Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Woodcookedbbq

Sen. Rand Paul is Giving a Genuine Filibuster

86 posts in this topic

Interesting how the paleo conservatives are now suddenly against this kind of thing they were all for during Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keey trying Delhommey, maybe say it again in a 3rd way if somebody doesn't respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help it you have no response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scenario: An American citizen is discovered preparing an attack on something inside the US. In order to prevent an attack, a drone is used instead of ground forces for some reason. Would you give Obama "a pass" on that if he didn't order the attack? Or call him a spineless liberal?

This is why there is not a definitive "no" - because we want to let everyone know that you are not going to get a lot of extra time by using an American citizen to do your dirty work.

Does it suck? Yes. Do I like it? Not Really. But saying something completely negative when asked about this would be unethical.

Yea we should probably throw due-process out the window and blow the dude and everything around him to pieces on a hunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how the paleo conservatives are now suddenly against this kind of thing they were all for during Bush.

I'll go ahead and bite. maybe the conservatives trusted bush's better judgement. But not Obummers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, if the definition is broad and non-specific, then it clears them of responsibility when they kill some guy's neighbor and their neighbor as unintended targets as well.

Cool beans. Just like we do in the Middle East.

Now, let's get back to fighting each other and calling each other names based on our worthless political party affiliation and ideologies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-holder-respond-to-rand-paul-the-answer-is-no/article/2523555

I suppose the "tweets" by all on the left, got the administration to take this a bit more seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea we should probably throw due-process out the window and blow the dude and everything around him to pieces on a hunch.

It really is that simple. No need for stupid scenarios and what ifs. It's blatantly unconstitutional. But par for the course the constitution is only used when convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing dems and pubs can agree on: murdering Americans on American soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Of course, he's so massive he has his own gravitational pull. 
    • You miss the point. Taylor was here before. We picked him because of what he could do for our wide receivers not because he had some great knowledge no other person had on the staff. Shula and Rivera and Gettleman studied multiple college systems for months before signing Taylor or drafting McCaffrey or Curtis and would have drafted the same whether Taylor was here or not. They liked the way Taylor developed McCaffrey which showed his talent but Stanford's offense wasn't Taylors idea or unique to him. Shula has a connection to Taylor as early as when Shula was at Alabama.  The debate was whether Taylor was chosen to replace Shula because Shula didn't know what to do to run a college offense and if he screwed up Taylor would replace him. And that Taylor was the reason and most influential in getting McCaffrey. I said it wasn't even close to the truth and this plan predated Taylor and was more thorough and we'll thought out. Everything since then just confirms I was right once again like usual.  
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      18,243
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    GSO Goat
    Joined