Rand Paul Filibustering Brennan Nomination

[smashdn]

, the 2nd amendment says I can own a firearm

No, not really, it affirms that we have a God given right that the government cannot infringe upon. It doesn't say that you can, it says the government shall not.

[WhitetailWarrior53081]

If anyone caught CSPAN in the senate this morning.They called him stupid a one man show libertarian.
That came from Cobun McCain Grahm and others.They republicans tore Rand apart this morning on his fillirbuster.

That criticism came from the old guard republicans, who as mentioned earlier were being used as political stage props while having a very expensive dinner with the President while Rand was exercising the democratic process, and is totally uncalled for. This moment, I think, kind of represents a changing of the guard in the Republican Party. While Paul, Rubio, and other young up and coming Republicans were making a political statement on principles that should concern all Americans, and no those principles are not a "waste of time," they were being used by the POTUS. The criticism is like a tantrum thrown by a spoiled brat, seeking attention when the younger siblings seem to be stealing attention. It makes McCain, Graham and the others seem petty and diminishes their credibility, because actually the issue Rand was standing up for is a question that most conservatives and a lot of liberals want answered. It also gives the liberal media a chance to use them again and make Rand seem like a raving lunatic. It also highlights the biggest weakness of the Republican party, a rift within its own ranks. But the fact remains the future of the Republicans, and a sense this country, rests with these young guys and the likes of McCain and Graham are being pushed to the side. I for one am proud of Rand Paul and am proud to say he is a Senator from Kentucky. It doesn't matter whether you agree with everything Rand believes or not, he has cojones and isn't afraid to stand up to the devil and fight for those believes. And that is what we need more than anything, someone willing to stand up for the Constitution and more conservatives principles.

[ptbrauch]

How about we wait to examine the circumstances surrounding an actual USE of a drone on US soil &/or citizens before we wrap ourselves around the axle of "what if's" and "might do's". Can you all NOT take off your partisan blinders long enough to even envision a set of circumstances that would warrant a drone strike without due process?

Had you watched the filibuster, you would have seen where Rand was discussing that very thing. There were many instances where drones have been used to track Americans on American soil.

[Regulator623]

Either way, last night was a big night for Rand Paul. Even some of the talking heads on MSNBC were giving him praise for standing up for civil liberties. On another note, a Washington Post - ABC poll came out today that showed 61% of americans were in favor of cutting the size of government which is just the opposite of what we've been hearing over the last couple of years. Given the administration's attack on the 2nd amendment and the incompetent mishandling of the sequester issue and his refusal to address the national debt issue, the last few weeks have not been too favorable for Obama. Rand's filibuster served to shine some light on Obama's version of big government and what it's capable of.

[ptbrauch]

It seems to me that you are longing for a simplistic, black & white, rigid interpretation of the Constitution that has NEVER existed. The Constitution has ALWAYS been a living document that has been amended to address the changing environment of a growing and ever more complex nation and world. The technologies of today were not imaginable in 1787.

Here's what you, and apparently many others in this country don't get, or didn't pay attention to in history class. The Constitution is not just some law or document passed by Congress. Its The Document upon which all other laws in this country are based. What stops the president from just saying that he's now President for life? There's nothing stopping him from saying it, but because our whole system of gov't is based upon the Constitution, no one will listen to him. Same thing for a senator, a representative, or any other elected federal official.

As for the Constitution being a living document, I ask, what parts? What parts do you feel are open to change? All of them? Or only certain ones that you want? Who gets to decide what gets changed? Here's the thing, the original authors included a mechanism for change. As you've noted, additions have been made. Follow that process and you're golden.

For anyone who was absent on the day the Constitution was discussed, here's the preamble where you can see that it was written to ensure our rights for posterity:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Iceman35]

The problem with the holder statement is that it does not define the conditions for being a "non-combatent". Is an American citizen sitting in his apartment cruising terrorist websites a combatant? What about a guy who complains about the goverment too much and alludes to a "terrorist act"?

Without a definition of the word, they can still make up whatever they want.

[stevenvalleyagain]

The problem with the holder statement is that it does not define the conditions for being a "non-combatent". Is an American citizen sitting in his apartment cruising terrorist websites a combatant? What about a guy who complains about the goverment too much and alludes to a "terrorist act"?

Without a definition of the word, they can still make up whatever they want.

Very well said

[Poorboy]

I guess I have to give Rand a +10 in my book. He was smart enough to pick a topic that was a no brainer and catch the presidents bunch trying to be careful in the the way they word things, like they were still in election mode. He was able to get some attention on a safe topic. Kinda like a teacher catching a kid chewing in class. Can't blame anybody but the kid. Not the teachers fault and the parents aren't going to admit to allowing it at home. Every admits the kid was wrong. Just like everyone admits blowing up Mr. Johnson while hes baling hay would be wrong.

I wish he would have continued until today, people were starting to discuss important topics with tis attention. I wasn't a big fan before but if I continue to see this sort of true effort I guess I will Stand with Rand. I hope this action was an effort that was something heartfelt and not just a political stunt.

[Jarhead]

Can I get an amen from the congregation?!!!!! Truth right there^

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk 2

I'll second that Amen!!! Preach on Brother!!!

[drakeshooter]

So you support Rand Paul for POTUS in 2016 and you are calling me stupid...

That was poorly worded gg. I don't mean to call you stupid, but you turned a totally non-partisan issue into another red vs blue debate and it frustrated me. I apologize for my choice of words.

Those old guard Republicans coming out against Rand just may be a blessing in disguise and lead to further distancing from them. This man scares the heck out of the morons currently running the party -- those who don't necessarily connect with Joe Conservative -- while drawing some admiration from those on the fence and some to the left with his "Do the right thing" mojo. This country is sorely in need of a bunch more like Rand Paul.