Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, March 07, 2013

One of the oldest and most storied traditions of the Senate made a sudden return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday when a junior senator seized control of the chamber with an hours-long filibuster involving rambling speeches aimed at blocking a vote on President Obama's choice to lead the CIA. Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with help from other junior senators, the filibuster stretched nearly 13 hours -- with the Senate adjourning at about 12:40 a.m. Thursday -- and was aimed at drawing attention to deep concern on both sides of the aisle about the administration's use of unmanned aerial drones in its fight against terrorists and whether the government would ever use them in the United States.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

lee_the_agent

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

At least one Senator cares about the Constitution.

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"but, I trust this president"

Orky

#2 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good to see the political theater has yet another act to it. Life would be so boring without the hysterics.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-06 02:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Make him do it and do it "Jimmy Stewart Style!" Imagine the ratings C-Span would get after 10 hours or so of his non-stop talking.

#4 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-06 02:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

He does not have the conviction to do it.

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-06 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Finally, someone with a spine in DC.

#6 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-03-06 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Finally, someone with a spine in DC.

#6 | POSTED BY DANIEL AT 2013-03-06 02:23 PM | FLAG:

Too bad there's no brain to accompany it.

#7 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-06 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need more people like him and his dad.

#8 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

We need more people like his dad.

#8 | POSTED BY ZACK991 AT 2013-03-06 03:31 PM | FLAG: FTFY!

lol ☺

#9 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2013-03-06 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I give him credit, he is actually standing up and talking in the Senate, a real old fashioned filibuster and he is talking about a really serious issue, I'm thinking I probably agree with him on this.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

7 .

Coming from the democrats like Reid, Pelosi and misses 170 million jobs losses Maxine Waters, also not to forget about Feinstein dumb ass. I think the republicans are safe.

#11 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love old school filibusters. Paul using one to cast light on the constitutional concerns over the drone program is great. I support this wholeheartedly.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Alternate headline:

Republican Outflanks Obama on the Left; DNC Screams "Not fair"!

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was going to write something similar to what Rcade said in #12. If there ever was an issue that people from all political persuasions should be concerned about, it is the use of drones, especially on US soil, and especially targeting American citizens overseas.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-06 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh [...].

Well at least he's brining up a topic that is of merit.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-06 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm thinking I probably agree with him on this.
#10 | Posted by danni

Good lord. I can just sense how hard it was for you to type that. The pain just drips from your post.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

If there ever was an issue that people from all political persuasions should be concerned about, it is the use of drones, especially on US soil, and especially targeting American citizens overseas.

Too many are blinded by partisan nonsense and ideas of "trust" in a leader. The RNC wore the blinders under Dubya just as the DNC wears them now under Obama, and neither side will remove them until out of power. Until we, as a people, get past the sports fan attitude of politics, each side will always get away with whatever they want so long as they have the trust of the people. The concept of precedent means nothing to those with such short-sighted vision.

#17 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-06 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Watch it live...

www.c-span.org

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great quotes from Rand Paul. Give 'em hell!

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think the republicans are safe.

#11 | Posted by zack991

Nobody with a lick of sense would turn their back on them or ask them to hold his wallet while he went swimming.

#20 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-06 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

Acknowledge how absurd a time we live in, that a US politician actually has to stand up there and say this.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 " DNC wears them now under Obama"

I agree with this on many instances but now speaking is Wyden, a Democrat, from Oregon. As was said previously, I think some on both sides of the aisle think the drones and the justifications for them are wrong.

#22 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2013-03-06 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The pain just drips from your post."

I'll get over it.
I think that Paul should be making the case that Congress needs to determine how and when drones can be used, thus far they have left it up to the Executive Branch to make the rules. They aren't supposed to be making those rules, that is the job of Congress.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Acknowledge how absurd a time we live in, that a US politician actually has to stand up there and say this."

It's more than absurd, it's criminal. And the terrified sheeple will give up anything for the illusion of "safety."

Poll: One-Third of Americans Would Accept Cavity Searches By TSA
jonathanturley.org

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 04:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

John Brennan may or may not get his appointment. But if Obama thinks that this man has much popular credibility with Congress, he is mistaken.

#25 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-06 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

Acknowledge how absurd a time we live in, that a US politician actually has to stand up there and say this.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag

This is so true, and the authoritarian liberals here worshipping obama and company just don't understand this because they are far to blinded by their party pandering.

Killing an American without process is being debated.....how can these democrats live with themselves.

#26 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wyden is really droning on.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting that when Brennan was working for the Bush administration, supporting its torture policies, the GOPers had no problem with the guy. Surely the problem now couldn't be that he's working for Obama. Right?

#28 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-06 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wyden is really droning on.

On U.S. soil, too. That should be unconstitutional.

#29 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wyden is really droning on.

I think he did that on purpose, to give Paul a break from speaking. It seemed like Wyden had absolutely nothing to say.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

20
I am certainly no supporter of the Republican Party, my point was to point out his intelligence insult on the one of the very few reps who understands the constitution, much less fights for us. The democrats I named can't even recite any of it if it was put on a Telepromter in front of them. There are a number of republicans as well that fall into that , but Rand Paul and Ron Paul certainly don't.

#31 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-06 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting that when Brennan was working for the Bush administration, supporting its torture policies, the GOPers had no problem with the guy.

Yeah, Ron Wyden, that filthy Republican.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wyden is really droning on."

Er....it's a filibuster. That's sort of the idea. They used to read phone books during filibusters.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

No American should be killed by a drone on American soil

I generally agree with that statement, but I'm saving my outrage for when a U.S. drone actually kills an American on American soil.

#34 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-03-06 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wyden is really droning on."

"Er....it's a filibuster. That's sort of the idea."

Actually, it was a joke. Sorry you didn't catch it.

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is sort of hypocritical to hold this filibuster but not propose legislation to deal with the issue. I actually wonder how many in Congress would have the courage of their convictions to actually vote for any legislation which would, in any way, reduce the power of the presidency to combat terrorism either home or abroad.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Sorry you didn't catch it."

Me too. I should have.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it's great..

HEY SENATOR..

just start off talking about all of the lies of this skunk president AND his lackies and toadies the past week on sequester..THAT alone will take you through the end of the week

#38 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, I don't think he is protesting Brennen so much as our attorney general stating that Obama could order a drone strike on American soil. And to that I say bravo Senator. Someone needs to speak out about this issue.

#39 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul is going to need a break to feed that critter on top of his head.

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I support this wholeheartedly.

#12 | Posted by rcade

I agree... great way to up the ante on this very important discussion.

It needs to be resolved. I seriously doubt anyone is going to drone Americans on American soil but why wait for another WACO or Ruby Ridge.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It is sort of hypocritical to hold this filibuster..."

No what hypocritical is the President (constitutional scholar)thinking he can order a drone strike on Americans w/out due process.

#42 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"On U.S. soil, too. That should be unconstitutional."

Glad to see somebody got the joke.

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Someone needs to speak out about this issue."

Yes they do but then, if they feel so strongly about it, they need to pass a law limiting the actions of the President. They need to share the responsiblity for the consequences of any such limits. Til now they want the President to limit his own powers and it just doesn't work that way. The President will always use every tool at his disposal to keep us safe from terrorists, if some of the tools are excessive then there should be laws limiting their use.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, we have DUE PROCESS. There is already a law against this?

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

RandyRonnie constitutional experts!?!?!?!

...self-certified in the true Libertardian tradition, no doubt

...L...

...O...

...L...

...!...

#46 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2013-03-06 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

Police do it all the time. Not one congresscritter has ever cared about those victims.

#47 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-06 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, we have DUE PROCESS. There is already a law against this?

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag

The party zombie will never waiver from her worship of party president doings, it is all ok because it is her party doing it.

#48 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni, we have DUE PROCESS. There is already a law against this?"

Then it is up to the courts to rule against the Executive Branch. Where have they been? I'm quite sure cases have been brought to them.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Killing an American without process is being debated.....how can these democrats live with themselves.

#26 | Posted by moneywar

I don't understand why it is even up for debate. But....... little o has thrown the Constitution out the window over 4 years ago.

#50 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-03-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

I generally agree with that statement, but I'm saving my outrage for when a U.S. drone actually kills an American on American soil.

#34 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Unless you are that "American"..... in which case .... sucks to be that guy.... huh....

Really interested in what Bill Ayers has to say about all this...

I facebook liked Nulli's "droning" joke.....

#51 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-03-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The party zombie will never waiver from her worship of party president doings, it is all ok because it is her party doing it."

It would be the same whoever was President. There is no such think as a self-regulating CinC. That's why we have seperation of powers and the ability of the courts to rule that the President is exceeding his authority, where have they been since 2001?

#52 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"keep us safe from terrorists,"

That's exactly what is wrong with "Americans." They want a Maximum Leader, a Big Daddy, to keep them "safe" from a million and one threats and more in the making. They are children.

#53 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

No what hypocritical is the President (constitutional scholar)thinking he can order a drone strike on Americans w/out due process.

#42 | Posted by Dalton

It is good that Congress is finally recognizing the problem that it created.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone please distinguish (constitutionally) between a cop who kills an American citizen on U.S. soil while in the act of committing a felony, and a soldier killing an American citizen on foreign soil while s/he is in the process of committing a terrorist act against the U.S.

(I don't want to hear about scenarios where drones have been used in other situations. I also don't want to hear about scenarios where cops killed suspects when they probably shouldn't have. I want to hear someone distinguish these scenarios, if anyone feels they are constitutionally distinguishable.)

#55 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2013-03-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rubio joked to Paul that he should have water nearby.

Dude, you can't tell him to drink water! Unless he has rigged up a system in his pants, water is the mortal enemy of the filibuster.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then it is up to the courts to rule against the Executive Branch. Where have they been? I'm quite sure cases have been brought to them.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag

You must be confused. There is no case to date. Obama has not ordered a drone strike on American soil. He just thinks he can w/out a trial, charges, or anything.

#57 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#39 | Posted by Dalton

You may be right; I was addressing the topic actually at hand - which doesn't mean that's what someone pulling the filibuster card is necessarily doing the same thing.

#58 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-06 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

American citizen on U.S. soil while in the act of committing a felony, and a soldier killing an American citizen on foreign soil while s/he is in the process of committing a terrorist act against the U.S.

wow, how is a terrorist act committed against the US on foreign soil? That would be an act of war.

#59 | Posted by moneywar at 2013-03-06 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Killing an American without process is being debated.....how can these democrats live with themselves.

#26 | Posted by moneywar

I don't understand why it is even up for debate. But....... little o has thrown the Constitution out the window over 4 years ago.

#50 | Posted by Sniper

so if it comes to pass that an American citizen takes up arms against America in this so call war on terror and refuses to surrender after repeated attempts to arrest him peaceably and he was threatening to take many more American lives you would not allow the US government to kill him without proper "due process"?

Good to know. Though you are too late with your faux rage as it has already been done.

#60 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni makes a interesting point. Would Obama be arrested if he ordered a drone strike here after the fact? Or could someone take a hypothetical case to the supreme court?

#61 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congress could easy fix this problem that it created if it were a functional body. All it has to do is repeal the authorization it gave the President and admit that the entire world is not a battlefield. By relinquishing its authority to declare war properly it has created this problem.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paul just name dropped Charles Pierce and Conor Friedersdorf, two of my favorite bloggers.

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Someone please distinguish (constitutionally) between a cop who kills an American citizen on U.S. soil while in the act of committing a felony, and a soldier killing an American citizen on foreign soil while s/he is in the process of committing a terrorist act against the U.S.

I think the problem with your question is that it presumes all drone strikes against Americans have occurred while the recipient of the missile is "in the process of committing a terrorist act." If someone is driving a truck bomb toward the federal building, they should be shot. If someone is sitting in their house planning future attacks, they should not be. The issue is that Obama has taken it upon himself to fire drone strikes at the latter, and even if you want to argue that he hasn't, there's no system in place to ensure that future Presidents don't do so.

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Donner are missing the key point of this argument on purpose? Congress never gave the POTUS the authority to use drones in America on it's citizens. It' just that Obama thinks he can do this.

#65 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"At least one Senator cares about the Constitution"

Ahahaha

Yup, in a politically polluted justice system that pays prosecutors 20% more than defenders and feeds a for profit penal system --- this douche cares about the constitution. One days it's "I am tough on crime", the next a bumper sticker slogan platitude to the "constitution"

There is a sucker born every day --- and the next Paul is ready to capitalize.

#66 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2013-03-06 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congress never gave the POTUS the authority to use drones in America on it's citizens. It' just that Obama thinks he can do this.

#65 | Posted by Dalton

yes it did. THAT is the point.

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's as crazy as his old man!

Just another religious control freak who wants to ban porn.

#68 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just another religious control freak who wants to ban porn."

Perhaps, but on this issue Rand Paul is kicking Obama's ass.

#69 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Today it seems everyone want's to blame Obama. But you got to start at the beginning to place the real blame. Obama's Grandparents took over raising him at age 6. Maybe they thought they were doing right at the time. They sent him to a Catholic grade school,where the Priest ran around wearing dresses. While talking about an invisible man who no one has ever seen. But it doesn't stop there,oh no they also talked about his buddy the ghost. But since it was a Catholic school who real knows what the invisible man and the ghost did to one another.

So next time someone has something to say about Obama,just think about the way he was raised! We wouldn't wish that on nobody.

#70 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless you are that "American"..... in which case .... sucks to be that guy.... huh....

#51 | Posted by AndreaMackris

I'm never going to be that guy, and neither are you.

I think it's ridicules to convey outrage over a hypothetical situation. But it's certainly the game politico's like to play to stir up the emotions of the masses.

When was the last time you saw a federal level politician that didn't use fear as their favored tool of choice?

#71 | Posted by whatsleft at 2013-03-06 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Poll: One-Third of Americans Would Accept Cavity Searches By TSA
#24 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Maybe if they promise to massage the prostate.

#72 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2013-03-06 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

115 STAT. 224 PUBLIC LAW 107–40 -- SEPT. 18, 2001

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

yes it did. THAT is the point.

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:03 PM | Reply

Can anyone tell me when Congress did away with the bill of rights? Because Donner said they did. Now granted our freedoms have been eroding since we got them but, I don't remember them writing a law to do away with all toghether?

#74 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Can anyone tell me when Congress did away with the bill of rights? Because Donner said they did. Now granted our freedoms have been eroding since we got them but, I don't remember them writing a law to do away with all toghether?

#74 | Posted by Dalton

Perhaps you should pay better attention to the laws that Congress is passing.

#75 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:16 PM

1. Obama has droned people having nothing to do with 9/11./

2. Just because Congress passed legislation and the President signed it does not mean said legislation is Constitutional when applied to Americans. Plenty of unconstitutional laws have been passed, in place for years, and subsequently struck down. The Obama administration has done everything in its power to avoid a judicial and Constitutional review of the purported authority to drone Americans.

Simply pointing to a statute and saying "DURRRRR ITS THE LAW" has nothing to do with whether something is Constitutional or not.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

When you declare a global war on terror and label the entire planet a battlefield and then give the President the authority to declare who is an enemy combatant then give him the power to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...then you have just opened Pandoras Box.

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Simply pointing to a statute and saying "DURRRRR ITS THE LAW" has nothing to do with whether something is Constitutional or not.

#76 | Posted by JOE

I am not saying it is constitutional or whether I even agree with it. But Congress created this mess and they could fix it too.

And I am very glad someone finally noticed the mess we are making and found the balls to do something about it.

#78 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Congress created this mess

Congress gave the President options. Obama is the one exercising that option against Americans. He could just as easily refrain from doing so. That he doesn't is on HIM, not Congress.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I can't help it, Congress gave me the authority to shoot drone missiles at people, therefore I have no choice but to shoot drone missiles at Americans without due process."

-Obama, per BonerBoy

#80 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-06 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

My apologies Donner. If there is no text in the law that doesn't exclude Americans on American soil I am wrong.

#81 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Never mind donner. After#79 Itake it back!

Just kidding.

#82 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Finally, someone with a spine in DC.
#6 | POSTED BY DANIEL AT 2013-03-06 02:23 PM | FLAG:

Too bad there's no brain to accompany it.
#7 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

He's a whole lot smarter than you!

#83 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-06 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand is still rolling...giving an anti-imperialist, pro civil-libertarian argument that Noam Chomsky could make, on the Senate floor.

#84 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

No Terrorist Tuesdays for Americans!

#85 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Make him do it and do it "Jimmy Stewart Style!" Imagine the ratings C-Span would get after 10 hours or so of his non-stop talking."

nice picture on the comments section.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-06 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"nice picture"

A great bomber pilot, too.

#87 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

They've just put a feeding tube and IVs in Rand-----keep talking Rand.

#88 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-06 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They've just put a feeding tube and IVs in Rand-----keep talking Rand."

But did they add a feeding tube for that thing on the top of his head?

#89 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think I saw him slip it an M&M.

#90 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-03-06 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They've just put a feeding tube and IVs in Rand-----keep talking Rand."

But did they add a feeding tube for that thing on the top of his head?

#89 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 06:23 PM | Reply |

If it moves; I would hope so.

#91 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-06 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

He could be getting tired, he just took the "Rubio sip".

#92 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gee wiz who could have guess another elected clown from Kentucky. These people couldn't even decide what side to team up with in the civil war.

#93 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yea keeping talking "Forest" get ready he'll be talking about his bible book any minute now...run forest run... you can't tell me they people don't breed with farm animal.

#94 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Congress gave the President options. Obama is the one exercising that option against Americans. He could just as easily refrain from doing so. That he doesn't is on HIM, not Congress.

#79 | Posted by JOE

It looks to me like he IS refraining.

How many Americans has he droned so far?

And when he starts using drones on Americans on American soil then I too will soil myself..like you apparently already have.

End the "GWOT" and you will end this nonsense too.

#95 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-06 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"End the "GWOT" and you will end this nonsense too."

Good idea. How do you do that? Vote Democrat?

#96 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-06 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

And when he starts using drones on Americans on American soil then I too will soil myself..like you apparently already have.

And it will be too late.

#97 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-06 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

And it will be too late.

That was 1980 at the latest.

#98 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Good to see the political theater has yet another act to it. Life would be so boring without the hysterics."

The political theater is the cancellation of WH tours while the IG's have revealed billions of dollars in fraud, redundant programs and waste that can be immediately recouped. Sen Cantor has a LIST of hundreds of wasteful expenditures on his site as well.

Instead of the WH tours (most of which are conducted by volunteers), why can't we start immediately by cancelling all those gala GSA-style conventions? You guys wanna talk about political theater, all of you, along with Little Caesar Barackus are a three-ring circus all by yourselves.

#99 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-03-06 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The morality of killer drones is one thing.

The legality of using them in America is another.

#100 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-06 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paul just said we could have droned Jane Fonda for aiding the enemy. Hilarious

#101 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The morality of killer drones is one thing."

I have a feeling they said the same thing the first time they dropped bombs from a plane. Once we passed the usage of napalm on villages in Vietnam I really don't think morality has been a consideration on weapons systems. Atomic bombs on Japan?

#102 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have to give credit where credit is due.
I never liked the Paul's BUT he is right to do this, and how he is doing this, so even though it hurts me, I have to say GO RAND PAUL GO!
now excuse me while I have to go to confession and say 10 hail Marys and bathe my self in Holy water for agreeing with Rand Paul

#103 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2013-03-06 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never liked the Paul's BUT he is right to do this, and how he is doing this, so even though it hurts me, I have to say GO RAND PAUL GO!

A part of me has always liked the Pauls for stuff like this.

#104 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paul just said we could have droned Jane Fonda for aiding the enemy. Hilarious

#101 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag

There was no "enemey" for Jane Fonda to aid. We were never at war with North Viet Nam, so there were no enemies. The men who died there, died for nothing.

#105 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 07:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

We were never at war with North Viet Nam

Yeah, sure Bob.
Here's a clue, "at war" and "declaring war" are not the same thing.

War is a racket.

#106 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

War is good business. Invest your sons!

#107 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.youtube.com

#108 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-06 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's a clue, "at war" and "declaring war" are not the same thing.

#106 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag

You are simply mistaken. Viet Nam was described as a Police Action officially, so our army was there to maintain the peace and stop any criminals that tried to destroy the peace. The North merely sent their well trained criminals to destroy the peaxce of the South and we were there to protect the citizens with our large "police force". No enemies there--just criminals. No war there---just a police action. That's official.

#109 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

hook line and sinker!!! rand paul writes a letter to holder and asks him if we could strike Americans with drones. no one was even thinking this until paul started the conversation. then the reply was a hypothetical one stating that under the right terrorist threat and law enforcement wasn't available to act then to save hundreds yes we could act before it was to late. he set up this dialog and you all are falling for it! sheep sheep sheep

#110 | Posted by reupman at 2013-03-06 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, what would you have thought if Nixon would have blown Jane Fonda up for propaganda?

#111 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-06 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

so a senator uses his constitutional right to filabuster and the left just hates it.

if he were a lying dog liberal you good folks would be slobbering all over yourselves.

AND its the 177th anniversary of the mexican SLAUGHTER at the Alamo...
this week 177 years ago a line was drawn in the sand

and so today there is another.........

#112 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

here was no "enemey" for Jane Fonda to aid. We were never at war with North Viet Nam, so there were no enemies. The men who died there, died for nothing.

#105 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

oh Bobareennooo

really??

the woman should be DEAD....she should have been placed on a wall and shot...declared war or not...

#113 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some day there will be a large segment of progressives and libertarians that will wake up to the fact they have much in common, about the really important stuff like maintaining liberty, our rights, containing the imperial Presidency, and opposition to infinite wars and imperialism and using the savings to rebuild the USA.

#114 | Posted by Robson at 2013-03-06 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#113 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag

It is called FREE SPEECH. I understand your opposition---people are allowed to say things with which you disagree and you really don't value American values.

Jane Fonda was trying to stop an action where thousands of Americans died for nothing. I can understand your opposition.

#115 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 07:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think the problem with your question is that it presumes all drone strikes against Americans have occurred while the recipient of the missile is "in the process of committing a terrorist act."
#64 | Posted by JOE"

No, that's not actually a problem, as I specifically stated that I didn't want to hear about those situations.

"If someone is driving a truck bomb toward the federal building, they should be shot. If someone is sitting in their house planning future attacks, they should not be.
#64 | Posted by JOE"

Based on the above, I think we probably agree on how this should constitutionally work. Those who suggest we can never kill an American citizen abroad (or here) without trying them first are silly, and those who think the POTUS should be able to kill whomever he pleases without any process or oversight or immediacy of threat are downright scary.

#117 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2013-03-06 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is scary stuff, especially when you have the AG evasive in his answers.

#118 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-06 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

rand paul is filabustering DRONES by DRONING on and on

get it
get it
get it

#119 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

ane Fonda was trying to stop an action where thousands of Americans died for nothing. I can understand your opposition.

#115 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2

abso-positively..

but there were thousands of ways she could have done that without sitting on that gun and being a tool of the cong.

and as far as people dead for nothing..well I guess we can take that up with those democrat presidents that were responsible...

#120 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

a tool of the cong

A thousand porn scripts spring to mind.

#121 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2013-03-06 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

#117 - agreed, Monte.

#122 | Posted by cbob at 2013-03-06 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

After nine hours, Rand Paul's adamantium bladder should be trending on Twitter.

#123 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

HERE"S a interesting slant

rand paul has to FILABUSTER to get answers about DRONES being used to KILL americans

and he's asking members of a man who

WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.

ONLY a liberal

#124 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#120 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nixon kept us in Viet Nam, and Eisenhower sent in the first troops. History and reality aren't on your side. Johnson was a Texan---not an American or democrat.

#125 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

but there were thousands of ways she could have done that without sitting on that gun and being a tool of the cong.

#120 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-06 08:09 PM | Reply

It was a statement, and an effective statement----people are still talking about it 45 years later.

#126 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-06 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm impressed with the intellect Paul is displaying here. We're 10 hours into this and he's still as rhetorically sharp as he was at the beginning.

#127 | Posted by rcade at 2013-03-06 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jane Fonda looking hot these days! An to think she was still right about Vietnam. Had we won that war,who knows how must higher the clothes would cost us at Kohl. That wouldn't have been good for consumers. Plus a lot of our sea food comes from there too.

#128 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I bet there is no body there listening to that hillbilly speak!

#129 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

the woman should be DEAD....she should have been placed on a wall and shot...declared war or not...

#113 | Posted by afkabl2 a

So you are with Obama with the right to kill Americans who have not been charge with a crime in a foreign country, well you and Obama are wrong!
Freakin Obama lovers like you make me sick

#130 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2013-03-06 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was a statement, and an effective statement----people are still talking about it 45 years later.

#126 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

So you are a fan of the bible?

#131 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-03-06 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let them vote,John Brennan will get the job!

An this fool can go back to wanting to ban porn and passing out bibles.

#132 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-06 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni, what would you have thought if Nixon would have blown Jane Fonda for propaganda?"

I'm not exactly sure what your question is but if Jane Fonda had been killed by American bombs in Hanoi it would just have been one more crime against humanity that the entire Vietnam War was as former Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara has stated on more than one occasion.
That was my view in the early seventies, McNamara joined my view well after 2000. That war changed America, either you supported, irrationally, all of our wars or you weren't a good patriotic American. We are still battling that ignorant idea.

#133 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-06 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#132 | POSTED BY TRUTHTELLER101

Not exactly a fan of Americans are you! #standwithRand!

Where is Bill Ayers on this topic?

#134 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-03-06 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The issue is that Obama has taken it upon himself to fire drone strikes at the latter, and even if you want to argue that he hasn't, there's no system in place to ensure that future Presidents don't do so.

#64 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2013-03-06 04:53 PM | REPLY | FLAG:YET ANOTHER PSYCHIC READING

Telling us what Obama thinks.... my guess is you're probably one of those past life regressionists too... peering into the past... telling us what the founding fathers thought. Ironic since I doubt if you give anything much actual thought... most likely because you are too busy thinking you know what others think.

#135 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2013-03-06 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where is Bill Ayers on this topic?

#134 | Posted by AndreaMackris at

You have post this 2 times now like it mean something which it does not.
If you are really that carouse just read his blog he has one.
but my guess you are just being a wanker here.
by the way I can assure you Bill Ayers on this issue would be with Rand Paul.

#136 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2013-03-06 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

curious not carouse

#138 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2013-03-06 10:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. I am pleasantly surprised. I thought the resident libs would have derided this as "political theater" at its worst. Instead, Paul is actually garnering respect from some on this site who are pre-disposed to disagree with him on just about anything.

As for me...I just like that this is an old-fashioned filibuster. Whilst I like the filibuster as a means of preventing mob-rule, it shouldn't be easy and that's exactly what it has become in more recent times. If you are in the minority and want to delay-to-death legislation of the duly-elected majority, then fricking work for it. Get up there like Paul did and not only talk incessantly, but make cogent arguments in the process. Reading the phone book is insulting. Countless historical accounts can support his argument on this - read THAT aloud on the Senate floor.

He is going about this the right way and I would argue that he is vindicated when Rcade, Danni, Nulli, Moder8 and others who would normally deride this are cheering it on...Good job, Senator.

#140 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-06 11:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dear user "726", your comments are a failure for all to see. People like Paul will NOT go away and will continue to fight for freedom and justice with all possible means, even though this police state political system is stacked against them. I hope Paul's actions have opened your eyes.

#141 | Posted by truth_teller at 2013-03-06 11:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#139 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

BS flag

#142 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 12:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't care if it's "political theater." Rand Paul is doing the right thing, standing up for the right thing, and bringing it to the public's attention. People should be talking about this. The majority of the public has no concept of how their rights are being eroded, how the Bill of Rights that made this nation such an amazing place to live is slowly being shredded.

What's more, partisan politics are BS at this point - Obama, as much as Bush is monumentally increasing executive power at the expense of checks and balances, the very concepts that made our government safe - that assured we couldn't have a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao seize power and endanger the safety and liberty of our own people. It's the checks and balances that are the big thing. The president should not be able to simply circumvent congress through executive orders. Also, military and police action should have clear distinctions, as outlined in the Posse Comitatus Act. Military action should only be made against foreign threats to our nation. Police have the business of serving and protecting the public safety at home - complete with due process.

And you can't just say "terrorist, it's no longer the business of the police." Domestic terrorism is a crime. There are already laws against it. And when lethal government force is an option, definitions matter. What is "terrorism?" Governments generally only expand on power once taken, not hand it off. Timothy McVeigh - was that mass murder, or terrorism? It's already pretty illegal if it's mass murder. We don't need soldiers treating innocent civilians like enemy combatants in an area when it already falls under the duty of police to investigate and bring the murderer to justice. Admittedly, that is a fuzzy line in his case - but as government follows the natural course and expands its power, what then becomes "terrorism?" Drug crimes? Those people could be funding foreign militants in Mexico. They've taken the role of enemy combatants, and next thing you know, screw habeus corpus, we can just detain them forever, until we can trace the line right up to the top of some cartel - never mind that we might be talking about some kid who doesn't deserve to have his entire future taken away for tossing a friend a dime bag. Oh, and think SWAT is dubiously overly militarized? Wait until the real military steps in and gets the wrong house. It won't be just the dogs killed, and since it's a part of the war on terrorism, the little child burned to death by an incendiary grenade or whatever act of brutality happens won't see their killers held responsible - it will just be more collateral damage you never hear about, like the more than 100,000 civilians dead in Iraq since Bush invaded.

That is why this issue is so important. The government is not going to easily hand off authority it has attained, constitutionally or not. And whether you trust the current president with these powers or not - do you trust the next? Are any politicians actually honest about their intentions?

#143 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2013-03-07 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

The majority of the public has no concept of how their rights are being eroded, how the Bill of Rights that made this nation such an amazing place to live is slowly being shredded.

Sadly, the majority don't care. Is it that they're just not educated enough to care, or have they been bought off with this years new gizmos and toys?

Either way, the public sucks, and it is reflected by our government, not the other way around.

#144 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-07 02:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

So you are with Obama with the right to kill Americans who have not been charge with a crime in a foreign country, well you and Obama are wrong!
Freakin Obama lovers like you make me sick

#130 | Posted by PunchyPossum

thats REALLY NOT FAIR...

you can't make me laugh like this for this long..yeah thats me all right..a real obama lover..ha ha ha ha ha

I never said that she should have been shot without a trial....or have a drone just zap her at any president's whim which is what holder seems to be holding out for....give her a trial, but all the prosecutor would have to do is play the tape of her swiffling around on that gun and then show a jet exploding in the air or a pilot in the hanoi hilton and just ask...wonder if this GUN she's sitting on killed any pilot..

#145 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 05:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul cares that the radical Muslims are winning the war on terror. America has been getting pummeled from within for a dozen years.

If it wasn't for 9-11, Americans would still have the courage to keep their government and its military industrial complex in check.

#146 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-07 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

WOW, a real live filibuster. Harry Reid was the last Senator to do so about a decade ago.

#147 | Posted by KBM at 2013-03-07 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Filibuster? Don't know what that really means, but I have busted a few fillies in my day.

#148 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-07 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

t was a statement, and an effective statement----people are still talking about it 45 years later.

#126 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at

it was treason and an affront to every man and women who served in that 'war' .....

#149 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

trea·son (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

"CONSCIOUSLY AND PURPOSELY ACTING TO AID ITS ENEMIES"

#150 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

'm impressed with the intellect Paul is displaying here. We're 10 hours into this and he's still as rhetorically sharp as he was at the beginning.

#127 | Posted by rcade at

SO you're saying your previous opinion was based on hearsay, msnbnc and daily kos ..

I agree,...listen for even a small portion and he wasn't there just reading stuff.

#151 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

OOPS SORRY....first comment above was tongue in cheek

#152 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I gotta say, even though I'm no fan of Rand Paul or Tea Party types in general, he did something that I think is institutionally healthy. He used the old fashioned filibuster to really focus attention on an issue which Americans should be outraged about. There was nothing fascist or petty or narcissistic about this effort. Well done. (I still oppose 95% of all you support. But kudos for this.)

#153 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-07 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

one thing one of them should filabuster are the geico commercials that now use that stupid pig...a british lizard and cavemen weren't STUPID ENOUGH???

#154 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey! No hating on the pig. I think the one while driving pig is pretty funny.

#155 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-03-07 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

no no no...the only one of those was the pig who was crying WEE WEE all the way home.

AND you dont think the one where the girl seems to want to engage in a little piggy sex isnt creepy??

#156 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

FLo's hot.

#157 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

BUT HOW PROUD we are..

BOTH OF my senators participated in the filibuster...

of course CORNYN better have because he is TARGETED...( oh sorry all you PALINfanatics...I used the word target)

#158 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

meathead...

FLO works for a company where a man we like to call george soros is involved...

#159 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't say I liked the company she represents, just that SHE is hot.

#160 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

YO BRO.

I read this. this morning and for some reason thought about you..

and NO it wasnt a firemens calendar....hee heee

www.webmd.com

#161 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

maybe,.but that hair DO needs to go...if you've seen her with real CLOTHES on you hardly know its her.

#162 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was going to just send you the part that list the top six concentration

killers but HEY thats a pretty bird outside my window..

#163 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I gotta say, even though I'm no fan of Rand Paul or Tea Party types in general, he did something that I think is institutionally healthy...
There was nothing fascist or petty or narcissistic about this effort. Well done. (I still oppose 95% of all you support. But kudos for this.)

#153 | Posted by moder8

???
interesting, you seem to oppose Constitutional Gvt and individual Liberty

hmmm

#164 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-07 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

I specifically stated that I didn't want to hear about those situations.

In other words, you only want to discuss your hypothetical which has no relevance to the actual drone program in place under the current administration.

Saying "please distinguish between cops killing felons and drones killing someone in the process of committing a terrorist act" is ignorant of the fact that drone strikes are used against people sitting in cafes, who are not "in the process of committing a terrorist act." Shielding your retarded analogy by saying "I don't want to discuss how drones have been used in the past" is nothing more than asking people to debate a strawman.

#165 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-07 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

I never said that she should have been shot without a trial....

#145 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 05:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

You never mentioned a trial---you just said she should be shot. You judged and sentenced her to death with no trial. A trial would have shown she was using her right to FREE SPEECH. Nothing more.

#166 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-07 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

you know I believe in the rule of law, so I didn't HAVE to say it..

but if you just HAAAAVE TO READ It...okayyyyyyyyyyyyy

PUT HER ON TRIAL...THEN shoot her...

#167 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

PUT HER ON TRIAL...THEN shoot her...

#167 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag

You don't believe in the rule of law at all. Your posts clearly show that your concept of "legal" fluctuates with whatever the rightists are currently whining about. Your latest post is another example of your antiAmerican views. She should be considered innocent until proven guilty. A concept that eludes you.

#168 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-03-07 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

.... Wiretapped & Mind Controlled!

**** If the average American citizens is subject to extensive and intrusive US Govt WIRETAPS & SNOOPING then high profile media and political folks like Rand Paul must be the subject of much more sophisticated surveillance and even invisible "supervision & guidance!"

#169 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2013-03-07 11:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

So now Rand Paul can get back to wanting to ban porn and pass out his filthy bible books.

#170 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-07 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If it wasn't for 9-11, Americans would still have the courage to keep their government and its military industrial complex in check.

#146 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-07 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Right. Like they did in the 80's and 90's.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

#171 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-08 12:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

...Paul is an idiot...

...at least two birds with that one stone...

...LOL...

#172 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2013-03-08 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

afkabl2...my daughter still has One Direction tickets if you're still interested.

#173 | Posted by drewinnj at 2013-03-08 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement