Breaking: Old School Filibuster

And where does he get his money? His wages aren't being reduced by a furlough.

Who paid for the secret service?

frogger wrote: Who paid for the secret service?

He has secret service protection where ever he goes, even when he is in the White House.....do you really think they don't get paid if Obama doesn't leave the White House?......and we know, you are not a victim, but you sure are being dense.

LOL.....NOPE I am no victim.....It wasn't for me.


hmmmmm dense?

frogger wrote: LOL.....NOPE I am no victim.....It wasn't for me.


hmmmmm dense?

Don't it just frost your arse when you try to insult someone not once, but twice....and they refuse to be insulted, but turn it back on you?

Have a nice night frogger.

I said it was a sad day for America and our system of justice when al-Awlaki was assassinated without due process, without even any charges filed. Not one conservative agreed...they all cheered and called me unAmerican. USA! USA! Oh, but that was on foreign soil...that's different! Then Paul has no reason to think it could/would happen on US soil...there's no precedent, and his fear is baseless. Of course, that has nothing to do with why Mr. Paul Goes to Washington - it was free campaign advertising. Plus, it gets the whacko base all riled up. Truth is, conservatives cheered it on with al-Awlaki because it was a Mooslem! Now, they're afraid gubment will do likewise to their militias as they arm up to overthrow the "socialist regime".

Why should government eliminate any potential response to the infinite possibilities of attacks? If a jet is hijacked by terrorists with a nuclear weapon over the Pacific headed to a US city, shouldn't we shoot it down? Possibly, even with a drone?

Essentially, Paul's grandstanding was pointless...the Obama response still allows the possibility of drone usage against those engaged in combat against the US - even US citizens. Conservatives largely have themselves to blame.

huh

lol no frost here. :rainbowclover: :rainbow" :buildingrainbow:

plaidvillain wrote: I said it was a sad day for America and our system of justice when al-Awlaki was assassinated without due process, without even any charges filed. Not one conservative agreed...they all cheered and called me unAmerican. USA! USA! Oh, but that was on foreign soil...that's different! Then Paul has no reason to think it could/would happen on US soil...there's no precedent, and his fear is baseless. Of course, that has nothing to do with why Mr. Paul Goes to Washington - it was free campaign advertising. Plus, it gets the whacko base all riled up. Truth is, conservatives cheered it on with al-Awlaki because it was a Mooslem! Now, they're afraid gubment will do likewise to their militias as they arm up to overthrow the "socialist regime".

Why should government eliminate any potential response to the infinite possibilities of attacks? If a jet is hijacked by terrorists with a nuclear weapon over the Pacific headed to a US city, shouldn't we shoot it down? Possibly, even with a drone?

Essentially, Paul's grandstanding was pointless...the Obama response still allows the possibility of drone usage against those engaged in combat against the US - even US citizens. Conservatives largely have themselves to blame.

Just because a guy is a Republican doesn't mean he is a hard core supporter of military. Both Ron and Rand Paul don't think we need to have our military all over the planet.
Irony? Six years ago, Obama would have been supporting a filibuster against these type of drone attacks IMO.

What type of drone attack, Fred? How do you know Obama isn't against drone strikes on US soil? There hasn't been any...perhaps an indicator the President doesn't support using drones on US soil. But he's not a king or dictator...does he have the power to proclaim no US President may ever use drones domestically for any reason?

I can't keep up with you guys: you criticize him and call him a dictator on one issue, then complain he's not being a dictator on another issue.