McGramps tearing Rand Paul a new one live in the Senate

[malaise]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah hahahaha - what happened yesterday was not helpful.

Eat one another ReTHUGs - I'm loving it.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I am not

Cause you know what, for once Rand Paul was correct.

I at least saw a real filibuster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2472906

[Angry Dragon]

2. +116,909

[Historic NY]

3. How soon we forget Bernie sanders.....with no breaks or backup.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. He did a great thing too, it was also a fillibuster

Your point. We are talking of yesterday, but carry on.

[leftyohiolib]

13. dont you mean "please proceed historic"

[randome]

7. A 13 hour filibuster is not 'real'. It was not done for any ethical purposes.

It was to stand in the spotlight and grab attention for himself. If he felt so morally opposed to this, why didn't he craft legislation to deal with it? Why end the filibuster so early?

[onenote]

12. Exactly. It was a 13 hour tantrum. As a filibuster, it was basically a failure

It didn't stop the nomination from proceeding. It barely slowed it down. It was based on a straw man argument (that under Holder's letter, the President was claiming the authority to use drones to aribitrarily target US citizens on US soil while they sat at restaurants enjoying a meal).

[patrice]

33. So you're in favor of the un-regulated export of assault weapons that Rand Paul is defending?

S. 2205 - The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022193033


Rand Paul could be defending un-regulated markets of various kinds, but assault weapons first and foremost as THE big loss leader for War Profiteers (and their first tier auxiliary, the NRA) in the nation's poor countries around the world, and most especially south of our southern border, from drones.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Carry on, apparently understanding that Paul is correct in this

Means, in crazee logic, that one supports Rand Paul.

This s what we call lack of logic. His father was 80% or so crazee, Rand is a bit more. That does not mean he is wrong on this. Ever heard of stuck clocks?

But do carry on.

[patrice]

49. My point is that I don't see how correct it is to oppose drones in order to protect assault weapons

markets amongst the world's poor. I don't think it's correct to do the "right" thing for the wrong reason, because that's the sort of thing that results in Shock and Awes.

Since everyone appears to be so fond of asking what people would be doing if _________________, what if those assault weapons markets weren't out there needing Rand Paul's coercive political pressure to protect them in the Senate? Would drones be so odious to him under those circumstances?

...................

Sorry you're offended.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. I am offended by the implication

That somehow I support Rand Paul for agreeing that this was a right stand to take.

Lemme see, I agreed with his dad in 2002 and his stance on Iraq. he was against invading Iraq and took neocon central to task. does that mean I voted for him in 2008 and 2012? Apparently I did...by the black and white logic used in this place. Let's take the logic all the way, I covered the Ron Paul for President rally at UCSD for the paper. I guess I re-registered to vote as an R and worked for the campaign walking precincts.

That is what is damn offensive.

Have a good day. Some of us thankfully...do not put party before country and are capable of nuance and shades of gray.

[patrice]

54. Well I guess that makes us even because I'm offended by your prejudiced stereotype of me. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Was I the one who started with that BS? Nope...

But go on...

[patrice]

62. All I did was ask you an honest question. I know now that questions are not permitted.

Have a nice life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. After another fifteen people, who are loud,

One in particular, have done the cult of personality.

Also I answered it...look at a van diagram...my agreement with either Paul is really, really teeny and small...but apparently, in particular that other DU'er, pillorying is allowed.

Sorry, but I find that annoying as hell.

Have a good day. Suffice it to say, rand Paul is a nut, but that does not mean he was wrong in raising this particular issue. In fact, it should have been a dem or two.

Why many of us, some in the media (gasp I know, quick turn them off) have said right message, wrong messenger.

Do me a favor, send your question to Rachel Maddow who got bucketfuls of hate mail, to tweety or Eugene Robinson, perhaps the guest on The Last Word who pointed Dems will rue the day they surrendered civil rights to the Tea Party. Time will tell if they actually did, but modern politics seem to be, my team is always right and the other side is worst than the devil incarnate.

This alone has done a lot of damage already. And yes, we see it all the way to the local level in non partisan (chuckle) offices...the mentality is all but healthy.

[October]

55. And maybe others are offended by your post.

How fucking superior of you, really, with your "Some of us thankfully...do not put party before country" bullshit.

Please. Black and white logic here? You mean, the kind of logic you use when someone disagrees with your support of Rand Paul? They don't get more "black and white" than Paul and his ilk, but you'd rather condescend to DU'ers who YOU feel couldn't possibly understand "nuance and shades of gray."

Have a good day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Be as ofended as you might be

That false equivalency has been flying since yesterday.

[October]

69. He knows how to get elected

From Alternet.org

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/rand-paul-no-progressive-hero-despite-anti-drone-filibuster?akid=10154.1084699.gQplmq&rd=1&src=newsletter805801&t=5

<snip>
Instead of lauding the anti-woman, anti-civil rights neo-libertarian senator, progressives would do better to ask: Why have all the Senate Democrats signed onto the Brennan nomination?

<snip>

But to stand with Rand means to lend support to a showman who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he thinks private owners of public establishments, such as restaurants, should be able to turn black people away on the basis of race. It means giving a patina of honor to a man who held up a flood relief bill in order to attach an amendment that would give civil rights to zygotes in order to “end abortion once and for all.”

Courage? I suppose you could say George Wallace was courageous when he defied a federal order to integrate the public schools of Alabama. Rand Paul’s courage springs from the same well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Thank you for a prime example

So you think I am voting for him because he said something I actually agree with? I am sure won't happen more than once a decade, best case.

You joined the rest pulling that false equivalency, congrats.

[October]

71. Wow

I posted another's point of view to further illustrate how some disagree with your take.

Thou doth protest...

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Buy bye

[dairydog91]

41. So your argument is a lukewarm "Hitler was a Vegetarian" claim?

Hitler was bad. Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarianism is bad.

Rand Paul is a Republican. Rand Paul is categorically against drone strikes on American soil. Therefore, being categorically against drone strikes is a Republican position (And obviously, no loyal Democrat can ever, under any circumstances, agree with a position taken by a Republican).

[patrice]

50. Uh, don't look now, but you missed the real point. Please read S. 2205 cited above. nt

[patrice]

34. I can guess why there are such good markets for those assault weapons; I just don't think

guns actually help certain kinds of problems in some situations.

One-third of Africa is facing a big increase in what is already some of the most extreme drought on Earth. No matter how right some of the people may be there about their human rights, assault weapons at this point in time, are only going to make things worse for them. Freedom fighters themselves could be genocided by the need for water.

[DevonRex]

42. Good fucking LORD. Paul is a RW crazy person who would drone anybody who isn't white

and wealthy and one of his elite. You need to do some research and find out why he asked about drones and the RW militia type, white supremacy, Glen Beckian, bullshit conspiracy theories it came from.

Do NOT ascribe any morality to that man. Whatsoever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Acknowledged already

What part of a clock stuck is right twice a day is so damn difficult to get?

And you demanding I do research on this is all kinds of funny, as in down right hilarious.

[DevonRex]

46. A broken clock is never right. it's just broken. All the time. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. You know, at this point also scream at msnbc, which happens to agree

Ain't my fault some folks are stuck in my party before country.

FYI I expect this to be the once in a decade that Rand is right...yup, they are that frequent.

[L0oniX]

64. You are a brave soul...

...saying that Rand Paul was correct on DU. Truth above party should be the standard for any real discussion ...but isn't always so on DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Or our mirror site

I just got pilloried. Rachel Maddow got hate mail.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Lindsey Graham said it was "ridiculous paranoia" to think Obama is going

to start taking out American citizens sitting in cafes. I have to agree with Goober for once.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I remember the dark days of the passage of the USPA.

Critics were also called paranoid and added the un american appellation. I will submit that the USPA has lived up to the expectations of the paranoid lot, and then some.

NSA, I know you enjoy it when not all citizens are blind to the data mining...though n the bright side you never had enough people, and with the sequester even less...but we still gotta assume. So just in case .

[bowens43]

9. whether or not its paranoia is irrelevant

what isn't irrelevant is he has high level aides who say that its legal....

[TwilightGardener]

10. No. The attorney general did not say it was legal to assassinate

Americans on American soil with no due process.

[leftyohiolib]

14. but he reserved the right to do it

[onenote]

15. Link for that assertion?

[leftyohiolib]

19. i was listening to it on the radio - that's where i heard him say this - i will try to find it and

get back to ya

[TwilightGardener]

16. All Presidents have the right to stop an attack by Americans on our soil.

As do any law enforcement agencies. The Obama administration isn't claiming new powers to assassinate Americans on our soil who aren't in the process of attacking us. I think the only real question about targeted killings came up with al-alawki and son in Yemen.

[leftyohiolib]

18. that's true - but they have to follow procedure otherwise we get g.w. again

[Renew Deal]

20. I think the attacks on Rand from McCain and Graham are politically motivated

And have nothing to do with drones. It has to do with control of the party.

[TwilightGardener]

22. I think they like Brennan, more than anything else. Brennan is the Terror-Tuesday guy.

They hated Hagel, love Brennan--just depends on the level of sheer bloodthirstiness they detect. It makes perfect sense. But yeah, I'm sure it also feels good to take a swing at Tea Party noobies who don't seem to respect the "GOP elder statesmen" that Goober and Walnuts feel they represent.

[malaise]

26. No the key point raised is that they are spewing libertarian bullshit with not one shred

of evidence. Sure Gramps and Dainty Graham are neo-con hawks but Rand Paul was spewing unsubstantiated libertarian paranoid BS.

Let me make it clear that I am against drones everywhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Ding, ding, ding

[patrice]

35. Even those who see a possible use for drones in preventing the sorts of things that lead us

stepwise into Afghanistan and from there into Iraq, will not let non-violent American citizens be droned, but I suppose some people will consider that intent insufficient, since a significant portion of it will be by the principles of non-violent action taught by the likes of MLK.

I'm pretty sure you know this, TwilightGardner, so it's just FYI about me, sometimes the defense of a principle calls for peace and LIVING that principle more authentically, instead of expecting others to do it whenever, and then also expecting still others to kill or be killed for how we fail in that principle, whatever it is.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

6. Glad to hear they're taking him to task.

That whole charade was insincere and uncalled for.

[HappyMe]

11. Oh noes!!1

Not DU's latest hero!!111

[frylock]

30. now graham and grampy are the new darlings of DU

[roxy1234]

39. Dont you know

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Today, it is Graham and McCain, tomorrow it will be Cheney and Wolfiwitz

[Cha]

43. not really. it's the freaking gop infighting that's

in play here.

[JoePhilly]

68. YUP ... the idiot Paul filausters the CIA director even though the CIA director has no

control over the use of drones on US soil ...

.... meanwhile, two of the Iraq war WMD cheerleaders, and major Bengazi conspiracy merchants, lecture Paul (and the rest of us) on usage of the military and what constitutes an appropriate use of the filabuster.

Its fucking hilarious.

[Comrade Grumpy]

17. Rand Paul has DU tying itself in knots: "Yay, McCain, Yay, Lindsay Graham!"

Let's here it for those two heroes of moderation!

Now, where's that sarcasm thingie?

[piratefish08]

25. purism has it's downside....

[JVS]

29. +1

[frylock]

32. yep. the tables have turned, and anyone who agrees with these two twits..

is now a fan for life.

[roxy1234]

40. its the enemy of my enemy

meme

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Maybe we could consider

eliminating the ageist language? "McGramps." Just a thought.

[OldDem2012]

23. I'm 62, but McCain is definitely Grumpy McGramps. nt.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. Just because you're comfortable with ageist

language doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.

[OldDem2012]

27. Oh, my aching back...get over it. nt.

[abelenkpe]

28. McCain and Paul

are both jerks.

[malaise]

36. Of course they are all jerks but this public war between ReTHUG factions

is delish Butter please!!!

Did you see the gang at Fox with that moron Malkin

[abelenkpe]

48. Yeah totally agree!

I'm certainly enjoying it

[ellie]

31. Uh oh.

He pissed off the old guy.

[DevonRex]

45. Let them rip each other to shreds, embarrass each other to death.

John McCain and Graham are disgusting assholes. Rand Paul is a disgusting asshole. The whole damn party is full of vipers. I hope they keep this infighting up until there's nothing left of the GOP.

[malaise]

52. Yes indeed

[DevonRex]

53. Since we're dancing to the same tune...

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/dancing.kitten-emoticon-3300.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[malaise]

60. Too cute!

[spanone]

58. mccain & graham never met a weapons system they didn't adore

i love it when they destroy each other....

[malaise]

61. No doubt they have connections tot he drone manufacturers

[moondust]

59. Presumably protecting the drone-making arm of the MIC.

That's my guess.

[Hosnon]

63. Refusing to acknowledge Sen. Paul is right on this is a pretty damning condemnation.

It simply means party over principle, no exceptions.

[fadedrose]

67. They're not in lock-step anymore

They used to have one brain, and it was teeny. I think Rand Paul has guts because his dad is in politics, so he comes to doing as he pleases quite naturally...starts at home, like most kids do what they please sometimes to their parents' chagrin.

Rand is used to being criticized, so McCain is wasting his time..

[Dawson Leery]

73. The best of both worlds!

Paul makes a strong point all the while the GOP is being torn apart.