Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sen. Rand Paul is Giving a Genuine Filibuster


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#76 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,402 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:21 PM

Og Im sorry 9/11 was caused by the Jews, Dubya and the Freemasons, never mind.

#77 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,101 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:25 PM

A guy with a tank "could" be considered something other than a non combatant


The point is though that it would be using a military weapon on a US citizen on US soil, and would be one of those extreme circumstances that the administration mentioned in which it would be justified.

#78 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,980 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:35 PM

Part of the rub though, besides the American soil part was that they could have used it on non combatants. It was just waaaaay too wide open. When questioned about using it on a non combatant, the administration said, "we don't intend to", or "we haven't yet". Just too vague for such an important thing as new weapon systems or war systems being used on citizens. Finally, today, the administration said NO rather than all the vague crap. Took them only 6 weeks.

#79 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:16 AM

http://clerk.house.g...001/roll342.xml

lol ron paul voted for the aumf

#80 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,101 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:32 AM

Part of the rub though, besides the American soil part was that they could have used it on non combatants. It was just waaaaay too wide open. When questioned about using it on a non combatant, the administration said, "we don't intend to", or "we haven't yet". Just too vague for such an important thing as new weapon systems or war systems being used on citizens. Finally, today, the administration said NO rather than all the vague crap. Took them only 6 weeks.



There was never any real possibilty that the current administration or any foreseeable future administration would use military technology on noncombatants. And should some dictatorship come to power in the future, one that might use military weapons on non combatants, then they are likely to ignore a statement from this administration, or any legislation that might be passed preventing useage.

#81 broseidon

broseidon

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts
  • LocationYour daughters dorm room

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:34 AM

Trying to block King Barack's CIA nominee until the drone strike policy is clarified. Been speaking about 2 hours now, changing subjects every 2-3 minutes. I guess he'll have to go pee sooner or later.

http://www.washingto...tion-cia-direc/


And 13 hours later

#82 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,402 posts

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:52 PM

The Kings nominee got approved and Rand Paul had something to put on his fund raising letters, so it's all good.

#83 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,205 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:58 AM

"Here's the distinction: I have never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an act of crime going on," Paul said on Fox Business Network. "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."


rand paul is a conman, much like his father

#84 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,463 posts
  • LocationGitmo

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:59 AM

Rand is a fuging pussy sellout.

#85 Proudiddy

Proudiddy

    The Thread Killer (Since 2004)

  • Moderators
  • 15,702 posts

Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:47 AM

So Rand voted in favor of it with no reservations after all of that fuss?

#86 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,987 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 24 April 2013 - 12:27 PM

lol

just...

lol


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com