rand paul filibuster

[KonDon]

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They can't handle the Randal

[PlutoCharon]

Still going. Pretty good stuff

[trelelnd]

Yeah it was good. Too bad CSpan online cut off the vote of cloture. Can't tell what happened.

[Halfcrazedhoser]

The best part from what I'm seeing, is that it's got alot of people talking about drone strikes and the policies thereof.

Not to mention a 13hr filibuster is rather impressive.

[PlutoCharon]

Agreed, a common alt media subject that the MSM refused to talk about before yesterday is now being covered by the MSM.

McCain and Graham attacked Paul today but so far their words appear quite unpopular even on the MSM. This is good to say the least. There are a lot of issues that need to be brought to public awareness, don't get me wrong. At least this one is out there. I disagree with Rand on several things and the Romney endorsement was bad. At the same time he is defending the constitution and his voting record is mostly good IMO. The stuff I don't agree with him on is the stuff that brought many conservatives to his side. Is it a double edged sword or a Trojan horse? Whatever the case I guess I can agree to disagree so long as the constitution is upheld, a view I now realize is more important than I or many leftards ever realized.

[Phys]

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

They can't handle the Randal

It was awesome! That's how one should filibuster not require a supermajority then go wait somewhere else.

[PlutoCharon]

I'm surprised they finally answered no to a yes or no question they previously evaded in response more than once. Of course, this is not sufficient for me personally. The administration can always loosely define who they consider to be an American engaged in combat (on American soil or anywhere really). Political dissent could be considered "engaged in combat" for some. We already know they've spied on similar folks, such as Ron Paul supporters. They can come up with any old excuse such as how terrorists could hide amongst them. And it's not just weaponized drones I'm worried about. Any drones on American soil used to spy on Americans. Any lethal force used to injure or kill Americans.

When McCain and Graham were talking, I think it was Graham that says as soon as you join "Al-Qaeda" you are an imminent threat no matter where you are and they have the right to kill you without due process. Let's pretend Al-Qaeda even exists in any legitimate form and play along. What if an American joined a non-combat resistance group that "Al-Qaeda" had ties to? Like how Israel always called Hamas a "terror proxy" of Iran. People like McCain and Graham would consider you an imminent threat worthy of being killed. What if a powerful militant political dissent resistance group formed in opposition of the corrupt US government? Would the US government not consider them to be "engaged in combat" ?? Graham (or McCain) even said that if somebody is identified as a member of Al-Qaeda that they should be taken out without due process because it would prevent a potential attack. What if they are mis-identified? Happens all the time. Think about how all the intelligence about Iraq was bullshit. Not just a mistake but a lie. What if somebody lies in order to take out an opponent? What if the president is the one who lies to take out an opponent? What if this has already happened or is happening now?

The POTUS is not above the constitution, but the Kenyan currently in the WH along with a lot of his leftard useful idiot followers have no problem giving him additional power such as the power to kill Americans without due process as they've done with drones on the other side of the world. Drones that have killed "terrorist" targets when not engaged in any combat situation. American citizens accompanying them, even kids, have been killed as "collateral damage". What about the mistakes the drones have made that killed innocent people?

The larger question is the drone war in general. The president is using the drones to fight a clandestine war against a faceless boogeyman without the authorization of congress. Warmongers like McCain have no problem with this. Leftard dumbocrats care about people being tortured at gitmo but have no problem with the POTUS killing at random with his drones.

At least part of the issue is out there, at least for a brief amount of time. This isn't the last we'll hear about it and for a change it's a step in the right direction. I don't expect anything to change as far as policy is concerned though

[Phys]

Nice! This is the first I have heard of that letr.

How does the govt define "combat"?

[PlutoCharon]

Probably just as loosely as they define 'terrorist'

The rhetoric used by these professional liars can legally change the interpreted definition of a word to whatever they want regardless of the original (or popularly understood) intent. Enough where lies become truths (Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations" comment comes to mind). If they defined what they meant by combat it would just be another closed-loop rhetorical mess of legal babble.

The US is still a constitutional republic even though they've shown disregard for the constitution these past 12 years or tried the same rhetoric to misinterpret the well-understood intent. I hope in the end they won't be able to take that away from us despite the calls from some liberals claiming it is antiquated (something that's easy for people to fall trap to.. I used to think it was antiquated but that was due to media brainwashing)

[Phys]

Probably just as loosely as they define 'terrorist'

Yup! Although, it is cool that he got a letter and its rad what Rand Paul did.