberties on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:11:22 PM
Damn. I saw it was Think Progress, assumed they were twisting his words. Then read his quote. What a farking tool.

I agree with him on his stance with drones though.
 
2013-03-07 12:12:07 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So he blathered about a lot of things, so what?

/what did he ultimately accomplish?


I think he is just mad he didn't get invited to that dinner with the Obama.
 
2013-03-07 12:15:00 PM

zarberg: vernonFL: I'm glad Paul did a *real* filibuster, by standing there talking for hours. And the issue of whether or not the President alone can kill an American citizen without due process is worthy of attention.

What was he actually filibustering again?


Obama's nomination of himself as President-For-Life-Until-2016, and also the pending cancellation of Real Housewives of Paducah.
 
2013-03-07 12:15:18 PM
Rand Paul's filibuster was about Rand Paul.  Only morons who think we live in a police state or have no understanding about how government works would think it was heroic.
 
MFK
2013-03-07 12:15:31 PM

zarberg: vernonFL: I'm glad Paul did a *real* filibuster, by standing there talking for hours. And the issue of whether or not the President alone can kill an American citizen without due process is worthy of attention.

What was he actually filibustering again?


I love how he's framed it as "Obama will kill you with drones" as if that's even remotely what's happening.

Meanwhile, Cheney - without Bush's permission - actually DID give a kill order to shoot down one of the 9/11 airliners. Crickets from Randstander on that one...
 
2013-03-07 12:16:16 PM

GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.


Makes you wonder what D word he was really filibustering: drones or democrats.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:12 PM
Well yeah he's still a half sentient libertarian. Don't be swayed by gimmicks.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:22 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Damn. I saw it was Think Progress, assumed they were twisting his words. Then read his quote. What a farking tool.

I agree with him on his stance with drones though.


What the fark are you talking about? The drones are not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, drones are just a red herring to distract from the larger picture. AUMF, please.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:39 PM
Observation The First: the blog's Five Minute Rule regarding the Pauls remains largely intact. (This rule states that, for five minutes, both the son and the father, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!), make perfect sense on many issues. At the 5:00:01 mark, however, the trolley inevitably departs the tracks.) There was enough stuff packed in there about thousands of Iraqis who should go back home, and the Supreme Court'sKelo decision -- which, whatever you may think of it, was democratically arrived at -- to hold the rule still valid.

/from Charles Pierce
 
2013-03-07 12:18:45 PM

WTF Indeed: Rand Paul's filibuster was about Rand Paul.  Only morons who think we live in a police state or have no understanding about how government works would think it was heroic.


If he advocated ending the War on Drugs and Private Prisons, I'd have taken more notice.
 
2013-03-07 12:20:37 PM
Republicans "Libertarians" love Lochner and have been writing think tank fan fiction about it for decades. If workers want to agree to contract to work in a disease-infested sweatshop, that is their God-given right, and to hold otherwise infringes on their liberty and due process.
 
2013-03-07 12:20:53 PM

GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.


To be fair, he wasn't in Congress in 2007 -- I don't think he was even in a political office yet at that point.  And they're not voting on the minimum wage bill this time.
 
2013-03-07 12:21:14 PM
If I had Romney-type "FU" money, he would be one of the many reasons I would run for public office.  A guy like Rand Paul is just begging to be slapped down with the verbal equivalent of a 2 x 4.
 
2013-03-07 12:21:55 PM

Arkanaut: GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.

To be fair, he wasn't in Congress in 2007 -- I don't think he was even in a political office yet at that point.  And they're not voting on the minimum wage bill this time.


Yes, yes, but come on, you knew what I meant.
 
2013-03-07 12:24:22 PM

GAT_00: Arkanaut: GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.

To be fair, he wasn't in Congress in 2007 -- I don't think he was even in a political office yet at that point.  And they're not voting on the minimum wage bill this time.

Yes, yes, but come on, you knew what I meant.


I actually think Paul believes in this. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a the 1 in a 99 to 1 vote against this sort of stuff. Now, every OTHER Republican Senator who joined him, I agree are just blowhards.
 
2013-03-07 12:24:46 PM
Meh

He should've tripppled down and gone off on a rant about insect sized drones with tranquilizer darts waiting for him in his garden shed, planted there by the landscaper.
 
2013-03-07 12:27:03 PM
Outrage:  The state has the legal basis for but no precedent of depriving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil of their lives via drone attacks.

Crickets:  Individual states have the legal basis for and precedent of forcing women via varying tactics to have unwanted children.
 
2013-03-07 12:27:04 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So he blathered about a lot of things, so what?

/what did he ultimately accomplish?


He got media coverage. That's about it.
 
2013-03-07 12:27:05 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: Meh

He should've tripppled down and gone off on a rant about insect sized drones with tranquilizer darts waiting for him in his garden shed, planted there by the landscaper.


I liked his heroic rant about not being able to flush his toilet because of the government.
 
2013-03-07 12:27:15 PM

Shvetz: GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.

Yep. We're talking about having trials for terrorists. This was already discussed before Obama was president, and Republicans were firmly against allowing accused terrorists to have trials. They were also ok with suspending the civil liberties on American soil.


To be fair, Rand wasn't there for any of that.

He's allowed to be correct on an issue.  For whatever reason.  I'm not gonna disagree with the drone part.  That doesn't mean I can't still think Rand Paul isn't very smart.
 
2013-03-07 12:28:59 PM
Rand Paul is just seeing through the smoke of politics here. I'm sure he'd be just as vociferous if Romney were in office.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:23 PM
rlv.zcache.com
 
2013-03-07 12:31:29 PM

coeyagi: Outrage: The state has the legal basis for but no precedent of depriving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil of their lives via drone attacks


I think it's more than that.  What does US soil have to do with anything?  The government has the right to kill any of us the moment we step foot beyond the borders?
 
2013-03-07 12:36:07 PM

MFK: zarberg: vernonFL: I'm glad Paul did a *real* filibuster, by standing there talking for hours. And the issue of whether or not the President alone can kill an American citizen without due process is worthy of attention.

What was he actually filibustering again?

I love how he's framed it as "Obama will kill you with drones" as if that's even remotely what's happening.

Meanwhile, Cheney - without Bush's permission - actually DID give a kill order to shoot down one of the 9/11 airliners. Crickets from Randstander on that one...


I don't think the possibility to apprehend the suspects existed, combined with imminent threat to unknown number of lives, justifies that particular decision, in a self-defense sort of way. If the possibility to apprehend without loss of life exists, that should be the path taken.
 
2013-03-07 12:36:22 PM
I blame the voters of Kentucky. They have given the US Senate so much fail.
 
2013-03-07 12:36:36 PM

Xythero: coeyagi: Outrage: The state has the legal basis for but no precedent of depriving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil of their lives via drone attacks

I think it's more than that.  What does US soil have to do with anything?  The government has the right to kill any of us the moment we step foot beyond the borders?


Exactly right. There's no legal basis for distinguishing between US territory and not, as far as I'm aware. This is just NIMBYism applied to war. It's not principled.
 
2013-03-07 12:37:06 PM

BeesNuts: He's allowed to be correct on an issue.  For whatever reason.  I'm not gonna disagree with the drone part.  That doesn't mean I can't still think Rand Paul isn't very smart.


the thing is, he is actually totally ok with drone killings of US citizens that he personally feels are traitors so
 
2013-03-07 12:37:08 PM
We could easily to get Paul to support the use of drones. Tell him they will be used by management against workers and union members.
 
2013-03-07 12:37:32 PM

DamnYankees: GAT_00: Arkanaut: GAT_00: Which is why that despite Paul protesting a legitimate topic, I heavily questioned his real reasons and did not back his filibuster as legitimate.  Paul wouldn't have a problem with this if this was 2007.

To be fair, he wasn't in Congress in 2007 -- I don't think he was even in a political office yet at that point.  And they're not voting on the minimum wage bill this time.

Yes, yes, but come on, you knew what I meant.

I actually think Paul believes in this. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a the 1 in a 99 to 1 vote against this sort of stuff. Now, every OTHER Republican Senator who joined him, I agree are just blowhards.


No, I think he's just as much of a hypocritical jackass as his father.
 
2013-03-07 12:37:33 PM

red5ish: I blame the voters of Kentucky. They have given the US Senate so much fail.


You know what else Kentucky gave us?
 
2013-03-07 12:38:10 PM

Xythero: coeyagi: Outrage: The state has the legal basis for but no precedent of depriving U.S. citizens on U.S. soil of their lives via drone attacks

I think it's more than that.  What does US soil have to do with anything?  The government has the right to kill any of us the moment we step foot beyond the borders?


Depends on how the argument is framed.  There were parts where he put it in that context.  But I would agree, it shouldn't matter.  But to my point, hey, you can't be a True Libertarian™ without picking a la carte from the Libertarian dessert tray.
 
2013-03-07 12:39:19 PM
At some point are they going to get around to Paul Brennan's suitability to run the CIA?

Filibustering cabinet appointees is a new low for the Senate.
 
2013-03-07 12:39:44 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: red5ish: I blame the voters of Kentucky. They have given the US Senate so much fail.

You know what else Kentucky gave us?


Ashley Judd?

Sexagenarian Mutant Ninja Turtle?

Herpes?
 
2013-03-07 12:41:15 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: We could easily to get Paul to support the use of drones.


He actually does support the use of drones!
 
2013-03-07 12:41:19 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: red5ish: I blame the voters of Kentucky. They have given the US Senate so much fail.

You know what else Kentucky gave us?


Horse racing and Kentucky whisky. Probably some good country musicians. But their senators are awful.
 
2013-03-07 12:41:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: At some point are they going to get around to Paul Brennan's suitability to run the CIA?

Filibustering cabinet appointees is a new low for the Senate.


It goes back to that new adage: "If you can't prove Obama sucks dick at his job, hold up all his appointees with the hope that the executive branch looks worse than the clusterf*ck that is the legislative one, and maybe Cletus the barefoot mongoloid will vote for you again."
 
2013-03-07 12:43:00 PM

coeyagi: It goes back to that new adage: "If you can't prove Obama sucks dick at his job, hold up all his appointees with the hope that the executive branch looks worse than the clusterf*ck that is the legislative one, and maybe Cletus the barefoot mongoloid will vote for you again."


And its working.
 
2013-03-07 12:44:50 PM

Marcus Aurelius: At some point are they going to get around to Paul Brennan's suitability to run the CIA?

Filibustering cabinet appointees is a new low for the Senate.


My problem with Brennan is that he oversaw and participated in possible war crimes.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report