How long will Rand Paul's filibuster last? Depends.....

I have no problem with a filibuster on the condition that it is performed traditionally i.e. a senator speaking until they can no longer speak.

Merely threatening a filibuster is a bullshit pansy way to do it.

so holder says drone strikes in the us on american citizens is constitutional but its apparently only constitutional if the central government is in a state of war against the states. so do they think they are at war or going to go to war with the states?

It has happened before.....

I don't agree with much of what Paul says, but kudos to him for standing up for what he believes this long.

Do you disagree with him on *this* issue, abge?

I'm not too familiar with it, to be honest.

I think Obama's use of drones is highly suspect and from what I've heard, it seems Brennon either supports drones or refuses to give a clear answer, which I do not think is a good stance for the CIA director to take.

That was epic. It's not often that you get to see real issues debated on the Senate floor.

Is it over?

YJ needs to learn "google"...but yes, it's over. Went 13 hours and the Republican leadership threw him under the bus...fuckwads.

"it seems Brennon either supports drones or refuses to give a clear answer, which I do not think is a good stance for the CIA director to take. "

I don't know...the head of the Cloak and Dagger Division shouldn't be spilling all our secrets...errrrr....uh....

"Went 13 hours and the Republican leadership threw him under the bus...fuckwads. "

Cornyn didn't, krell.

OK...Some of the Republican "leadership" threw him under the bus...Graham, and that jackass that ran for President....gimp arm...war hero dude...what's hsi fuck...er...face...uhhhh....McCain...

Well, it worked. AG Holder responded that, no, the President doesn't have authority to use drones against US citizens on US soil.

Yay...after being a public issue for weeks, if not months, and after not answering the question in hearings...YAY...a 13 hour demonstration finally get's the Obama Adminstration to admit they can't murder citizens without due process. What a great victory....

<...wonders what the fuck is wrong with my country....>

he is wasting valuable time. droning on and on. cnn knows whats up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSYX_Uz23_A

41% of Dems think president should have power to kill suspected American terrorist on American soil http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/04/poll-41-of-dems-think-president-should-have-power-to-kill-suspected-american-terrorist-on-american-soil/

how many times do i tell people these polls cannot be trusted, with the guns or political candidates or any other issue. these are from the same experts who told us the health benefits of breakfast cereals and dairy or how carbon dioxide would destroy our world or that saddam had wmds or that iran is developing a nuclear bomb or .... actually just pick any major headline and wait a couple months and it will be shown to be a lie.

"or how carbon dioxide would destroy our world"

Wait. What? Are you denying the dangers of climate change?

ahahahahaha.... .... *climate change*. that has to be the most embarrassing failure of the mass population in modern times. and the fact that they are still pushing it shows they really think people are stupid. it is true that the public is generally stupid but how long can you keep pushing total bs to the people and have them still believe it?

i posted the image in this article before, it highlights the success of the ipcc predictions over time http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t
you can get the latest sattellite temp data here it makes it even more embarrassing maybe i should add this new data to that image and post it somewhere
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Feb_2013_v5.5.png

the met office had to admit there has been no warming in the last 15 years or something but then said the reason why we dont see the predicted warming is because of seasonal variance or some bs like that.

so... come up with a hypothesis (the earth was warming until now, co2 must be doing it) now put it in academia and media until it reaches unfalsifiable status. now the observation does not match any predictions your theory made at all, thats ok, that is just random variance. the warming itself is not variance, but the failure to warm certainly is.

There is a huge body of evidence for man-made climate change. If you choose to ignore that there's no point even responding to you any more.

the most embarrassing prediction is the one we can most easily test, the oldest one. the 1990 ipcc prediction, the original one, predicted we would be +2c by now, but we are actually at no change in temperature by the sattellite data which is run by nasa who have previously admitted to lying to the public to convince people that the world is getting warmer. so... yeah. it is funny how the onus is no longer on the people making the conjecture but on those showing it has no validity.

what do you mean by a huge body of evidence? there was a huge body of evidence for the existence of god back when the church was in control of things. there was a huge body of evidence for dairy being healthy. having a bunch of nonsense and claiming it is science does not make it true.

1990 was only a few minutes ago in terms of global temperature - you have to look at the much longer trend. Since you mention NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

@blankflag - You know, just because you find one article by a crackpot scientist, that does not mean the the "mainstream" scientists are wrong. Way back in the day, you will find scientists that stood up on front of congress and said that cigarettes did not cause cancer. Coincidently, they were all being paid by...wait for it...cigarette companies. Even the fringe scientists in the US have backed off the claim that global climate change is made up. Look up some information on the "scientist" that you quoted in the article above. He also said that asbestos was not harmful. Since I am not a climetologist, I will just leave it to the VAST majority of them that says global climate change is real.

i understand you think that it is scientific. that is what the media tells us constantly and that is what the universities publish. i thought the same thing until i looked into it. those institutions are paid off.

yes, funny how all that warming happened BEFORE the theory came out. i can go out and find any random system and just when it is experiencing an upward trend or a downward trend come up with a theory saying why it must be doing it and then what? now it is unfalsifiable?

lets go even further back in time http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

The problem is this: If somehow the scientific consensus is wrong, and somehow you are right, and policy is made on that basis, humanity is not fucked... BUT If the scientific consensus is right, and your nutjob opinion is wrong, and policy is made on the basis of your opinion, humanity is FUCKED.

The consequences of "humanity is fucked" are really quite bad. You might want to consider a concept known as "the precautionary principle".

Carbon dioxide changes LAG temperature changes. Do the research - the entire global warming by man-made events is bogus, bad science. The base argument for carbon emission causing climate change is disproven, by the fact that carbon changes LAG BEHIND temperature changes. Do your research, environmentalists...