Rand Paul on a marathon speaking filibuster right now.

[Slowhand]

That's for sure. Next election (starting in the mid terms) I will be voting on the man and principle, not the party. Whoever the best man will win in my book, Libertarian, republican or democrat.

Not allowed to do that, per this forum. You have to vote the party. Period.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Not allowed to do that, per this forum. You have to vote the party. Period.

The problem is that THEY vote how thier party wants them to, not how they want to many times. So you may like them and think they are going to do the bullshit they promised, and then they get to the hill and do what thier party tells them to.

[Slowhand]

The problem is that THEY vote how thier party wants them to, not how they want to many times. So you may like them and think they are going to do the bullshit they promised, and then they get to the hill and do what thier party tells them to.

Who is the hypothetical 'they', here?

[Baron Von Crowder]

Who is the hypothetical 'they', here?

It doesnt make a huge difference, either party.

[Slowhand]

It doesnt make a huge difference, either party.

Your vagueries are both convincing and meaningless.

My statement doesn't stand just for extra-party candidates, though. There are plenty of in-party candidates who don't suck the party dick that get outcast by the GOP for not toeing the line like they "should".

[Forever_frost]

Rand got his answer

[Trip McNeely]

That's the short term answer, in other words to shut everyone up and calm the masses.

[racrguy]

$5 says they may try to define combat as "plotting" something against the government.

[stevo]

Not allowed to do that, per this forum. You have to vote the party. Period.

The Clinton administration thanks you for your opinion.

Stevo

[DallasSleeper]

Victory

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’” wrote Holder. “The answer to that question is no.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...us-filibuster/

[racrguy]

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’” wrote Holder. “The answer to that question is no.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...us-filibuster/

This may be a repost. I'm not sure though.

[DallasSleeper]

It may be but not in this thread, or the political forum

[Baron Von Crowder]

Rand got his answer

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’” wrote Holder. “The answer to that question is no.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...us-filibuster/

This may be a repost. I'm not sure though.

It may be but not in this thread, or the political forum

You sure?

[racrguy]

You sure?

If it was directed at me as well, it was a rhetorical statement on my part, I even commented on it when it was posted by FF.

[bcoop]

If it was directed at me as well, it was a rhetorical statement on my part, I even commented on it when it was posted by FF.

He's talking about the dolt that missed post 126.