Rand Paul's Live Filibuster

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
you may need to evaluate you understanding of some very basic concepts of American law enforcement and the application of military force. [/quote]

LOL, yes teh military and police have such an impressive record as to never having made a lapse in judgement. Neither has the Whitehouse or CIA for that matter.

I tell ya what. I’m not about to give up my rights, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. And if someone wants to come and take them, then I’ll die on my feet before I live on my knees.

This boils down to bare bones basic fundamental human rights. If you can sleep sound at night knowing there are weaponized drones flying over your head, watching you and your family, good for you.

I can’t, and I won’t.[/quote]

“Give me Liberty or Give me Death”

22

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
[/quote]
The first and foremost concern of the State is achieving and maintaining national security.[/quote]

You might be de facto right but you are wrong as a matter of legality and policy. The first and foremost concern of the State should be operating lawfully and within its Constitutional mandate to achieve its goals, which includes respecting basic human and constitutional rights. The “State” is a legal/political institution and “achieving and maintaining national security” might be one important goal, but this goal doesn’t justify it operating unlawfully or trampling on basic human and constitutional rights. [/quote]

I am de facto right. SURVIVAL is the paramount concern of the State. This is International Relations 101. I deeply believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are the most profound documents in the history of man, and I cherish the ideals that they embody. However, the rule of law means nothing if a government has no means of enforcing it, much less defending its sovereignty from forces seeking to capitalize on its physical weakness. Do you think the “basic human and constitutional rights” exist in a vacuum outside of the realm of power, ambition, and violence? If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.

23

http://www.politicususa.com/hell-breaks-loose-john-mccain-slams-rand-paul.html

24

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Christ, he has been talking ALL DAY. I’m impressed by his endurance and conviction.[/quote]

Ditto that. Damn, that was impressive! I don’t think i could do that, I’d have to hide a gallon of water under the podium for my dry throat.

Also with smh and others—this is how the filibuster ought to work. If it’s important and you deem it important, it ought to cost something in terms of effort to get it done

25

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/hell-breaks-loose-john-mccain-slams-rand-paul.html
[/quote]

McCain can lick my taint.

26

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Does anyone think that Paul’s filibuster may have been intended to put himself in the national spotlight for a run in 2016? Regardless, I was impressed by his speaking ability and conviction. [/quote]

I actually don’t think so. He’s already been in the spotlight for a long time during the election cycle, and although he will indeed have to remind everybody eventually who he is and grab exposure for 2016, I think that is down the road quite a ways. I think everybody is still very much aware of who Rand is from last year and his exposure hasn’t faded so much. This seems to be more conviction to me, however obviously over the top it went, which I appreciate coming from an opportunistic organism like a politician.

27

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/hell-breaks-loose-john-mccain-slams-rand-paul.html
[/quote]

McCain can lick my taint.

[/quote]

I hate to say it but McCain is the voice of reason

28

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

No, I’m with Paul on this 100 percent.

Edit: but I tend to disagree with him on a lot.[/quote]

He is his father’s son, which means he is batshit for every bit of great he is, but seeing McCain’s and Graham’s responce leads me to believe Ran did 1000% the correct thing yesterday.

McCain can go fly a kite, along with the rest of the shitty establishment GOP. [/quote]

Just so we’re clear, you think Rand’s question “Does Obama think he has the authority to kill a noncombatant American citizen on U.S. soil.” was:

-was not worthy of ridicule
-should not have been condemned by rational people
-warranted a 12 hour impediment to an appointment, which was independent of the actual appointee
-was worthy of a response

???

Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house. The idea of getting a rocket launched into my house while eating dinner is scary, but I’m much more scared that there are people out there that even think this will happen…

29

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
[/quote]
The first and foremost concern of the State is achieving and maintaining national security.[/quote]

You might be de facto right but you are wrong as a matter of legality and policy. The first and foremost concern of the State should be operating lawfully and within its Constitutional mandate to achieve its goals, which includes respecting basic human and constitutional rights. The “State” is a legal/political institution and “achieving and maintaining national security” might be one important goal, but this goal doesn’t justify it operating unlawfully or trampling on basic human and constitutional rights. [/quote]

I am de facto right. SURVIVAL is the paramount concern of the State. This is International Relations 101. I deeply believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are the most profound documents in the history of man, and I cherish the ideals that they embody. However, the rule of law means nothing if a government has no means of enforcing it, much less defending its sovereignty from forces seeking to capitalize on its physical weakness. Do you think the “basic human and constitutional rights” exist in a vacuum outside of the realm of power, ambition, and violence? If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.

30

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/hell-breaks-loose-john-mccain-slams-rand-paul.html
[/quote]

McCain can lick my taint.

[/quote]

I hate to say it but McCain is the voice of reason
[/quote]

McCain is pissing me off. He’s all up in arms about Bengazi (sp?), which I think he should be, but not concerns over excessive power via drone strikes being used on U.S. citizens. Those two stance conflict to me.

He’s really just mad someone inside “his” oarty is rattling the cages. Boot his ass out!

31

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

No, I’m with Paul on this 100 percent.

Edit: but I tend to disagree with him on a lot.[/quote]

He is his father’s son, which means he is batshit for every bit of great he is, but seeing McCain’s and Graham’s responce leads me to believe Ran did 1000% the correct thing yesterday.

McCain can go fly a kite, along with the rest of the shitty establishment GOP. [/quote]

Just so we’re clear, you think Rand’s question “Does Obama think he has the authority to kill a noncombatant American citizen on U.S. soil.” was:

-was not worthy of ridicule
-should not have been condemned by rational people
-warranted a 12 hour impediment to an appointment, which was independent of the actual appointee
-was worthy of a response

???

Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house. The idea of getting a rocket launched into my house while eating dinner is scary, but I’m much more scared that there are people out there that even think this will happen…

[/quote]

VT, if people don’t question what we think are even the most absurd things, what’s to stop them from actually happening?

32

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house. The idea of getting a rocket launched into my house while eating dinner is scary, but I’m much more scared that there are people out there that even think this will happen…

[/quote]

I wonder if the Jews in Europe felt the same way you do about 100 years ago? I mean the idea of putting people in ovens simply because of their religion is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house… Oh wait.

Hey man, if you can sleep at night with weaponized drones flying over your house, watching you and your family, good for you.

I can’t.

33

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://www.politicususa.com/hell-breaks-loose-john-mccain-slams-rand-paul.html
[/quote]

McCain can lick my taint.

[/quote]

I hate to say it but McCain is the voice of reason
[/quote]

McCain is pissing me off. He’s all up in arms about Bengazi (sp?), which I think he should be, but not concerns over excessive power via drone strikes being used on U.S. citizens. Those two stance conflict to me.

He’s really just mad someone inside “his” oarty is rattling the cages. Boot his ass out![/quote]

McCain’s name is all over the Patriot Act and the Drone program, of course he can’t stand by and let his rights violations get a critial eye.

He is a scumbag. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

34

[quote]Legionary wrote:
If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.[/quote]

Like last time, you argue from a position of practicality and reason. That said, I’m not a big fan of even the most remote possibility that someone could be drone striked on US soil. Once it is done once, the second time is a little easier, so on and so forth.

AT the very least, in the US, send in a SWAT unit. That way he can die in a “firefight” whether he picked up a gun or not.

Just like with the Patriot Act, I’d rather they lied about this stuff, than rub it right in my face that they can and will kill me at their will.

35

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house. The idea of getting a rocket launched into my house while eating dinner is scary, but I’m much more scared that there are people out there that even think this will happen…

[/quote]

I wonder if the Jews in Europe felt the same way you do about 100 years ago? I mean the idea of putting people in ovens simply because of their religion is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house… Oh wait.

Hey man, if you can sleep at night with weaponized drones flying over your house, watching you and your family, good for you.

I can’t.

[/quote]

This is the same slippery slope fallacy that the entire Cafe argument is guilty of. Let’s take everything to its logical extreme. Your answer was “ovens” but we were actually looking for Zyclon B.

36

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
If an individual can’t accept that entities of the United States government necessarily do very bad things for very good reasons, their conception of America is an idealist pipe dream.[/quote]

Like last time, you argue from a position of practicality and reason. That said, I’m not a big fan of even the most remote possibility that someone could be drone striked on US soil. Once it is done once, the second time is a little easier, so on and so forth.

AT the very least, in the US, send in a SWAT unit. That way he can die in a “firefight” whether he picked up a gun or not.

Just like with the Patriot Act, I’d rather they lied about this stuff, than rub it right in my face that they can and will kill me at their will. [/quote]

No one in the national security apparatus is arguing for the capability, which makes Paul’s argument a straw man. Neither did I. Did you read the second paragraph of my previous post?

37

[quote]Legionary wrote:

No one in the national security apparatus is arguing for the capability, which makes Paul’s argument a straw man. Did you read the second paragraph of my previous post?[/quote]

Didn’t they snipe some innocent teenage kid when they took out a propogandist a year ago or so? Wasn’t that kid a US citizen?

Am I right in thinking that the “slipper slope falacy” isn’t that much of a falacy when a teenage boy can be slaughtered simply for being in the car with his father?

I think it was in Yemin or where ever, but god damn man. Really?

Yes the government does fucked up shit, but I’ll be convinced this is a good idea.

38

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Did you read the second paragraph of my previous post?[/quote]

Did you read my responce:

LOL, yes teh military and police have such an impressive record as to never having made a lapse in judgement. Neither has the Whitehouse or CIA for that matter.

If their aren’t any weaponized drones in the air we don’t have to worry about it.

Doesn’t make it right in other countries, but that is an argument I’ll never win, as these people and you that defend them, believe they are infallable.

39

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hell yeah! I agree with very little of his politics but at least he’s filibustering the right way! Screw all this anonymous go home ‘filibustering’. That’s something that we need to get rid of forever. [/quote]

Word to this. Exactly. Kind of reminds me of the “Stackhouse Filibuster” from the West Wing–just trying to prove a point, the right way.[/quote]

Hold on… So you guys are cool with our government drone striking American’s? I mean, this violation of Due Process is okay with you?

What if it were Bush? Would you still be okay with it?[/quote]

No, I’m with Paul on this 100 percent.

Edit: but I tend to disagree with him on a lot.[/quote]

He is his father’s son, which means he is batshit for every bit of great he is, but seeing McCain’s and Graham’s responce leads me to believe Ran did 1000% the correct thing yesterday.

McCain can go fly a kite, along with the rest of the shitty establishment GOP. [/quote]

Just so we’re clear, you think Rand’s question “Does Obama think he has the authority to kill a noncombatant American citizen on U.S. soil.” was:

-was not worthy of ridicule
-should not have been condemned by rational people
-warranted a 12 hour impediment to an appointment, which was independent of the actual appointee
-was worthy of a response

???

Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house. The idea of getting a rocket launched into my house while eating dinner is scary, but I’m much more scared that there are people out there that even think this will happen…

[/quote]

VT, if people don’t question what we think are even the most absurd things, what’s to stop them from actually happening? [/quote]

Oh yeah, great point…I heard a rumor that Michelle Obama’s get fit campaign for the kids is really just a way to distinguish those children with good genes from the ones with bad genes (you know the ones that dont lose weight even when they eat healthy) so they could be rounded up and taken off to fat camp and put into gulogs where they would be studied and probed against their will, and made even fatter so she can consume their hearty flesh. I think this warrants an obstruction to a crucial (but unrelated) position until we can get to the bottom of this.

As others have mentioned, at least he got his inane babble out the RIGHT way with a proper filibuster…that’s about all I can say about it though.

40

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Quite frankly the idea of a sitting President killing an American citizen on American soil while he is sitting at a fucking cafe eating dinner (a la Jane Fonda) is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house. The idea of getting a rocket launched into my house while eating dinner is scary, but I’m much more scared that there are people out there that even think this will happen…

[/quote]

I wonder if the Jews in Europe felt the same way you do about 100 years ago? I mean the idea of putting people in ovens simply because of their religion is so beyond the realm of stupidity that I can’t believe people are even talking about it outside of a nut house… Oh wait.

Hey man, if you can sleep at night with weaponized drones flying over your house, watching you and your family, good for you.

I can’t.

[/quote]

Well good thing I got my sticky shoes on so I don’t fall down that slippery slope…I sleep just fine at night, and don’t have a single worry about the big bad government boogie man coming into my house and killing me in my sleep after disarming me of my AK-47 and grenade launchers while allowing illegals to vote