Posted on 03/10/2013 5:56:32 AM PDT by RaceBannon
As of this writing, Senator Rand Paul is still on his feet filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the CIA. But as he eventually made clear, his goal is not so much to actually stop Brennan, as it is to make a meal of the comments made this morning by Attorney General Eric Holder when he was pressed about U.S. policies on drone strikes on terrorists during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked whether the government considered it had the right to use an armed drone on an American citizen within the borders of the United States, Holder didn’t give the senators a straight answer. They were entitled to such an answer, as well as to the documents they requested. But those who are now saying that the dustup over using drones in the United States is the sole point of Paul’s filibuster hasn’t been listening closely to him as he held the Senate floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
I had many awesome posts, but yours was the only childish post. Sad !!
Of course many writers like Tobin and that other blogger you used to attempt to make your point have their own agendas
After reviewing some of your banality, with your circular arguments, I am thinking . . . I don't care if it was Van Jones or code pink on the floor making the argument Paul was making. The fact of the matter is Holder refused to answer a simple and fundamental question. Brennan in his role of CIA director will be in position to do as no other CIA Chief has ever done before in regards to Americans on American soil. If Nancy Pelosi got up and made that argument, because it is sooooo f&@king obvious and simple, I would have supported her.
Banal people like you making the simple so compound complex, looking for a hidden agenda behind every person you hate, with your stupid litmus test for everyone and every subject that we all must be the great evil if we do not see the light as you do nor agree
Allow some Of us a few moments to enjoy an American standing up and saying what many of us ALREADY think and believe. PLEASE
You did?? How about a link?
Perhaps Paul should have mentioned the unconstitutional government slaughters at Ruby Ridge and Waco as precedents for the kind of power abuses he was protesting.
But then the democrats and the Obama media would have really ridiculed him as a far-right paranoid.
“RaceBannon” appears to be one of those who posts a strongly worded comment, discovers that he faces overwhelming opposition, and forthwith reaches for the ejection seat handle to punch himself out of the thread.
Waco and Ruby Ridge may have a resonance for Rand Paul that they don't for Jonathan Tobin.
Certainly, when I google Rand Paul and Waco or Ruby Ridge, I come up with a lot of results, not from him, but indicating his constituency's concerns, but when I google Jonathan Tobin and Waco or Ruby Ridge I come up with nothing.
I am a “L”ibertarian yet strong pro-Defense and appreciate the moral arguments of the pro-Life view.
“Drugs and hookers” are not a concern of mine and I believe those are states’ rights’ decisions.
Rand Paul’s views, basically.
Is there ANY ROOM for us in GOP? If the answer is “no,” then good luck with your party’s survival / growth.
I’ve never considered myself as Libertarian.
My main difference is with drugs and foreign policy.
As far as drones over our Country, I’m dead set against it, armed, unarmed, spying. On the border, ok.
Sorry meant replies. Long day...this hour change has me all screwed up.
What exactly is Rand's position on the 11 million illegals currently in the USA?
Supporting “local 10th Amendment solutions” tells me exactly nothing.
If California declares “Amnesty” for all illegals within its borders, would Rand support that?
What if California built a pedestrian bridge over Rand's border fence - would Rand support that, too?
Has Rand actually introduced legislation that would exclude illegals from welfare programs?
For instance, Food Stamps are now issued without any effort to confirm US citizenship or legal residence.
Has Rand publicly affirmed his intention to stop that?
Not that I know about.
Rand says “immigrants should meet the current requirements.”
Obviously, 11 million immigrants do not meet them.
Will Rand make any effort to find these illegals and deport them?
Not that I know about.
Does Rand support criminal and civil penalties against employers who use illegal labor?
Does Rand insist that all employers use E-Verify?
Not that I know about.
You are aware. Got any Patriots?
No, I just grab the popcorn and laugh at the pro-druggie types who support Rand along with CODE PINK, Van Jones, and soon to come, DAVID DUKE and already the TRAITOR ADAM KOKESH
But, if you want to call traitors and liars good fellows, have at it
I wont be part of that.
It's pissing away American lives for a decade, while the enemy headquarters thrives with our support, which I have no tolerance for.
Since when is illegal immigration a local issue?
I guess you’d be for the way Hawaii was giving out citizenship to anyone who would go there and claim it?
Meanwhile, Rand Paul’s supposed concern for illegal immigration was just a posture to get elected. He’s come out for it since: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/paul-gop-evolve-on-immigration-86980.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.