Rand Paul insane.

[Jarod]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster_n_2819740.html

Seriously?

This man is either crazy or does not give the American people much credit.

Since when has Law Enforcement not been allowed to kill people in certian specific circumstances?

 

[Howey]

No doubt the guys a nutcase, but at least he's filibustering the good ol' way.

 

[Topspin]

Rand is a democrat plant!

 

[Bonestorm]

Rand may be insane, but he's got a legitimate point.

 

[Jarod]

Rand may be insane, but he's got a legitimate point.

What is the legitimate point?

 

[Bonestorm]

What is the legitimate point?

That Brennan shouldn't be confirmed as Director of the CIA until the Administation provides substantially more tranparecy about the legal rationale for its authority to assassinate U.S. citizens.

 

[Jarod]

That Brennan shouldn't be confirmed as Director of the CIA until the Administation provides substantially more tranparecy about the legal rationale for its authority to assassinate U.S. citizens.

Where did the Administration say they had authority to assassinate U.S. Citizens?

What does the director of the CIA have to do with that?

 

[Jarod]

Since when has law enforcement not been alowed to kill Americans in certian limited situations?

 

[Bonestorm]

Where did the Administration say they had authority to assassinate U.S. Citizens?

Uh, there was this "white paper" released a few weeks ago where the Administration said exactly that.

What does the director of the CIA have to do with that?

The "director of the CIA," geberically, has little to do with that. John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, has a lot to do with it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Since when has law enforcement not been alowed to kill Americans in certian limited situations?

I don't understand the relevance of the question.

 

[Jarod]

Uh, there was this "white paper" released a few weeks ago where the Administration said exactly that.




The "director of the CIA," geberically, has little to do with that. John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, has a lot to do with it.

1) False
2) What does he have to do with that?

 

[Jarod]

I don't understand the relevance of the question.

That is what Rand Paul says he is complaining about.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) False

No. It's not false.

2) What does he have to do with that?

What does who have to do with what?

 

[Jarod]

"He objected to the contents of a letter he received from Attorney General Eric Holder that asserted the U.S. government had the legal authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2819740.html

 

[Jarod]

No. It's not false.




What does who have to do with what?

1) Is to.
2) See the cite above.

 

[Bonestorm]

That is what Rand Paul says he is complaining about.

No, that was a question that you asked. I think Rand Paul said something different.

 

[Jarod]

No, that was a question that you asked. I think Rand Paul said something different.

Nope.

 

[Phantasmal]

Where did the Administration say they had authority to assassinate U.S. Citizens?

What does the director of the CIA have to do with that?

You are joking, right?

 

[Jarod]

You are joking, right?

No, are you avoiding answering by pretending to think Im joking?

 

[Bonestorm]

All due respect Jarod, but I don't think you are taking the full context of Brennan's nomination and the Administration' drone programs into your dismissal of Paul's filibuster.