My boy Rand runnin a filibuster

it has to do with minority representation, proving a point, ect. like someone else said, for extreme circumstances, like this one -- it's drawing attention to something that is sort of being swept aside.
 
They'd probably fucking do it regardless of it being unconstitutional. They'd play the whole patriot act bullshit and their "fight against terrorism."
 
If I was Rand I would come back everyday and filibuster for as long as I can just to piss all of them off.

And if he does it for his constituents, and shows he is fighting for them, he will probably get elected again.
 
I haven't been following the news very closely on this issue. I'll do a google search, but I might as well ask here: is there any chance that certain individuals may be blowing the whole pro-drone thing out of proportion? Like does Brennan really stand for using it on American soil against American citizens? Or is it more like a surveillance deal and people are just extrapolating?
 
Just learned myself a bit from the interwebz. From my understanding, AG Holder refused to rule out drone strikes in extreme circumstances (Sept. 11, for example), so Paul followed through on his plan to filibuster. It reminds me of the National Defense Authorization Act passed in recent years (sometime during Obama's presidency) that implied citizens could be detained indefinitely (can't remember the actual language). I believe in the days following the passage of the act, the Obama administration made an official statement that they would never exercise the power in the bill. I'm sure a statement will soon follow regarding the drone nonsense. I mean, if the Obama really has nefarious plans to blow up political dissidents with drones, I'm sure he's going to do it regardless of his official stance on the subject. And if we're really talking about extreme circumstances like those of Sept. 11, 2001, is there a difference between using a drone to stop an attack or using some other military force? I'm all for preserving freedom, but I think we tend to get a tad paranoid here in the states. But I guess we're better safe than sorry -- blowing up citizens with drones is a no-go in my book. That's my two cents.
 
the point is U.S. citizens have the right to due process and you cant just kill them. even if they are "terrorists" because then it comes down to "well define terrorists". dangerous slippery slope
 
The problem is that he wont say "I wouldn't kill american citizens on american soil without due process of law" He's not saying he will but he's also not saying he won't either and since the constitution says he can't there is a problem.
 
See with a filibuster. Even if you aren't majority, you can Basically cancel the majority vote. So even though the vote hasn't happened they pretty much know how it's going to go down and are planning to cancel it. And I also think you don't understand how congress and the president work here very well based on that last post
 
I wonder how people feel about the fact that cheney ordered commercial airliners be shot down on 9/11, before the patriot act or any of those things.
 
To me, if the target has been verified as going for a large target(pentagon, The Towers...etc) and its known the plane has been hacked it's acceptable to kill 300 to save 3000
 
I love the concept of the filibuster. It's literally a case of "go up there and do literally anything to stop us from voting right away"

still doesn't top what the French did in 2006. A group added something like 140,000 amendments to a bill so that even under the best circumstances it would still take more than a decade to vote the whole thing.
 
At what point do you become "terrorist enough" that you lose that right to due process.
 
This, thats like saying you loose your right to due process when you start to engage in illegal activities.
 
No shit, Sherlock. I acknowledged this fact. I don't think that metaphorical slope is as slippery as you think it is.
 
Illegal activities warrant much less severe punishment than terrorist activities, so no. But I don't know how far it would have to develop before the government decided it was time to intervene with a hellfire missile... That's up to the idiots in Washington to decide.
 
I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure that terrorist activities are illegal activities, so I don't really see how you can say that they deserve more punishment, terrorism is illegal just like rape, murder, and driving without a seatbelt. Part of the point of living in America is that we have a constitution that says what "those idiots in Washington" can and can't do.
 
I give this guy a lot of credit for actually rambling on about something meaningful, the protection of our rights.

All to often representatives just go up there and filibust by reading a book or talking about dogs and cats and this and that.
 
These days an actual filibuster in itself is rare, its usually some sort of pseudo vote block, rather than literally just standing up there yapping, all Mr Smith Goes to Washington style.
 
I'm not saying terrorist activities aren't illegal activities. They are, but they also reside in a class of their own, away from traditional illegal things such as rape and driving without a seatbelt and whatnot. That is why if an individual starts participating in some shit like making bombs or whatever, they are no longer in the realm of traditional crimes and should no longer be treated as if they were committing one. That is when power should be revoked from a judge and jury and given right to the U.S. military.
 
Well I guess I will just agree to disagree with you on terrorist activities falling into another category than traditional crimes then, interesting perspective though. I feel that as soon as we give the power of judge and jury to the military we have lost part of our freedom.
 
Sorry to tell you this, but there is no legal definition to what a terrorist is.

And this sir is how shit gets scary.
 
Well that escalated quickly! At least this is one political debate on ns that hasn't turned into name calling...yet...thanks for the civility all round
 
In the same sentence, you display enough trust in the Government to delineate between terrorist and citizen entitled to due process, and then refer to the SAME group of people as idiots. Are you sure you want your rights in their hands?
 
Shit. Shoulda finished reading the thread before I pounced. Good game, Sneaky_Aziz. And thank you for, in a most un-nser-ly fashion, for backing down civily and respectably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top