Rand Paul's filibuster, or conservative hypocrisy in full fx

6 posts


Yesterday, Rand Paul led the way in the filibuster to delay Brennan's nomination for CIA director and was quoting passages from Alice in Wonderland in an attempt to compare "American ignorance of the issue to the 'Wonderland' world in the book" (H/T to Thermo on this last tidbit; he watched some of it on C-SPAN and made commentary in the Barrel shouter).

Paul, after his obligatory visit to the Wailing Wall in classic neocon submission stance -- whilst wearing a Ralph Lauren Polo jacket for extra lulz -- has been gaining praise and suport of late for taking a 'principled stand' on the Brennan issue. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans still don't know or care about the rather selective manner in which targets are chosen for drone strikes in other countries and also about how the good old USA has a tendency to create terrorists due to some rather inconvenient collateral damage .

These drone strikes would not even be an issue for the vast majority of US citizens if not for the recent awareness raised that it might eventually be their ox getting unconstitutionally gored along with the evil raghead terrorists. Does Paul actually even care about drone strikes? Hard to say, but this was certainly a smrt political move on his part in terms of gaining further approval from the PTB who are conservatively inclined, as well as getting him another step closer to his yet unstated, but obvious goal of securing a presidential bid.

Many people I've talked to about this both on forums and also IRL seem to think what Rand Paul has done is important and heroic because he is defending the Constitution or some such. However, this viewpoint seems rather shortsighted to me. Discuss.


Rand Paul will be America's White boyfriend after having been with a Black guy. She'll feel that he cares more about her but doesn't fuck her as hard.

President Camacho
I get the cultural stereotypes, but Obama probably fucks like a limp-dicked faggot. In fact, he probably gets fucked by Michelle.
Team Zissou

IMO, the debate we're not having is why we're handing out citizenship to such people.

Its a senseless debate as a matter of law anyway - if 'terrorists' are criminals, they're entitled to Due Process regardless of their national citizenship. If they're spies or saboteurs they can be killed in any operational theater in which they're acting in a military capacity. If they're POWs, they're entitled to Geneva Convention and possibly consular protection. If they're US citizens who are enemy combatants , they're wartime defectors.

The thing that jumps out about this is that targeted killings were a big part of Carter's push to outlaw a lot of Executive antics that occurred in the VN war - the Phoenix Program hearings spawned this. There's since been a 180 and now people like Paul are only hung up on ''citizenship''.

The Executive either has targeted kill clearance or he doesn't, as a matter of law IMO. This whole debate is aimed at making the issue opague, as is the nonsense of jurisdiction being bounced back and forth every several months vis a vis ''terror'' suspects and the whole Waterboarding red herring.