Rand Paul Fillibuster

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Does any politician really deserve the benefit of the doubt? I think we are beyond that point.

 

When we're talking about killing US citizens on American soil, yes.

[CARDINAL 205]

Due process is overrated

 

I doubt people in countries where if your detained your tortured and assumed guilty right off the bat they would agree with you!

 

Due Process is probably one of the most important rights that is included in the Bill of Rights!

[Thanatos 2,847]

When we're talking about killing US citizens on American soil, yes.

 

Why? They already used a drone to kill a US citizen who was overseas. Why do we give them the benefit of the doubt because of where the guy is located?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

When we're talking about killing US citizens on American soil, yes.

 

I think they have made it abundantly clear they could not care less about us one way or the other.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Why? They already used a drone to kill a US citizen who was overseas. Why do we give them the benefit of the doubt because of where the guy is located?

 

Seriously? We can't draw a distinction between "we have proof this guy helped coordinate attacks on 9/11, and is currently living in an Al Qaeda hideout in the Middle East with other insurgents" and "killing Americans on American soil"? Look I'm with everyone else that's not OK with the lack of due process in killing al-Awlaki but it's irresponsible, if not a slippery slope fallacy of the highest order, to insinuate there's no difference between him and an ordinary American on American soil or that one leads to another.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[BwareDWare94 723]

I would really like to know why I'm not allowed to have my opinion in this thread. I'm not insulting any of you or saying anything that's completely wrong. I'm offering another perspective. Big deal.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

At the same time, some of us don't think it was a valid question because we're not worried about our government OK'ing drone strikes that could potentially endanger civilians on our own soil. Rand Paul did this more for a 2016 nomination than anything, so I don't buy the whole "caring about our safety" or "standing up for our rights" bit.

 

It's most definitely a valid question. You should be worried. I shouldn't say worried, but at least acknowledge the possibility that it could happen. I think this is why your posts are being treated in the manner that they are in this thread. You say that you are presenting an opposing viewpoint, but you aren't actually saying much of anything at all. You are basically acting like the government is infallible, and it's that type of complacent attitude that has allowed this country to spiral into the shape it is in today.

 

By the way, Rand, like Ron, is one of the most consistent guys in this government on his political views. He wouldn't do something because it's popular or to try to get elected. If he wanted to suck up to people to get elected, he would find ways other than taking a side on an issue that a lot of people disagree with him about and resorting to this historic fillibuster. His voting record speaks for itself. He's the most pure Constitutionalist on the main stage now that Ron is fading into the background.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Sarge

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

See, that's the thing.

 

(@Bware) You make this sound like it's a publicity stunt... That Rand doesn't actually believe what he is touting. He's doing it all to prepare for his Presidential run. That's so far from reality that you can't be taken seriously. It proves that you are not only off base, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Now, let's be completely fair. Did it give him a lot of good publicity? Hell yes. But that isn't WHY he did. That isn't what drives him or his principles. He and his father aren't identical by any means, but as Sarge said -- the voting record speaks for itself. One thing he does better than Ron is that Ron didn't care who he pissed off or who became his enemy. He was a freelancer. Rand doesn't care if he upsets the status quo, don't get me wrong... but he wants to form alliances and wants to play the game that is American politics.

 

However... He REALLY believes in state rights. He REALLY believes in controlling and balancing the power of the federal government. He REALLY believes in individual liberty. He REALLY believes in being financially sound.

 

That is who he is. That is who he was born to be. He couldn't fake it if he tried.

[WindyCitySports 407]

I would really like to know why I'm not allowed to have my opinion in this thread. I'm not insulting any of you or saying anything that's completely wrong. I'm offering another perspective. Big deal.

Who said you can't have your opinion? We are simply refuting and giving our opinions. I know I can speak for myself when I say that I am very passionate about this and that is why I may seem to be a little harsh, but you can still give your opinion.

 

The bottom line is that freedom is a beautiful thing. Many people in the world can only dream of being able to tell a cop, "No, you cannot come into my car" or getting a trial when the government suspects you of a crime. When we take away these freedoms, what makes us different than some of the most human rights-abusing countries in the world? And to see you guys putting so much trust in one person is sad. I am sure Obama is a great guy, but there is a reason that the founders wanted checks and balances. They were coming from places where one person or family had ultimate power, and as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Maybe not now or in the next 50 years even, but if you continue to give absolute power to the President, a person with bad intentions will win the Presidency and realize that they are unchecked. Like Reagan said, we will then "spend our sunset years telling our children and grandchildren what it was once like in these united states, where men were free." I know I sound like I am fear mongering, but we have an intricate system of checks and balances for an important reason.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I asked Bware to do us a favor, and stay away if he was going to continue to spout random, uneducated, and unsubstantiated bull shit. Unfortunately, he didn't heed my request and is now pouting and grandstanding instead of going out and educating himself. Typical.

[BwareDWare94 723]

How are my viewpoints uneducated, JD? Based simply on the fact that they disagree with yours? I don't believe in politicians, in general, and I do not for a second believe this was Rand Paul standing up for liberty or for the people. It's not that I trust our government without question, but I certainly trust this administration not to OK drone strikes on our soil that would endanger our own citizens. I really, completely, 100% trust the Obama administration to not allow such nonsense. That's the basis of my viewpoint. I'd have trusted the Bush administration not to do so; I'd have trusted either McCain or Romney 's administrations in the exact same way. This is not a party-line thing. To me, it's remaining calm in the face of a situation that could create many irritations and fears when they are not warranted because they would not come to fruition. That's all this is. It's not based on Rand's voting record, his party affiliations, or anything else. At the same time, I do think that Rand Paul was just as conscious of the political move that this filibuster was.

[WindyCitySports 407]

How are my viewpoints uneducated, JD? Based simply on the fact that they disagree with yours? I don't believe in politicians, in general, and I do not for a second believe this was Rand Paul standing up for liberty or for the people. It's not that I trust our government without question, but I certainly trust this administration not to OK drone strikes on our soil that would endanger our own citizens. I really, completely, 100% trust the Obama administration to not allow such nonsense. That's the basis of my viewpoint. I'd have trusted the Bush administration not to do so; I'd have trusted either McCain or Romney 's administrations in the exact same way. This is not a party-line thing. To me, it's remaining calm in the face of a situation that could create many irritations and fears when they are not warranted because they would not come to fruition. That's all this is. It's not based on Rand's voting record, his party affiliations, or anything else. At the same time, I do think that Rand Paul was just as conscious of the political move that this filibuster was.

 

Just thought I would point that out.

Edited March 10, 2013 by WindyCitySports

[BwareDWare94 723]

Just thought I would point that out.

 

Just because I don't believe in them doesn't mean that I don't trust them not to endanger us with drone strikes lol.

[OSUViking 505]

Just thought I would point that out.

 

There is a difference between not trusting them to make selfless political moves and trusting them not to kill us.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Just because I don't believe in them doesn't mean that I don't trust them not to endanger us with drone strikes lol.

Would you have trusted Hitler to not do what he did? I am not saying we are going to elect Hitler, but the way he came to power was because of thought processes like yours.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Bware, you are entirely missing the long-term consequences of this.

 

Once you pull the rabbit out of the hat, it's damn near impossible to put it back in, to bastardize an old saying. Let's grant your point. Obama is never going to use a drone strike on the American public. Even if Rand 100% knows that is the case, and 100% trusts Obama, we *still* needed to ask and answer the question: does the President have the authority to use drone strikes on US citizens within the US? First off, its a valid question to ask because it indicates what the respondent believes about the power of the Presidency, so it's a hint to their ideology.

 

Secondly, however, it has to be asked because of future Presidents. The drone program is only going to expand. Being able to use un-manned drones to root out a hornet's nest of terrorists instead of having to send in our troops and get many of them killed is a good thing, so long as that power is not abused. If we just let this thing go, and it was never clarified that the President doesn't have the power to use them in America on US citizens, it would be a hell of a lot harder to stop a future person from doing so, whose morals might be a bit more lax than Obama's. Now if someone tries to say the President does have the authority, there will be a major uproar because the political precedent has been set.

 

You have to look at the consequences of the action, intended, and as best you can, unintended, not just the immediate results of the action.

 

So regardless of Rand Paul's intentions in doing this, the question had to be asked and answered.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

Would you have trusted Hitler to not do what he did? I am not saying we are going to elect Hitler, but the way he came to power was because of thought processes like yours.

 

Hitler came to power because he promised hope and revenge to a people that were devastated by the Allies after WWI.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Hitler came to power because he promised hope and revenge to a people that were devastated by the Allies after WWI.

Yep, and every step of the way the German people gave him as much power as he wanted because they trusted him. I can't even believe we are arguing this right now. Checks on the executive are an integral part of the system and all that is required to understand that giving power to one person is dangerous is basic human logic.

[OSUViking 505]

Yep, and every step of the way the German people gave him as much power as he wanted because they trusted him. I can't even believe we are arguing this right now. Checks on the executive are an integral part of the system and all that is required to understand that giving power to one person is dangerous is basic human logic.

 

I'm not arguing that. I just don't think that Hitler is an appropriate comparison.

 

EDIT: And some of you guys are being a little bit harsh toward BWare for not sharing your concern. I agree with you guys, but it doesn't make him an idiot just because he's not alarmed by this issue.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Would you have trusted Hitler to not do what he did? I am not saying we are going to elect Hitler, but the way he came to power was because of thought processes like yours.

 

So we're at the point now where we're comparing the US government to Hitler. Nice.

[BwareDWare94 723]

The Hitler comparisons that both Obama and Bush have faced during their Presidencies are indicative of a spoiled, pretentious voting community that has no idea of what real suffering is. I'm tired of this shit. The name Hitler best stop coming up in these conversations.

[Vin+ 3,121]

Godwin's Law.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I agree with Phail and Bware on this one. Don't draw the comparison to Hitler. It's way too much of a leap in logic and is detracting from the point.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

How are my viewpoints uneducated, JD? Based simply on the fact that they disagree with yours? I don't believe in politicians, in general, and I do not for a second believe this was Rand Paul standing up for liberty or for the people. It's not that I trust our government without question, but I certainly trust this administration not to OK drone strikes on our soil that would endanger our own citizens. I really, completely, 100% trust the Obama administration to not allow such nonsense. That's the basis of my viewpoint. I'd have trusted the Bush administration not to do so; I'd have trusted either McCain or Romney 's administrations in the exact same way. This is not a party-line thing. To me, it's remaining calm in the face of a situation that could create many irritations and fears when they are not warranted because they would not come to fruition. That's all this is. It's not based on Rand's voting record, his party affiliations, or anything else. At the same time, I do think that Rand Paul was just as conscious of the political move that this filibuster was.

 

Because you have yet to actually propose WHY exactly this was 100% a publicity stunt.

 

The fact that him being conscious that a 13 hour long old school filibuster would attract the news means his intentions weren't in the right spot? The fact that he goes about politics the right way on the right principles means he is lying and being dishonest? Get out of here.

 

The fact that you don't believe the principles that Rand Paul has lived with for 50 years (not to say you have to think or agree with him -- but believe as in trust), but believe and trust the most crooked, corrupt, and power hungry men on Earth in Obama, Bush, McCain, or Romney make me want to vomit. Disgusting.

 

George Bush carried forward the liberty stomping and rights alienation that the Great Dictator, FCR, set forth upon our country. Bush set into motion some of the biggest Anti-Rights legislation in 50 years, yet he has your trust. He also put down the foundation for Obama's drone strike plan that kills more innocent men, women, and children than actual terrorists or threats to the American people. The same guy who campaigned on hope and change, and then added 60% to our $10 trillion debt.

 

THESE... THESE are the men you trust. The men (and women) who have proven, through their actions to be dirty, crooked, and sick people have been awarded with your trust. Yet the group or man who was born into this world fighting that very same filth and corruption who has done NOTHING to warrant your distrust, has been labeled a grand-stander and liar. Gag me now.

 

The uneducated can be educated. You can't make people who don't care all of a sudden care.

 

On a semi-random note, drawing similarities to the regime of Hitler isn't the same thing as saying.. "It's Hitler!". I mean.. Look at what Vikings said. Hitler was given more and more power thanks to his promises of hope and revenge. I don't even need to connect the dots.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[OSUViking 505]

On a semi-random note, drawing similarities to the regime of Hitler isn't the same thing as saying.. "It's Hitler!". I mean.. Look at what Vikings said. Hitler was given more and more power thanks to his promises of hope and revenge. I don't even need to connect the dots.

 

Erm... I wasn't agreeing that the situation is comparable to Hitler's rise, if that is what you're saying. Hitler's rise isn't compatible to any US leader ever. There's a big difference between having politically motivated moves and opinions on said moves (whether they were politically motivated or well-intending) and abusing pathos to seize power quickly and then never let go of it.