Rand Paul Filibuster Open Thread

UPDATE:  Paul went 13 hours and laid down the marker:  everyone now knows that there are, for certain, GOPers who will bring things to a screeching halt on matters of principal.

As of this moment, he’s still at it, 8 hours going strong.  Joining in support are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and even Democrat Ron Wyden.  The issue is Paul’s demand that President Obama answer – without equivocation, yes or no, please – whether or not he’d order a drone strike on an American citizen within US territory.  This is a genuine filibuster and no one can make him stop – only exhaustion, or Obama actually answering the question, brings this to an end.

This is one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time and goes a long way towards restoring faith in our legislative branch.  For too long all Administrations – but especially Obama’s – have managed to skate past oversight simply because no one took oversight duties all that seriously (and forget about it on getting almost all the MSM to find out – the are completely controlled by Obama).  Paul does take this duty seriously.  Now, will we get a straight answer from Obama?  Probably not – but the marker will be laid down that the people have a right to know what the Executive proposes to do, and Obama (and his Democrats) know that Republicans will stand tall at need.

Discuss this and all issues of constitutional government.

And the twitterverse goes nuts:

Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz tag team a Paul led filibuster while John McCain and Lindsey Graham have dinner with Barack Obama. – Erick Erickson

.@SenRandPaul has now spoken for the entire length of time that @BarackObama ignored the #Benghazi attacks – Gay Patriot

*lighting up cigarette* RT @emzanotti: This filibuster thing is as close to porn as CSPAN ever gets, and it’s getting close – Gay Patriot

How many Democrats would be joining the Paul filibuster if the president had an R after his name. Probably a lot.  Kirsten Powers

While some GOP colleagues dine w/ Obama tonight, @SenRandPaul had a Snickers bar 4 dinner. Constitution > Chardonnay w/ O. – Monica Crowley

I #standwithrand Do you? – Judge Napolitano

Let’s remember this moment when @KarlRove and others tell us that Jeb Bush is the only Repub who can win in 2016.  – Laura Ingraham

A list I wouldn’t want to be on: GOP senators who didn’t show up to help out – Hugh Hewitt

That awkward moment when your Nobel Peace Prize-winning President won’t promise not to kill US citizens. – Kathryn DeLong

I’m almost 44. Been watching politics for 33 of those years. This is one of a small handful of times I’ve been inspired. – Stephen Green

Rand Paul went to DC to stand for something. He’s been standing & talking 9 hours. No prompter. Gotta admire that – Steve Doocy

Breaking: For the first time since Obama was elected in 2008, the founders have stopped spinning in their graves!! – Sooper Mexican

I #StandWithRand. Drone warfare that targets & kills American citizens is a disgrace & an assault on our Constitution – Connie Mack

I #StandWithRand as he filibusters for our liberty. Do you?  – Michelle Bachmann

EXCLUSIVE: ACLU Backs Paul’s Filibuster – Ben Shapiro

I am heading to the Senate floor to stand alongside with my friend, Sen. Rand Paul – Pat Toomey

Heading to Senate floor to #StandWithRand. As a House member, I can’t join filibuster, but I want to witness this awesome effort – Justin Amash

I’m with Green – I haven’t been this inspired since the great days of Ronald Reagan.

Even some lefties understand:

We lefties at DP are proud to #standwithrand tonight as he filibusters the nomination of drone and torture supporter – Demand Progress

As a progressive democrat, I agree this administration has no right to execute people without a trial.

Rand Paul: do you want them able to target you because of something you’ve written online? – Anonymous

If it will help to dilute, delay, or even derail the ongoing snowball towards military tyranny in this country, I say 4 now, #StandWithRand. – ID’s herself as an SDSer from the 60’s

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Rand Paul Filibuster Open Thread

  1. David Dunphy March 6, 2013 / 9:06 pm

    These men are the few real conservatives we have left right now. Perhaps with tea party support and more grassroots efforts and others seeing these men standing tall – momentum will be gained. This president and his liberal democratic party are a complete disaster – I just do not know if the American people realize it…and they don’t, I think we are really finished as a nation. I hope and pray that this is the rallying point to gain the upper hand and not just the few patriotic leaders we have left. Time will tell.

  2. GMB March 6, 2013 / 9:07 pm

    Make no mistake about it. Senator Paul will be in the news constantly until the campaign season 0f 2015 gets here. He means to take up the mantle of his father and run for president.

    Until you establishment repubs assassinate everything about the man except his will to live.

    The fat man and another defeat 2016!!

  3. Cluster March 6, 2013 / 9:33 pm

    I am loving Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. They are both fearless in confronting the liberal character assassination machine and calling out liberals for the dishonest political partisan whores they are.

  4. GMB March 6, 2013 / 10:51 pm

    al ubama has claimed the right to kill American citizens on American soil without any due process at all.

    The stooges are silent on the matter. mccain and all the usual rino suspects are silent on the matter. The stooges continue to fund the fraud occupying the White House.

    They want the same kind of power themselves?

    • M. Noonan March 6, 2013 / 11:01 pm

      Those GOPers who went to dinner tonight with Obama will never live it down – all GOPers who are (a) smart and (b) care about our country are standing with Rand. Don’t know how it will come out for Paul long term, but tonight he’s the undisputed leader of the conservative and libertarian movements.

  5. rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 / 12:47 am

    As much as I dislike Paul, he’s right on the right side of this issue.

    • M. Noonan March 7, 2013 / 12:51 am

      Kudos to you liberals who are coming out for Rand on this. This is an issue where hatchets need to be buried and everyone needs to get on board. As I’ve said elsewhere, if an American takes himself to a terrorist training camp in Waziristan and winds up on the wrong side of a drone strike, I’m not too concerned about it – terrorist camps are akin to the pirate lairs of old and are subject to destruction by civilized powers at will. Don’t want to get killed in a terrorist camp? Then don’t go in to one. But inside the United States the regular law enforcement agencies are more than sufficient to deal with domestic terrorism…the President simply must not use drones inside American territory against American citizens.

      • rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 / 1:03 am

        Mark,
        I agree. I’m very much against Obama’s expansion of the drone program even on foreign soil. It’s his greatest shame since he took office.

      • M. Noonan March 7, 2013 / 9:18 am

        Rusty,

        Some conservatives have expressed dissent from the foreign drone program, as well – and not just complaints that it might be over-used, but on account of Americans getting killed in foreign lands via drones. I understand the reason for being opposed, but my view is that terrorists are pirates and the drone strike on a pirate’s den is the modern equivalent of hanging them from the yard arm. At all events, it doesn’t draw any tears from me when it happens – perhaps in a more perfect world it wouldn’t happen, but as what fuels it run unabated, we’re a bit off from there.

        Be that as it may, I am pleased how this came out and the genuine bi-partisan support it managed to draw.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 2:10 pm

        Unintended consequences or logical outcome; the drone program is not something i can support any longer. I wish we had a government beyond reproach but we don’t.

        We posed the hypothetical “Sure, it’s fine to give this president the authority, but what of the next one or the one after that?” I think it may have been Spook or Cluster that proffered a world where Nancy Pelosi with the authority we were ready to give to Bush. I know ‘dolf echoed that fear.

        But, our hope hath sprung (or would it be Springed?) eternal and we wanted our government to use whatever means necessary to take out the baddies. We had no idea Pogo Possum was so prophetic when he said,

        We have met the enemy, and he is us.

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 3:07 pm

        rustybrownshorts

        “It’s his greatest shame since he took office.”

        Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 / 3:08 pm

        Mark,
        I just think the drone program is a cowardly way to conduct war, and the collateral damage is unacceptable. If war is needed – go to war. War should cost something lest it be taken lightly. Also, the precedent we’re setting with our use of drones is chilling. How would we feel if a foreign country started targeting U.S. citizens for death with their own lethal sky-robots? Unfortunately, we may find out, for drone technology is not that complicated.

        BTW, I’m not automatically against the occasional targeted killing of extremely bad actors in foreign lands – the extermination of bin Laden was a textbook righteous kill in my opinion. But that marine looked him in the eye before he planted a bullet into it.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 3:15 pm

        Sorry rusty,

        War is not some testosterone fueled video game; it’s life and death, and it’s ugly and always immoral in one respect or another.

        I have no issue with pressing a button and facilitating a dirt nap on some evil-doer. Don’t have to “look ’em in the eye” to to be Judge Judy and Executioner. Just smoke ’em any way you can.

        I have a problem with who’s finger is on that button. I don’t trust the lot of them.

      • M. Noonan March 7, 2013 / 4:34 pm

        Rusty,

        War is nasty beyond belief and it cannot be refined – I am ok with using ground forces if capture is the desire (and capture should often be the design so that we can get information – but that, also, requires GItmo to remain open and, further, means that waterboarding might have to come in to play). But if its just a matter of killing some people who pose a threat but who cannot provide us any useful information, then drone strikes are probably best.

        The main thing for me in this is that we, the people, have been asleep at the switch. There is legitimacy to the liberal accusation that we on the right were to willing to go along with Bush Administration protocols – but this is balanced by the thundering silence on the left about these same issues since January 20th, 2009. Do we want to be free, or not? If we do then in these purely civil liberties cases, it is time to bury the hatchet and demand accountability – and not just on Obama, but on all of our law enforcement agencies which are over-militarized and over-intrusive in to the lives of the America people. My bottom line is this:

        1. There should be no data gathered by law enforcement agencies on Americans except with a warrant and in the course of a criminal investigation (no more data mining, period).

        2. We must firmly re-assert that military forces cannot be used for law enforcement activities within the United States.

        3. Laws must be enacted to place civil and criminal liability on prosecutors for bringing bogus cases.

      • rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 / 7:25 pm

        Count,
        Your confusing the issues. The problem with the drone program is precisely that it’s not war – it’s run by the CIA – and it’s apparently never ending. As I said, if you need to go to war, go to war. If you need to take out a particularly bad actor, take him out with a targeted boots on the ground action (this should be rare). But what we shouldn’t do is have a policy of perpetually invading sovereign nations with death-robots to bomb the bad guys along with whatever innocent men, women and children happen to be around. How can you not see the inevitability for blowback with this policy? My “look him in the eye” comment meant the marine was there to identify his target and not mistakenly wipe out, say, a class of sixth-graders playing soccer.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 8:30 pm

        I’m not confusing anything.

        It isn’t a video game nor is war a bad Tarantino movie.

        Romantic visions of putting American servicemen in harm’s way because of noble perception of warriors fighting to the death on hallowed bloody ground is quaint but sophomoric. The farther away from danger you can place your forces and be effective the better. The Apache pilot doesn’t need to look anyone in the eye, nor does the sniper need to identify Ali al Boo-Boo as the figure planting the IED. Snuff ‘em says I.

        But, to your point, or rather your straw-man, the world is not a war zone, but some very nasty places are. And people in these nasty places are in a perpetual state of war with us. Striking bad guys hiding in plain sight among sympathetic governments is an ideal situation when placed in the hands of our military and for military purposes. The aforementioned snipers and pilots are not political operatives who would ever fire on American citizens in a café in Seattle. The CIA is and would.

        To restate my position; drones are a bad idea that needs to be controlled by the Pentagon, not used and kept up to date with all the latest technology available so that it is the most effective underutilized weapon in our expansive arsenal against the global war on terrorists lest the weapon be used against Americans for diabolical reasons by American political apparatchiks.

        Unless the second Amendment allows me to have a Drone.

      • rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 / 8:52 pm

        Count says:
        “It isn’t a video game nor is war a bad Tarantino movie.

        Romantic visions of putting American servicemen in harm’s way because of noble perception of warriors fighting to the death on hallowed bloody ground is quaint but sophomoric.”

        …who said it was? Who the hell are you arguing with, a voice in the back of your head? Talk about straw men. Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Point out where I presented a straw man of your argument in my post. You can’t do it because it’s not there. Yet you attempt to erect a feeble straw man of my argument.

        Are you denying that innocent civilians aren’t killed as a result of our drone program? Are you under the impression that the death of these innocents could not possibly have any blowback consequences for our country? You’re not too adept at answering direct questions so I suspect these too will go unanswered. Better to argue with the straw men in your head.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 8, 2013 / 12:36 pm

        THIS is Straw Man; “Are you denying that innocent civilians aren’t killed as a result of our drone program? Are you under the impression that the death of these innocents could not possibly have any blowback consequences for our country?

        Straw man. In forensics, to deceptively construct an argument predicated on a fallacious assumption, assign that assumption then argue against a position not taken.

        Counter to straw Man is an actual position statement posted by former captain of University of Washington Debating Team; Count d’Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 at 2:10 pm # on record prior to any sophomoric tantrum by the forensically challenged rusty.

        On the other hand, it is you rusty, that must defend the collateral damage caused by Drones, not I. You, dear simpleton began your vacillating tirade with the statement that you disapproved of Obama’s “expansion of the Drone program. The clear implication is that you approved of the program under the previous president, prior to Obama’s expansions.

        You approve of killing innocents if Bush is in office but not Obama?

        I don’t know how you can defend such a position rusty. Disgraceful! Simply Disgraceful!

        It seems we’ve established what you are; we’re merely haggling over price.

        Now, bow your head, say you’re sorry and go away.

      • rustybrown2012 March 8, 2013 / 2:18 pm

        Count,
        Perhaps those direct questions of mine could be viewed as straw men, but they were intended to tease some understanding from your garbled syntax. But it’s besides the point anyway – the question I posed to you was to point me to the straw men you supposedly identified in my PREVIOUS posts. You couldn’t do it since they don’t exist. And the irony, which has apparently flown past your head like the fleetest of hummingbirds, is that while accusing me of falsly presenting straw men you presented one of your own in the very same post. To wit:

        “It isn’t a video game nor is war a bad Tarantino movie.
        Romantic visions of putting American servicemen in harm’s way because of noble perception of warriors fighting to the death on hallowed bloody ground is quaint but sophomoric.”

        That’s a gross mischaracterization of anything I said – a classic straw man.

        So it would seem, captain, your debating and/or comprehension skills are lacking. Thanks for the tip to steer my kids away from the UW debate program though.

        You continue to display your poor reasoning skills with the second point of your post, that somehow I’m inconsistent or muddled with my views on drone policy. Not at all. To clarify, I think that drones can play a role in the military DURING WARTIME. I was not opposed to our Afghanistan campaign, and drones can be useful on the battlefield for reconnaissance and yes, airstrikes on enemy camps. Again, simpleton, my approval is mainly contingent that this is employed during wartime. My opposition to the Obama drone expansion is that this criterion is not met, and the resultant terror and death on civilian populations is not worth the cost.

        To head off your objections, note that this is a further explanation of my stated opinion and in no way inconsistent with what I’ve already said. If you want further clarification of my views, just ask. Don’t try to use my words against me for a pathetic gotcha, I’m too precise for that. You embarrass yourself, as if your nomenclature was not embarrassing enough.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 8, 2013 / 2:43 pm

        My garbled syntax?
        ” .. it’s besides the point????

        Restating your Stawman in rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 at 8:52 pm # from rustybrown2012 March 7, 2013 at 7:25 pm # “along with whatever innocent men, women and children happen to be around. How can you not see the inevitability for blowback with this policy?” only exemplifies your inability to grasp that you are outmatched.

        You “objection” was clearly stated in your straw man argument; innocent civilians killed in drone attacks by which there were between 118 and 135 in the Bush Administration and 416 to 768 (so far) in the Obama administration. The same state of war exists through both administrations. You have yet to make sense as you circle back to familiar ground; A whore haggling over price, as I said.

        You would have been better off with a sincere “I’m sorry” and left it at that, but you keep sticking your finger in the cage and you’ll keep getting it bit.

        Now go away before you hurt yourself.

      • rustybrown2012 March 8, 2013 / 4:58 pm

        Count,
        Good catch on the misplaced letter; I’m sure correcting minor grammar or spelling errors in no way implies you’re losing the core argument. But since you brought it up, and in the same sentence, I’m also certain using four question marks when one suffices is not formally wrong or juvenile in any way!

        But at least you identified what you thought was my straw man argument. Kudos! Alas, you are wrong. My full quote was:

        “The problem with the drone program is precisely that it’s not war – it’s run by the CIA – and it’s apparently never ending. As I said, if you need to go to war, go to war. If you need to take out a particularly bad actor, take him out with a targeted boots on the ground action (this should be rare). But what we shouldn’t do is have a policy of perpetually invading sovereign nations with death-robots to bomb the bad guys along with whatever innocent men, women and children happen to be around. How can you not see the inevitability for blowback with this policy?”

        …and this was in response to your statement:

        “I have no issue with pressing a button and facilitating a dirt nap on some evil-doer. Don’t have to “look ‘em in the eye” to to be Judge Judy and Executioner. Just smoke ‘em any way you can.”

        …So the statement that you quoted was me fleshing out my objection to the drone program which you seemed to be advocating for in your statement. I pointed out the drastic consequences of using drones. I presented no straw man argument; simply an argument. I’m saddened that your prodigious debate experience has failed to teach you what a proper straw man argument is, but heartened that it hasn’t prevented you from using them when you see fit.

        Further, you state:
        “The same state of war exists through both administrations.”

        …but it should be obvious my opposition to “Obamas expanded drone program” includes the drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and who knows where else. Are we at war with these countries? You should keep up with the news. Perhaps after you brush up on “debate for dummies”.

        And what’s with your “A whore haggling over price” analogy that you seem obsessed with? I honestly don’t get it, can you explain it to me? How exactly am I being a whore? Or is it just a cute phrase that you felt compelled to use regardless of its relevance (another debate faux pas)?

      • rustybrown2012 March 8, 2013 / 6:33 pm

        Ha! That’s a wonderfully self-depreciating way of admitting defeat. Well done! And don’t feel bad, you’re not the first!

      • percybeezer March 8, 2013 / 7:40 pm

        Rusty been pwned. 🙂

      • rustybrown2012 March 8, 2013 / 9:36 pm

        Keep dreamin’!

  6. 02casper March 7, 2013 / 1:05 am

    I also disagree with Obama’s drone program.

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 3:09 pm

      catspuke

      WOW…….BFD!!
      what a patriot!!…Oh wait that is the missile!

  7. Tim Weaver March 7, 2013 / 1:31 am

    I am a militant liberal that stands firmly behind Senator Paul’s filibuster. What’s right is right, and the Obama administration’s casual flaunting of the constitution has gone too far. The President must renounce this idea or resign. Period.

  8. danderson51 March 7, 2013 / 2:16 am

    What are the chances Paul gets an honest answer from all of this? He has admitted throughout the filibuster that he is not likely capable of stopping the nomination, he is doing this purely to get an answer from Obama. If he cannot stop the nomination, his leverage seems to be very limited. I completely support the principle he’s standing up for, I am just curious as to how effective this will all be in the end.

    • GMB March 7, 2013 / 7:03 am

      It really doesn’t matter how effective it is in the end. This is more about a member of the opposition actually showing some opposition. More about one Senator doing what he can to show that opposition.

      Be nice if forty other repub Senators could be bothered to do the same.

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 2:48 pm

      I am just curious as to how effective this will all be in the end.

      a NEW party is needed let the GOP become the wigs of 2013

      TEA….Molon Labe!!

  9. Cluster March 7, 2013 / 8:21 am

    I am with Mark, and am very happy to see our resident liberals stand with Rand and voice their opposition. Good job.

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 2:27 pm

      STOP da Music!!!!

      Rand Paul Of All People Voted to Confirm Chuck Hagel

      NO more needs to be said !!!!

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 2:55 pm

        Actually that vote confirms that Paul is a man of principle; “I’ve said all along that I give the president some prerogative in choosing his political appointees. There are many things I disagree with Chuck Hagel on, there are many things I disagree with John Kerry on, there are very few things I agree with the president on, but the president gets to choose political appointees.

        As distasteful as it is; it’s Obama’s Cabinet and he’s free to fill it with morons if he wants; elections have consequences.

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 3:13 pm

        count

        but the president gets to choose political appointees.”

        NOT a GOP President! it”s called fair play and payback!

        rand was WRONG imho….and Ill hold him accountable for it at the ballot box.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 3:21 pm

        And that is your prerogative, neo.

        But, I can’t demand that my guy in office be given the right to chose his subordinates when I fought their guy from having the same right.

        There will always be some reason for a perceived pay-back, but pay-back is never fair play.

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 3:44 pm

        count

        we are dealing with hard core marxixts….there is NO more fair play, there is only open warfare. We NEED warriors not soccer moms.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 4:03 pm

        Dude! Are you callin’ me a Soccer Mom? Man I just spit my herbal tea all over my skirt!

        I’m just trying to picture Hagel as a hard core Marxist. He’s more of a Lotus Eater in my opinion.

        But, I applaud your enthusiasm. I just caution you to not forget what we’re fighting for, and what we become if we fight their way.

      • GMB March 7, 2013 / 6:49 pm

        Neo, I agree that Rand’s vote to confirm Hagel was ill advised. However had 40 other repub senators joined Rand and voted against cloture his nomination would have been killed.

        The vote to confirm was meaningless. The cloture vote was the one that counted and the establishment repubs got their way.

        When the GOP dies in the end will the Whigs open back up?

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:11 am

        count

        Dude! Are you callin’ me a Soccer Mom? Man I just spit my herbal tea all over my skirt!

        No NEVER……..LOL
        sorry about the skirt though, send me the cleaning bill.

        Im just happy I didnt make you spit your scotch out…..that would have been catastrophic.

  10. Retired Spook March 7, 2013 / 11:16 am

    I also applaud Senator Paul’s stand on an issue that should be about as big a no-brainer as we’ve ever seen. And Rand Paul is not the only one taking a stand on Constitutional over-reach by this bunch of Chicago thugs.

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 2:28 pm

      PLEASE nk….PLEASE DO, pretty PLEASE!!!!

  11. Cluster March 7, 2013 / 1:57 pm

    It seems as though Rand has ruffled some elitist GOP feathers – tough shit. This from McCain:

    “The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain, Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2008 — who topped Mr. Paul’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul, in that year’s primary.

    Do more than “political stunts”. McCain must mean that Paul should go to dinner with President to seem reasonable and balanced about drone strikes killing Americans. After all the Senate is a high flutin elitist club where good manners are appropriate, right?

    Kick McCain OUT!! And his girl friend Lindsey Graham too. I am tired of those assholes.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/#ixzz2MsTsXn2I
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 2:31 pm

        count

        yeah, just wait until rove, jeb and joisey boy get a hold of them……..

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 2:45 pm

        Neo,
        First things first; a shot across the Old Guard’s bow.

        I have no idea what game Jeb is playing; he’s supposed to be the Smart Bush, go figure.

        And speaking of who cares; Rove is a strategist, I don’t give a crap what his politics are if he can deliver electoral victories. Use him for his talents then toss him like a snotty Kleenex.

        Round-boy is good for a laugh when he’s sticking his fat thumb in someone’s eye. I prefer that “someone” be a dimocrat, but waddya gonna do? Fat Chris wasn’t going to be the next Coolidge anyway.

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 2:29 pm

      Kick McCain OUT!! And his girl friend Lindsey Graham too. I am tired of those assholes.

      Hugo is awaiting!

      • GMB March 7, 2013 / 6:51 pm

        Lets see, rove stratagized the last two GOP defeats. That’s talent?

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 8:02 pm

        Let’s see, Rove wan’t employed by either of the last two Republican Presidential campaigns but it’s all his fault they didn’t win?

        You’re just not happy unless you can find someone (anyone and everyone) to blame are you?

        That’s some vile bile you got there dude.

      • GMB March 8, 2013 / 6:51 am

        Rove’s super pacs spend close to 400 million dollars to get 1 state to flip red.

        Ok so maybe he wasn’t the chief stratagist for the you repubs. Point taken.

        As to this “You’re just not happy unless you can find someone (anyone and everyone) to blame are you? ”

        I seem to remember you blaming and saying you were through with socons because of Mitt’s loss.

        You are pretty damn vile too when you want to be.

        Pot meet kettle.

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:14 am

        now now chillen we musnt fight amongst our selves.

    • M. Noonan March 7, 2013 / 4:39 pm

      I don’t know why McCain wants to dig himself a deeper hole here – he was already deep enough in with all those GOPers who went to dinner with Obama. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no particular problem with them having dinner with Obama – in other circumstances, it might even have been useful…but once Paul’s filibuster started, they should have cancelled, or at least cut it short…and if you stay for the whole thing, then the only word out of your mouth should be praise for Paul; and if you don’t want to praise, then keep your trap shut. What some times amazes me about our political leaders – on both sides – is how entirely inept they are at politics…clearly a sign that a lot of them, most of the time, don’t feel the have to give a rat’s rear what the people think.

      • mitchethekid March 7, 2013 / 6:52 pm

        The people???? You mean what Mark Nooan thinks. BTW, Brennan confirmed. As well as Hagel and Kerry. Sacre Bleu!
        I honestly don’t know how you go from room to room with an ego as large and self absorbed as yours without bumping into things. And to the moderators: this is not an “insult”. (Like I haven’t been insulted 100% of the time.) It is an observation.
        So many times the comments here remind me of the esteemed R. Crumb’s Zap Comic strip of the guy sitting in a worn out, over-stuffed chair with the foam oozing out, while he sweats worrying about the H Bomb. If you are unfamiliar with Crumb, Google and enjoy!

  12. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) March 7, 2013 / 3:02 pm

    And for ‘dolf.

    Sad news reached me today; Dr. Victor Shapiro passed from this earth on March 1, 2013.

    His office was directly below mine, he was a great guy and renowned in his field. He’ll be missed.

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 3:14 pm

      RIP…..Dr

    • bardolf2 March 7, 2013 / 6:05 pm

      I was unaware the Victor Shapiro was at UCR. He was a really good analyst. Sad news indeed.

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:15 am

        Only a short time; since 1964.

        BADDA BING!!

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:29 am

        Drudge

        Rand Paul fires back: McCain, Graham think ‘whole world is battlefield’…

        Angry McCain ups ante, calls Paul, Cruz ‘wacko birds’…

        sorry juan, YOU are the Fn wacko RINO!! boot licking POS

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:31 am

        Boehner-Obama Deals Add $21,817 in New Debt Per Household…

        GOOD JOB GOP……

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:33 am

        CLINTON: WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ON GAY MARRIAGE…

        he and bwany shared a C-gar together?

  13. Gunboat Republican (@GunboatRepub) March 8, 2013 / 1:40 pm

    What Rand Paul has done is nothing short of amazing. He’s gotten literally everyone on Earth except Lindsay McCain to agree with him. Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Steve Doocy, Rachel Maddow, Michele Bachmann, Eric Holder — heck, even Neocon and me — we’re all one big happy family right now. It’s almost unnatural.

    • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 2:02 pm

      heck, even Neocon and me — we’re all one big happy family right now. It’s ****almost unnatural*****.

      easy boy = ALMOST!! is the qualifier LOL

Comments are closed.