Good
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17210879-with-bipartisan-aid-paul-filibusters-cia-pick-brennan?lite
QuotePledging to speak "until I can no longer speak," Kentucky Republican Rand Paul on Wednesday launched a filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director, getting assists from a half dozen other senators over the course of hours standing on the Senate floor.
After holding the floor for over five hours, Paul declined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's suggestion to move towards a vote on the nomination, which Paul is protesting because of what he says is the Obama administration's lack of legal clarity on its drone policy.
The Kentucky senator said late Wednesday that he will drop the protest when he receives written clarification from the administration over its possible use of drones to target U.S. citizens on American soil -- a request which Reid said will push a vote on Brennan's confirmation at least until Thursday.
Advertise | AdChoices
Paul spoke solo for over three hours before being joined on the floor by other lawmakers who stepped in to continue the filibuster.
Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Marco Rubio of Florida - as well as Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon -- participated.
"You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile," Cruz said of Paul upon taking the floor, alluding to the famous filibuster portrayed by the actor in the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Rubio came to Paul's aid after tweeting a message of support, saying that Paul is asking "a legit question."
"Why so hard for them to just give straight answer?" he wrote on Twitter. "Almost like they feel it is beneath them."
Paul objects to what he calls the Obama administration's lack of clarity over whether a suspected terrorist who is an American citizen can be targeted with a drone strike on American soil.
"I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important," Paul said in opening his remarks on the Senate floor. "That your rights to trial by jury are precious, that 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."
In a response to a letter of inquiry, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to Paul this week that such a targeted strike is "possible, I suppose" in a catastrophic circumstance, although the administration has "no intention" of doing so.
Paul began his filibuster as Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the attorney general reiterated his defense of the administration's policy.
Paul said Wednesday that he is concerned that the administration has failed to name specific criteria about who could be subject to targeting, invoking the public animosity towards some anti-war activists in the 1960s.
"Are you going to just drop a drone, a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?" he said.
The Kentucky lawmaker, the son of outspoken former presidential candidate Ron Paul, began speaking at 11:47 a.m. ET. After over an hour of continuous speech, he quipped that his throat was already becoming dry.
He acknowledged later that there aren't enough detractors in the Senate to block Brennan's confirmation, which will require 60 votes for approval.
"Ultimately I will not win," he said. "There are not enough votes."
Paul's traditional or "talking" filibuster is the first use of the tactic since 2010, when Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont held the Senate floor for eight hours and 37 minutes to oppose Obama's proposed tax plan.
Kinda mixed feelings on this. On one hand it does seem to be a good tactic for him to get answers to important questions. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of political spectacles.
I like making people who want to filibuster actually fillibuster. I think this particular filibuster is stupid.
Quote from: Kleves on March 06, 2013, 06:08:28 PM
I like making people who want to filibuster actually fillibuster. I think this particular filibuster is stupid.
Well it's rather clear to me what the main objective is, to sure up support amongst the tinfoil brigade who think the American government has declared war on it's people and is preparing to ship them off to FEMA camps.
I'm no Rand Paul supporter, but it seems to me there's merit in wanting the current administration to nail down its drone policy a wee bit...
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 06:19:48 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 06, 2013, 06:08:28 PM
I like making people who want to filibuster actually fillibuster. I think this particular filibuster is stupid.
Well it's rather clear to me what the main objective is, to sure up support amongst the tinfoil brigade who think the American government has declared war on it's people and is preparing to ship them off to FEMA camps.
Yeah. 10 years of drone strikes on Muslims, that's fine. Wait, does that mean it can be used against white people? Unconstitutional!
Damn right. Hellfire the darkies.
You build a bunker in a country full of bunker busting bombs and you are just asking of it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 05:39:40 PM
Kinda mixed feelings on this. On one hand it does seem to be a good tactic for him to get answers to important questions. On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of political spectacles.
That seems like the opposite of your view on the Benghazi hearings :lol:
I love political theatre and I think this is great. My respect for Paul for doing it has increased hugely. I think a good principled filibuster is a great thing and I wish all filibusters or threatened filibusters were made to come to the floor and actually hold it like this.
I don't know if I agree with him on the issue itself but I'm glad he's making the points that many left-wing Democrats have been too cowardly and self-serving to make during this Administration, and I find that the right is cheering him on quite heartening.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 07:14:00 PM
That seems like the opposite of your view on the Benghazi hearings :lol:
That was an exception. Congressional hearings usually annoy me, but get some guys yelling at Hillary and her getting all bitchy back at them, or some dumbass worrying about Guam tipping over and I'm entertained.
Quote from: Kleves on March 06, 2013, 06:08:28 PM
I like making people who want to filibuster actually fillibuster. I think this particular filibuster is stupid.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with wanting some clarification about drone usage
per se (though I think the issue is a bit overblown), but it really has nothing to do with the nomination.
I'm pleasantly surprised at you people. I expected this thread to be full of LOOOL PAUL IS A MORAN comments, based on the fact that he's a) from Kentucky, and b) is related to Ron Paul, facts which must automatically make him stupid and wrong. :hug:
Quoting Glen Greenwald and his other foreign policy/civil liberties oddities make him a mental.
But there's always a place for that in politics.
Edit: However I love that some liberals like Wyden (who I quite like) are coming out to join him :)
Why should Obama's drone policy be any different than his F-15 policy?
And, as I say, I do love his points - especially about the imperial Presidency and the rightful critique of Obama's failure on civil liberties:
http://mashable.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster/
Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2013, 09:06:48 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised at you people. I expected this thread to be full of LOOOL PAUL IS A MORAN comments, based on the fact that he's a) from Kentucky, and b) is related to Ron Paul, facts which must automatically make him stupid and wrong. :hug:
I was thinking that and didn't think it worth posting. :P
Also, one of the excited posters in this thread just stated that he likes it when politicians act more Hollywood and less political. ;)
Lord Ted Cruz is sucking the joy out of it by reading tweets :lol:
Quote from: mongers on March 06, 2013, 06:19:48 PM
Quote from: Kleves on March 06, 2013, 06:08:28 PM
I like making people who want to filibuster actually fillibuster. I think this particular filibuster is stupid.
Well it's rather clear to me what the main objective is, to sure up support amongst the tinfoil brigade who think the American government has declared war on it's people and is preparing to ship them off to FEMA camps.
Well count me among the tin foil brigade. I want to see rules of engagement on the these drones in all circumstances. That will never happen so I might as well hope we can limit their use inside our borders.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 06:39:00 PM
Yeah. 10 years of drone strikes on Muslims, that's fine. Wait, does that mean it can be used against white people? Unconstitutional!
Heh. I have been against the drone strikes against Muslims and you told me that made me morally...um...what was it? Weak or something because that made me opposed to both parties. Now that somebody is finally arguing to only go as far as limit their use domestically now I am a racist. All those who do not support unlimited use of drones are morally bankrupt and racist I guess.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 10:08:25 PM
Well count me among the tin foil brigade. I want to see rules of engagement on the these drones in all circumstances. That will never happen so I might as well hope we can limit their use inside our borders.
Why not just use the existing rules that the military has?
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2013, 10:11:39 PM
Why not just use the existing rules that the military has?
Indeed. And it was not like the rubber stamping was all that onerous...but Bush and Obama have been against even that.
"'#standwithrand is trending worldwide' that's pretty darn cool". Jesus wept :bleeding: :weep:
Edit: 'I'm reminded of Henry V, as Shakespeare observed...' :blink:
I'm horribly drunk, but can Ted Cruz actually be a legit human being? Cause he seems like it.
Quote from: Scipio on March 06, 2013, 10:48:26 PM
I'm horribly drunk, but can Ted Cruz actually be a legit human being? Cause he seems like it.
He's channeling McCarthy. We haven't had one for a while.
Quote from: Neil on March 06, 2013, 10:11:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 10:08:25 PM
Well count me among the tin foil brigade. I want to see rules of engagement on the these drones in all circumstances. That will never happen so I might as well hope we can limit their use inside our borders.
Why not just use the existing rules that the military has?
For inside our borders? Anyway, the question being asked is whether the administration thinks it's constitutional to use a drone to kill a non-combatant US citizen within US borders.
I'm probably naive here, but how much skin is it off the administration's back if it just answers "no"? :unsure:
Anyway, Rubio is awkwardly quoting The Godfather and Jay-Z now.
So say a bunch of Muslim terrorists have high-jacked a plane full of Americans, and they're intending to fly it into the Pentagon.
Would it be appropriate to shoot it down? If yes, would it be acceptable to use drones to do so, if for whatever reasons that would be the safest or most expedient way to do so? And if drones are okay for that sort of action, how should the policy be worded to make that clear?
The real question is not "Is it ok for the government to use a drone strike against a US citizen in the US"
it is
"What does the federal government possibly have to gain by answering the question in the first place?"
They aren't answering because they want to use drones to blast US citizens, they are not answering because any answer they give will be parsed and analyzed to the nth degree, and will only serve to restrict federal ability to respond.
The entire thing is stupid. Does the federal government have the power to kill US citizens on US soil, by drone or other means?
Of course they do...under very specific circumstances. Drones don't change anything, and neither does "terrorism".
That's pretty much my take too Berkut.
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 12:29:54 AM
The real question is not "Is it ok for the government to use a drone strike against a US citizen in the US"
it is
"What does the federal government possibly have to gain by answering the question in the first place?"
They aren't answering because they want to use drones to blast US citizens, they are not answering because any answer they give will be parsed and analyzed to the nth degree, and will only serve to restrict federal ability to respond.
The entire thing is stupid. Does the federal government have the power to kill US citizens on US soil, by drone or other means?
Of course they do...under very specific circumstances. Drones don't change anything, and neither does "terrorism".
I think the question being asked is more specific than that. And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways. I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:12:11 AMI think the question being asked is more specific than that. And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways. I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.
What's the correct answer in your opinion?
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2013, 01:21:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:12:11 AMI think the question being asked is more specific than that. And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways. I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.
What's the correct answer in your opinion?
There's room for debate, but I'd say no. Mind you, that's to the more specific question I mentioned above, not to Berkut's more general question (which I'd answer yes if it were the actual question being asked).
Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2013, 09:06:48 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised at you people. I expected this thread to be full of LOOOL PAUL IS A MORAN comments, based on the fact that he's a) from Kentucky, and b) is related to Ron Paul, facts which must automatically make him stupid and wrong. :hug:
I thought everyone just assumed that it's a given so why state the obvious?
People's comments essentially amount to saying they like when politicians make fools out of themselves for the sheer entertainment value. I wouldn't consider it resounding support. :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 06, 2013, 11:19:28 PM
Anyway, the question being asked is whether the administration thinks it's constitutional to use a drone to kill a non-combatant US citizen within US borders.
Isn't the answer really "it depends"?
Quote from: Martinus on March 07, 2013, 01:57:15 AM
Isn't the answer really "it depends"?
Lawyers. :rolleyes:
Well, it does. Jake's example is one where one would think that the answer would be "yes". But giving the "yes" answer without any context to the question posed would be simply misleading.
If you add to that the fact that the GOP/Fox side is the opposite of what you could call "intellectual honesty", I don't see any reason why the administration should choose to play this game.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2013, 10:11:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2013, 06:39:00 PM
Yeah. 10 years of drone strikes on Muslims, that's fine. Wait, does that mean it can be used against white people? Unconstitutional!
Heh. I have been against the drone strikes against Muslims and you told me that made me morally...um...what was it? Weak or something because that made me opposed to both parties. Now that somebody is finally arguing to only go as far as limit their use domestically now I am a racist. All those who do not support unlimited use of drones are morally bankrupt and racist I guess.
We have a search function, find the thread.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:12:11 AM
I think the question being asked is more specific than that. And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways. I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.
When you ask a lawyer like Holder, you'll never get a "yes" or "no" answer. Lawyers are physically incapable of thinking in those terms. You know that.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:30:32 AM
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2013, 01:21:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:12:11 AMI think the question being asked is more specific than that. And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways. I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.
What's the correct answer in your opinion?
There's room for debate, but I'd say no. Mind you, that's to the more specific question I mentioned above, not to Berkut's more general question (which I'd answer yes if it were the actual question being asked).
What about making my general question more specific could possibly change the answer from yes to no?
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 01:12:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 12:29:54 AM
The real question is not "Is it ok for the government to use a drone strike against a US citizen in the US"
it is
"What does the federal government possibly have to gain by answering the question in the first place?"
They aren't answering because they want to use drones to blast US citizens, they are not answering because any answer they give will be parsed and analyzed to the nth degree, and will only serve to restrict federal ability to respond.
The entire thing is stupid. Does the federal government have the power to kill US citizens on US soil, by drone or other means?
Of course they do...under very specific circumstances. Drones don't change anything, and neither does "terrorism".
I think the question being asked is more specific than that. And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways. I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.
A "Yes" can certainly be parsed in many, many ways. The moment that admin says that, Fox News is running headlines of "Obama administration claims it can kill US citizens whenever it feels like!".
And really, this administration is showing a lack of spine when it comes to answering tough questions? Every administration is smart enough to know that you don't hand your political opponents political capital just because they ask you for it and are willing to throw a tantrum if you don't hand it to them.
It's not like the Bush admin was exaclty transparent when their political opponents were asking them about what circumstances they felt they had the power to torture people.
And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2013, 08:23:46 AM
And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?
The latter won't kill as many bystanders as fast? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 08:41:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2013, 08:23:46 AM
And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?
The latter won't kill as many bystanders as fast? :hmm:
:lol: This is the FBI we're talking about.
As fast. :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2013, 08:23:46 AM
And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?
From a legal standpoint, nothing at all, I don't think. All kinds of practical differences of course - I am guessing using a drone inside the US if the government decided someone needed killing would never happen, for exactly those practical reasons.
On th other hand, if someone had asked the President in 1853 under what circumstances could the federal government be allowed to use cannons to shoot at masses of US citizens in an indiscriminate attempt to maim and kill as many of them as possible, I don't think too many people would be considering what would happen in another decade or so.
There are all kinds of circumstances under which the Feds can kill US citizens in the US. This is a complete non-issue - it is pure politics, not based on any kind of principle at all, unless you count "Hey, lets see how much we can make the President twist because we know he cannot really answer a question everyone knows the answer to already!" a principle. The smart move by Obama is to treat this exactly as what it is - political grandstanding, and simply refuse to answer beyond what has already been stated.
If anything, he should give some non-answer like "It is the position of this administration that advances in technology relating to the increased use of unmanned vehicles has not changed the terms and restrictions under which the federal government is charged with protecting the lives and interests our citizens, both at home and abroad."
So you're not too big on nuance today, Berkut?
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 10:51:34 AM
So you're not too big on nuance today, Berkut?
What nuance might that be?
On the one hand I agree that the use of deadly force is what it is, and the means of delivery shouldn't make any difference.
On the other hand I think drones do raise the issue of communicating with the target and offering them a chance to surrender peacefully.
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 10:54:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 10:51:34 AM
So you're not too big on nuance today, Berkut?
What nuance might that be?
The difference between a general question of killing US citizens on US soil and the more specific question of killing non-combatant US citizens posing no imminent threat on US soil.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 10:54:46 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 10:51:34 AM
So you're not too big on nuance today, Berkut?
What nuance might that be?
The difference between a general question of killing US citizens on US soil and the more specific question of killing non-combatant US citizens posing no imminent threat on US soil.
The answer to either question has not changed since Obama came into office, nor has this administration claimed that it has changed - so the answer is already known, Paul know what it is, so why ask it?
Answer: politics.
What's your opinion on the specific question. And don't say "politics" :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2013, 09:15:04 PM
Quoting Glen Greenwald and his other foreign policy/civil liberties oddities make him a mental.
But there's always a place for that in politics.
Edit: However I love that some liberals like Wyden (who I quite like) are coming out to join him :)
Wyden's awesome. :)
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2013, 12:11:53 AM
So say a bunch of Muslim terrorists have high-jacked a plane full of Americans, and they're intending to fly it into the Pentagon.
Would it be appropriate to shoot it down? If yes, would it be acceptable to use drones to do so, if for whatever reasons that would be the safest or most expedient way to do so? And if drones are okay for that sort of action, how should the policy be worded to make that clear?
I haven't heard anyone claim that it wouldn't be appropriate to shoot it down. In fact that came up last night.
But the question isn't really relevant to the discussion, as we'd be targeting foreign combatants posing a direct threat. Innocents would be killed as well (the same as they would in a crash) but they wouldn't be the targets.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:39:43 AM
What's your opinion on the specific question. And don't say "politics" :mad:
What difference does my opinion make?
I don't think the US should be killing US citizens who do not pose an imminent threat on US soil...but that doesn't mean that there could not be a situation where it happens, and happens in a manner that is legal and necessary.
Indeed, I am pretty sure the US federal government killed many non-combatant US citizens who did not pose an immediate threat on US soil, say during the Civil War.
What does immediate threat mean anyway? If a US citizen is holding a gun and is shot by a sniper, is that legal?
That is the entire point to this "question". There is no simple answer except "yes", but that answer has only political utility, since the real answer is "Yes, but only under very specific circumstances, and those circumstances contain serious amounts of scrutiny and after the fact risk to any US agent that decides to use such power - so the real answer is, well...maybe?". Which we all know is the answer, but the point of asking it to just try to force out the "Yes" while ignoring the rest so people can run around like douchebags screeching about how Obama says he can drone strike US citizens whenever he feels like it.
Avoid, avoid, avoid. I see why you voted for Obama.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 11:01:44 AM
On the one hand I agree that the use of deadly force is what it is, and the means of delivery shouldn't make any difference.
On the other hand I think drones do raise the issue of communicating with the target and offering them a chance to surrender peacefully.
I don't see how it would be any easier if it was a fighter plane instead of a drone. Is the pilot going to land and ask the target to surrender?
Quote from: frunk on March 07, 2013, 12:44:24 PM
I don't see how it would be any easier if it was a fighter plane instead of a drone. Is the pilot going to land and ask the target to surrender?
I don't see it either. But no one has proposed deploying F16s against US citizens that present an imminent threat AFAIK.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 12:35:30 PM
Avoid, avoid, avoid. I see why you voted for Obama.
I answered your question, and you are the only one avoiding anything here, because you don't like the actual answer.
You haven't responded to a single point made, and rather just channel Paul and sit there blathering on without actually communicating anything.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 06, 2013, 06:22:41 PM
I'm no Rand Paul supporter, but it seems to me there's merit in wanting the current administration to nail down its drone policy a wee bit...
Agreed on that. And I think Rand Paul has some decent support among both parties for some policy definitions.
Quote from: KRonn on March 07, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
And I think Rand Paul has some decent support among both parties for some policy definitions.
John McCain and Lindsay Graham called him to the carpet today, though.
Apparently Eric Holder sent Sen. Ryan the following letter today:
QuoteDear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
Then Sen. Ryan opened it and forwarded it to Sen. Paul.:nerd:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Then Sen. Ryan opened it and forwarded it to Sen. Paul.:nerd:
D'oh!
Quote from: Berkut on March 07, 2013, 01:08:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 12:35:30 PM
Avoid, avoid, avoid. I see why you voted for Obama.
I answered your question, and you are the only one avoiding anything here, because you don't like the actual answer.
Perhaps I overstated it a bit. I think I had too much coffee this morning.
QuoteYou haven't responded to a single point made, and rather just channel Paul and sit there blathering on without actually communicating anything.
What's left that I need to respond to?
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2013, 03:53:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Then Sen. Ryan opened it and forwarded it to Sen. Paul.:nerd:
D'oh!
And Paul Ryan is on the House side. :nerd: :nerd:
derspiess likes the fact that it made him spooge when they mentioned drone-striking Jane Fonda manning an NVA anti-air battery, s'all.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2013, 08:48:46 AM
As fast. :contract:
This and the three posts above it, is the reason why I keep coming back to Languish, you won't get that sort of 'repartee' most any other place on the internet. :cool:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 07, 2013, 05:05:06 PM
derspiess likes the fact that it made him spooge when they mentioned drone-striking Jane Fonda manning an NVA anti-air battery, s'all.
It did rather gain my attention. That and the Kent State reference.
I've an issue with saying that the administration should be able to ignore demands for information because it'll be used for political purposes. Of course that's true, but it's also exactly the role of the legislature, regardless of whose in office.
I do find the Republican rediscovery of civil liberties as heartening as the Democrat abandonment of them is depressing. They blocked Brennan as CIA Director four years ago because of his role in torture. Now all but two of them supported him.
The sides who want to rein in the overmighty Presidency do shift according to politics, sadly, but generally I think they should be supported in either party whenever they're around. One sinner who repents causes more rejoicing than ninety-nine righteous men and all that.
I don't see what mileage the opposition is going to get out the "no" answer it got, other than the fact it took so long.
Incidentally this increases my suspicion that come the primaries the big Republican civil war could be over foreign policy and national security, not taxes or spending cuts or social issues or immigration.
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2013, 09:16:43 PM
Incidentally this increases my suspicion that come the primaries the big Republican civil war could be over foreign policy and national security, not taxes or spending cuts or social issues or immigration.
I'd be surprised if we're still talking about drones & whatnot a year from now. But there are some deep differences between neocons and non-interventionists, that's for sure.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain is a dick.
Fixed for ya.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
Not mavericky enough for you?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 04:28:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
Not mavericky enough for you?
Too mavericky actually, but I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Van Jones, of all people, is now defending the Paul filibuster. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 08, 2013, 12:11:26 PM
Van Jones, of all people, is now defending the Paul filibuster. :hmm:
Siding with the Marxist. Tsk, tsk.
Actually the Marxist sided with Paul.
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 01:03:58 PM
Actually the Marxist sided with Paul.
Which ever. Commie support: tainted. Get your white hood out, he must be tarred and feathered.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 01:03:58 PM
Actually the Marxist sided with Paul.
Which ever. Commie support: tainted. Get your white hood out, he must be tarred and feathered.
I actually like those moments in politics where certain issues cut across well-defined political boundaries and create odd momentary alliances. And btw you might want to ease up on the "white hood" crap. You're better than that.
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
His high-profile dinner got hijacked by the filibuster.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 08, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
His high-profile dinner got hijacked by the filibuster.
Yep. Whoops :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 08, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
His high-profile dinner got hijacked by the filibuster.
After all your cracks about Robert Byrd? What goes around, comes around.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 03:28:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 08, 2013, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:08:11 PM
Gave it some thought & I think McCain was being a dick today.
His high-profile dinner got hijacked by the filibuster.
After all your cracks about Robert Byrd? What goes around, comes around.
Not sure I follow. Are you Robert Byrd? :huh:
Seriously, how did my cracks about Robert Byrd ever try to paint you as a racist?
They hurt. Derspeiss, they hurt. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2013, 03:31:52 PM
They hurt. Derspeiss, they hurt. :(
He's gone, Raz. He can't hurt any of us anymore.
Oops :lol:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/brennan-takes-oath-constitution-without-bill-rights-205110620.html
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 08:24:45 PM
Oops :lol:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/brennan-takes-oath-constitution-without-bill-rights-205110620.html
Is this ineptitude a surprise to anyone?
Man, that's one incompetent PR department.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 08, 2013, 08:29:51 PM
Man, that's one incompetent PR department.
Remember, we elected the smart one. Twice.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/599226_230310057094009_1086311181_n.jpg)
Quote from: derspiess on March 07, 2013, 11:11:43 PM
I'd be surprised if we're still talking about drones & whatnot a year from now. But there are some deep differences between neocons and non-interventionists, that's for sure.
Maybe not drones, but possibly something like that. I've seen hawks praise Paul while also suggesting they're rather uneasy with the substance of his point.
But as you say there's some big differences between the Bolton and the Paul wings of the party and I don't really see many in the middle. In addition both seem to be getting or feeling stronger. The neo-cons feel they've a strong critique of Obama 'leading from behind' not taking an aggressive enough stand in the world. Similarly it looks like the non-interventionist wing also feel strong pointing to terrorism in Libya and the general worries about who's winning the Arab uprisings. Because of all that I think, unlike tax/spend or social issues, this feels like something where there could be a big argument and I think it'll be an interesting one.
I would also note that in the last election I think the Republicans more or less ceded total control of foreign policy as an issue to the Democrats which was a huge mistake.