• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Filibuster!

MaGZ said:
It’s not likely to last more than 24 hours, so what’s the harm? The benefit in all of this is the issue of drone strikes on Americans will become a top news item.
Click to expand...

Shows how disfunctional our govt. is.
 
tyr_13 said:
The 'drones' aspect is a red herring and an odd fear mongering.
Click to expand...

Really? All Paul wants is a straight answer from the administration about whether or not it is OK to execute an American citizen with no due process. Should that really be so difficult?
 
It's over, after almost 13 hours. Now there's a man who knows how to filibuster!
 
Paul in 2016!!! Be still my heart! Daddy could do his fund-raising.

I mean, what's not to love? "And fellow voters, I'd like to introduce to you the next president of the United States. Rand, here, is a man who believes so deeply in his principles that he filibustered for thirteen full hours (minus the couple of hours he gave over the floor to "questions") and did not give up until he got.... uh, what was it you got again, Rand?"

If we can only get Perry and Santorum to run again (is it too much to hope for that Cain uses his Fox "correspondent" role to launch another campaign?) , it'd be 2012 redux.
 
ravdin said:
It's over, after almost 13 hours. Now there's a man who knows how to filibuster!
Click to expand...

Pfffft! I said I wouldn't be impressed until he did at least two days. Did he even come close to Strom Thurmond's Civil Rights-busting fili?

What was the result except, perhaps, laryngitis?
 
angrysoba said:
Pfffft! I said I wouldn't be impressed until he did at least two days. Did he even come close to Strom Thurmond's Civil Rights-busting fili?

What was the result except, perhaps, laryngitis?
Click to expand...


Well, as been pointed out by some posters already, the result was he got attention for what he feels is an important subject.

Paul is wrong on this issue, but I have more respect for him than most politicians. He has some actual principles. I'll put Bernie Sanders in that category too, and I disagree with him on just about everything.
 
Courier said:
The filibuster should only be used to block voting for a Presidential nominee when there is substantial evidence that the nominee has participated in criminal, immoral, or highly unprofessional behavior.
Click to expand...

I'd generally agree except in the case of high level federal judges, i.e. the Supreme Court Justices. Those can have a lot of power over federal law for decades beyond the term of the executive; both in terms of actively making decisions (they hold the bench for a long time) and in terms of persistence of their rulings. You can deal with the head of some department when the next head can step in and say "No, we're doing things completely different now" but when you can be the person who makes legal precedence that remain in place well beyond their lives? Then you should be able to put up more of a fight.

In this case, I think Rand is wrong in his general objections. It's hard to say "no we will absolutely not do X" when there are some very real possibilities, even if extremely rare, in which X would be the only acceptable course of action. That's my understanding of Holder's position. I also think he's wrong to filibuster against something that is only tangentially related to his issue. But, at least he actually has the courage of his convictions to do a REAL filibuster. We have to put an end to "I'm gonna filibuster, but not really" filibusters.
 
Last edited:
bonzombiekitty said:
.... at least he actually has the courage of his convictions to do a REAL filibuster.
Click to expand...

I noticed in this morning's news, that rand is being characterized as "brave"....and here you mention "courage".

What a load of crap...what is so brave/couragous about talking?


Having said that, I'd love to see him make a run for the presidency...:D
 
I'm sure Uncle Fidel is proud of him.


(Fidel's speech, however, actually had content.)
 
ravdin said:
Really? All Paul wants is a straight answer from the administration about whether or not it is OK to execute an American citizen with no due process. Should that really be so difficult?
Click to expand...

How does that follow from what I said? The drones aspect is still irrelevant.
 
If my eyes had eyes they'd be rolling too. :rolleyes:
 
R.A.F. said:
I noticed in this morning's news, that rand is being characterized as "brave"....and here you mention "courage".

What a load of crap...what is so brave/couragous about talking?
Click to expand...

I used the phrase "courage of his convictions". I don't literally mean "courage". Just meaning that he at least stood up and talked for hours and hours on end rather than just "filibustering" by saying he was going to do so like the is done CONSTANTLY.

It is an arguably risky/brave thing to do politically. You can really end up looking like a complete fool and making a ton of enemies that won't forget what you did.
 
I like the Rude's take on it.
But, you know, mostly, **** Rand Paul with a polar bear's ****. Watching people support that odious bastard, (rudest part snipped) because this one time he was on the right side of things is like listening to someone say how cool it is when the Westboro Baptist Church shows up to protest stuff you hate, too. (Hey, they're gonna be protesting a Catholic church in Kansas on Monday because they're against child rape. Can you overlook the "God Hates ****" signs to join them?)
Click to expand...

You can read it here, but it is NSFW. http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/03/random-observations-on-rand-pauls.html

Daredelvis
 
bonzombiekitty said:
I'd generally agree except in the case of high level federal judges, i.e. the Supreme Court Justices. Those can have a lot of power over federal law for decades beyond the term of the executive; both in terms of actively making decisions (they hold the bench for a long time) and in terms of persistence of their rulings. You can deal with the head of some department when the next head can step in and say "No, we're doing things completely different now" but when you can be the person who makes legal precedence that remain in place well beyond their lives? Then you should be able to put up more of a fight.

In this case, I think Rand is wrong in his general objections. It's hard to say "no we will absolutely not do X" when there are some very real possibilities, even if extremely rare, in which X would be the only acceptable course of action. That's my understanding of Holder's position. I also think he's wrong to filibuster against something that is only tangentially related to his issue. But, at least he actually has the courage of his convictions to do a REAL filibuster. We have to put an end to "I'm gonna filibuster, but not really" filibusters.
Click to expand...

I think the question he raised is quite relevant. It's a given that the government might have to take extraordinary steps. For example, on 9/11 the vice president gave an order to shoot down any commercial planes still in the air. It's a horrifying prospect, but it was absolutely necessary and appropriate given the circumstances. No one is arguing otherwise or asking the current president to rule out an action such as this.

It's a given that if you're posing a clear and immediate threat that you are liable to be killed on the spot- let's say if you're waving a gun in public. The question about drones isn't about these immediate threats- it's about whether or not the executive branch can use drones on US soil against someone suspected of terrorist activity, but not actively engaged. Let's say for argument's sake that there's a tremendous amount of evidence that this suspect really is a terrorist, and either has carried out an attack or is planning to do so. Would it be constitutional for the president to authorize a drone strike on that person while he's sleeping, or spotted at a cafe?

It's a fairly straightforward and relevant question that I really do think deserves a straightforward answer, and so far the president and his CIA nominee have declined to respond. If the answer is no- that person would be apprehended and put on trial- then it seems to me it would be a noncontroversial statement. If the answer is yes, the president can do that if he deems it necessary- then it raises other questions about what, if any, are the limits to the executive branch's power. But at least it would be an answer.

I'll also add that I do not think this is a partisan issue- Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, and most everyone in between has common ground here. I think the response from many, including on this forum, would have been much different if George W. Bush had dared to assert his power this way.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Pfffft! I said I wouldn't be impressed until he did at least two days. Did he even come close to Strom Thurmond's Civil Rights-busting fili?
Click to expand...
He was one hour short of Robert Byrd's filibuster of that bill, and 11 hours short of Strom's 24-hour-plus.

As for summary execution by drone, I think that the TV show "24" was a deep-cover propaganda piece to make this sort of thing palatable to the sheeple.
 
Last edited:
ravdin said:
I think the question he raised is quite relevant. It's a given that the government might have to take extraordinary steps. For example, on 9/11 the vice president gave an order to shoot down any commercial planes still in the air. It's a horrifying prospect, but it was absolutely necessary and appropriate given the circumstances. No one is arguing otherwise or asking the current president to rule out an action such as this.

It's a given that if you're posing a clear an immediate threat that you are liable to be killed on the spot- let's say if you're waving a gun in public. The question about drones isn't about these immediate threats- it's about whether or not the executive branch can use drones on US soil against someone suspected of terrorist activity, but not actively engaged. Let's say for argument's sake that there's a tremendous amount of evidence that this suspect really is a terrorist, and either has carried out an attack or is planning to do so. Would it be constitutional for the president to authorize a drone strike on that person while he's sleeping, or spotted at a cafe?

It's a fairly straightforward and relevant question that I really do think deserves a straightforward answer, and so far the president and his CIA nominee have declined to answer. If the answer is no- that person would be apprehended and put on trial- then it seems to me it would be a noncontroversial statement. If the answer is yes, the president can do that if he deems it necessary- then it raises other questions about what, if any, are the limits to the executive branch's power. But at least it would be an answer.

I'll also add that I do not think this is a partisan issue- Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, and most everyone in between has common ground here. I think the response from many, including on this forum, would have been much different if George W. Bush had dared to assert his power this way.
Click to expand...
Just asking questions :rolleyes: Slippery Slope, yeah, we're in CT space here.

The president (regardless of party) should not be put in a no win position of providing such an answer. What's the point. Will that change the decision when the time comes to make it? Should it? How can the question be phrased such that when the time comes today's answer covers the then current circumstances. You can't. It's a gotcha question and doesn't deserve an answer just like any of the asinine "would you rule out...." questions that reporters always ask during conflicts.

Edit - what if he answer the question exactly as you would like? Would that prevent anything? Nope.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Just asking questions :rolleyes: Slippery Slope, yeah, we're in CT space here.

The president (regardless of party) should not be put in a no win position of providing such an answer. What's the point. Will that change the decision when the time comes to make it? Should it? How can the question be phrased such that when the time comes today's answer covers the then current circumstances. You can't. It's a gotcha question and doesn't deserve an answer just like any of the asinine "would you rule out...." questions that reporters always ask during conflicts.

Edit - what if he answer the question exactly as you would like? Would that prevent anything? Nope.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's a good thing to limit the president's powers. After all, he swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is pretty binding (assuming he takes it seriously). It's not a gotcha question to ask if he will abide by the Fifth Amendment in all circumstances at all times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom