Rand Paul Fillibuster

[CARDINAL 205]

Forgive me, folks, but I'm not concerned about drone strikes endangering US citizens on our soil. I really am not. In the slightest. I will stand firmly on the side of "not paranoid." This is not an issue.

 

Do you really have that much faith in the Federal Government? They have down warrentless wiretaps before, violating the Bill of rights, what makes you think that they wouldn't try this in the future!

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Also, as much as it pains me to actually state this, I'm not going to let the death of one teenaged boy make me think that just because it happened once, that it will happen again, that there is a chance that it could happen on our soil. I really am not. I'm also not going to worry about something that happened almost 20 years ago at Mount Carmel.

 

These things do not worry me in regard to my own, and others' safety. JD, you may say that I trust our government too much. My response to you is that you should try to avoid worrying about things that aren't going to happen.

 

Hey man. Ignorance is bliss. Everyone is more comfortable in the fairy tale world they create for themselves. They just couldn't mentally handle the weight of the truth. More power to em'. Sometimes it's nicer to live a happy lie rather than an unfortunate truth.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Today, following a historic 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor that ended early this morning, Sen. Rand Paul received correspondence from the White House regarding the legality and constitutionality of the U.S. government using lethal force, including drone strikes, on Americans and in U.S. territory. Sen. Paul's repeated correspondence to President Obama's nominee to be CIA director, John Brennan, was finally answered today, in part, with the following response from Attorney General Eric Holder: "'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

 

"This is a major victory for American civil liberties and ensures the protection of our basic Constitutional rights. We have Separation of Powers to protect our rights. That's what government was organized to do and that's what the Constitution was put in place to do," Sen. Paul said. "I would like to congratulate my fellow colleagues in both the House and Senate and thank them for joining me in protecting the rights of due process."

 

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=735

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The sad part....That question needed to be asked. I would say I hate this president but then I would get killed by a drone strike. But hey, he helps poor people at the expense of others, so he must be a great man.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The question needed to be asked because Holder had previously told Rand Paul that the President did have that authority.

 

And Favre, there's no reason to get sarcastic. It's not incredibly obvious to those who may not have been following the storyline, I simply didn't wish for people to think he had literally sat there and talked for 13 hours.

 

Also, as much as it pains me to actually state this, I'm not going to let the death of one teenaged boy make me think that just because it happened once, that it will happen again, that there is a chance that it could happen on our soil. I really am not.

 

If it happened once, why on earth can it not happen again? You're burying your head in the sand, bro.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You made it sound as if I was inferring he talked for the 13 hours straight, or that it is less of an accomplishment because he didn't do as such.

 

It's a historic filibuster. And even though he didn't speak for the full 13 hours, its significance should not be understated. It isn't like he sat at the desk reading out of the phone book like Senators used to do back in the day. In hour 13 he was still speaking as coherently and on point as he was in hour 1. And he got the Attorney General of the United States to flip flop on his position in response.

 

I am not going to begin to undermine the effort because other Senators took to the floor and gave him a break to eat a candy bar.

[BwareDWare94 723]

historic because of duration, not subject matter. Within two weeks we'll have all calmed down and realized that this was nothing more than political posturing as he tries to put himself in line for a Presidential nomination in 2016. This was a display of cowardice, not patriotism.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ya know. I have no problem arguing with people like Blots and Phail who stand on the other side of the aisle as I do... I don't agree with them, but I respect their opinion(s) to think the way they do. Because deep down, we all want the same thing. It's just the course of action to get to that goal that differs.

 

You on the other hand. Do not fall under that category. I often times stay out of baseball and even non-Suns basketball talk on this forum because I am still learning the sport(s). You should yield to my precedent and remove yourself from the political ring.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You made it sound as if I was inferring he talked for the 13 hours straight, or that it is less of an accomplishment because he didn't do as such.

 

It's a historic filibuster. And even though he didn't speak for the full 13 hours, its significance should not be understated. It isn't like he sat at the desk reading out of the phone book like Senators used to do back in the day. In hour 13 he was still speaking as coherently and on point as he was in hour 1. And he got the Attorney General of the United States to flip flop on his position in response.

 

I am not going to begin to undermine the effort because other Senators took to the floor and gave him a break to eat a candy bar.

 

What you said could easily have been taken that way, yes.

 

No, it doesn't undermine it in anyway, but its still one of the facts of what happened. I was just making sure that all the facts were laid out there.

 

Actually, the fact that he got a Democrat to join in makes it more impressive than if he was just standing there alone. In no way am I demeaning what he did, I was simply pre-empting an objection against your statement.

[Thanatos 2,847]

historic because of duration, not subject matter. Within two weeks we'll have all calmed down and realized that this was nothing more than political posturing as he tries to put himself in line for a Presidential nomination in 2016. This was a display of cowardice, not patriotism.

 

Regardless of his political motivation, if more people had the strength to do something like what he did, the country would be a better place. People who are against what Rand did here are always focused on why he did it. Well the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter why he did it. It needed to be done, and he did it.

 

Kudos to him, and it sure as hell wasn't a display of cowardice. A coward does not get up in front of a hundred other people and filibuster on something that many of them disagree with him on. A coward would have remained silent regardless of their political affiliation. Rand Paul is many things. A coward is not one of them.

[WindyCitySports 407]

The most amazing thing about all of this, to me, is the way he has united the American people. Here is a bit of a "slideshow" of what I am talking about.

 

Code Pink (far-left group)

 

Young Turks (far-left group)

 

Laura Ingraham (right-wing radio)

 

Herman Cain (conservative politician)

 

Gary Johnson (libertarian politician)

 

Jon Stewart (liberal comedian)

 

Twitter Trend

 

Honestly, whether or not you agree with him, he looked like a leader yesterday. He was bold, passionate about getting things done, and not taking crap. That is exactly what this country is thirsty for. We need someone who is not going to "go along to get along," won't say "we've always done it this way," and tells it like it is. If he runs in 2016 I plan on being an active member of his campaign.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Ya know. I have no problem arguing with people like Blots and Phail who stand on the other side of the aisle as I do... I don't agree with them, but I respect their opinion(s) to think the way they do. Because deep down, we all want the same thing. It's just the course of action to get to that goal that differs.

 

You on the other hand. Do not fall under that category. I often times stay out of baseball and even non-Suns basketball talk on this forum because I am still learning the sport(s). You should yield to my precedent and remove yourself from the political ring.

 

The mere fact that you disagree with me doesn't nullify the credence of my opinions. I've no issue debating with you, but if you can't do it without falling into traded insults because you can't handle how drastically different our opinions are, then I'll gladly remove myself from this thread. I've no issues with you but if not being able to handle my opinion is going to lead you to personal insults, we will have issues very soon. I firmly believe that this was a selfish political move--not a stance for our freedom.

 

EDIT: I understand if you think I'm insulting you by referring to the people who buy into this as paranoid, but I'm not talking about folks like you and Thanatos who can look at things subjectively. I'm talking about all of the right wing nutjobs from up here where I'm at with no real political knowledge who are acting like Rand Paul is the Second Coming.

Edited March 7, 2013 by BwareDWare94

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Thus I was correct in the intention of your post. And I am assuring you that that was not to be inferred by mine. If people are confused or don't know the procedures on the floor, they are more than welcome to ask. But let's not waste time questioning everyone's intelligence and hold their hands through the utmost basic of concepts.

 

If you desire to educate those not as into politics, I think it would be great if somebody created a "Senate 101" thread where you can explain these basic principles.

 

EDIT: ^ Not sarcasm. It could be very beneficial for those wanting to get into politics after some of the engaging conversations we have once in a while.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The mere fact that you disagree with me doesn't nullify the credence of my opinions. I've no issue debating with you, but if you can't do it without falling into traded insults because you can't handle how drastically different our opinions are, then I'll gladly remove myself from this thread. I've no issues with you but if not being able to handle my opinion is going to lead you to personal insults, we will have issues very soon. I firmly believe that this was a selfish political move--not a stance for our freedom.

 

EDIT: I understand if you think I'm insulting you by referring to the people who buy into this as paranoid, but I'm not talking about folks like you and Thanatos who can look at things subjectively. I'm talking about all of the right wing nutjobs from up here where I'm at with no real political knowledge who are acting like Rand Paul is the Second Coming.

 

I would hate to break it to you, but there are "nut jobs" of every political affiliation and following. There were groups designated to praising Obama very similar to the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany. I have never seen you reference them (or the countless others, not to nitpick Obama or his supporters).

 

Some of the Libertarian movement is a little out there, like the portion of the Tea Party that FOX and CNN love to show you. But you can't let the media define people for you. Just like the Obama Youth, those people certainly exist, but make up a very very small portion of the cause.

 

Blots and Phail disagree with me on practically every issue, but when they do so, they do it in a manner that gives others something to actually think about. Something concrete. Something that can go back and forth.

 

You and the other hand spew unsubstantiated and uneducated... for lack of a better term... bullshit. It's all extremely vague, so that when someone goes to disagree with you, you always have a way out. And again, most of it isn't actually backed by anything other than it is merely your "opinion".

 

For example. You say this political posturing and "cowardice". Explain why standing up against the establishment GoP and Democrats alike is cowardice. To define cowardice as taking a stand on principle against the heavy majority regardless or without thought towards any consequences is just silly.

 

You think, therefore it is.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Good job on Paul to get a clarification from the administration.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[NY Diehard 26]

Rand Paul and his father are both idiots.

 

I don't get why people care so much about the idea of a drone strike. They're obviously not going to do it to the average citizen walking down the street for no reason. They would only use it against people who present a clear danger to American people.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

See, Rand got the stamp of approval from Phail. That's all you need to know.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Rand Paul and his father are both idiots.

 

I don't get why people care so much about the idea of a drone strike. They're obviously not going to do it to the average citizen walking down the street for no reason. They would only use it against people who present a clear danger to American people.

Why shouldn't that person get to explain themselves in a federal court before getting killed? Isn't the the entire point of the 5th Amendment? Innocent until proven guilty, right?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

See, Rand got the stamp of approval from Phail. That's all you need to know.

 

I don't like his tactics but if that's what it takes to get a definitive answer, then by all means...

[WindyCitySports 407]

I don't like his tactics but if that's what it takes to get a definitive answer, then by all means...

Unfortunately, it has gotten to that point.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Is it possible to go back 250 years and get a do-over. This "America" is appalling.

[Vin+ 3,121]

Rand Paul and his father are both idiots.

 

I don't get why people care so much about the idea of a drone strike. They're obviously not going to do it to the average citizen walking down the street for no reason. They would only use it against people who present a clear danger to American people.

This is the bigger issue to me, that people need to assume that if something isn't explicitly stated, then that means it's automatically going to happen. Not saying it's bad, really, just that it shouldn't be this way.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Rand Paul and his father are both idiots.

 

I don't get why people care so much about the idea of a drone strike. They're obviously not going to do it to the average citizen walking down the street for no reason. They would only use it against people who present a clear danger to American people.

Thankfully the government will always know 100% who is guilty in advance.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

In the world of exceeding federal power, new age interpretations, and the "winners" being the ones who can exploit the most loop holes -- it has become a necessity. Nobody is assuming it will happen, but you have to assure yourself and others that it won't happen.

 

When the Attorney General of the United States admits that it is within the power of the President to send out drone strikes against non-combatant Americans in America... We have a problem.

 

Now... To be fair, does the newly released statement from Holder prevent it from actually happening tomorrow... Or 5 years from now?

 

[Guest Phailadelphia]

In the world of exceeding federal power, new age interpretations, and the "winners" being the ones who can exploit the most loop holes -- it has become a necessity. Nobody is assuming it will happen, but you have to assure yourself and others that it won't happen.

 

When the Attorney General of the United States admits that it is within the power of the President to send out drone strikes against non-combatant Americans in America... We have a problem.

 

Now... To be fair, does the newly released statement from Holder prevent it from actually happening tomorrow... Or 5 years from now?

 

 

When did Holder say they could use drones against non-combatant Americans in America? Genuinely curious here. I'm not calling you a liar.