Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:91-110|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rand Paul Filibuster

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 7:44:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:31:43 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I consider McCain and Graham one in the same.
If you're an American citizen and they consider you 'associated with' a terrorist group, don't ask for a lawyer.

I would usually agree, but McCain is pretty decent on non-torture/non-assassination (it happens to most people after they've been tortured).

He gave a pretty decent speech on the senate floor regarding why al Alwaki should have been apprehended and tried in court.

This is one area (perhaps the only on in his career) where McCain has never wavered. He is decidedly anti-torture.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 7:47:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/8/2013 12:15:38 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

- He was slick by allowing Senators to ask questions without yielding floor thus providing small breaks.

This happens in most long filibusters. At least some people sympathize with the cause, and wish they were the ones who had the balls to do what the filibusterer did, so they give him/her a hand with the questions.

It's not slick. It's common.

(again, nothing but respect for Paul here...just sayin'...what he did was normal)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 10:05:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/6/2013 2:56:40 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Is anyone else watching this? Paul has been talking for four hours, good stuff, I've never seen a filibuster like this before. He's got democrats and republicans helping him out. Apparently others can speak if they form their speech as a question.

Pardon me, dear "libertairans", but I have some pertinent and impertinent thoughts to share on your man Rand, and how he, and other congressional ideologues of his undelightful ilk, are actually the ones placing your fellow American citizens in danger of one day learning firsthand what it's like to live under the genuinely terroristic threat of military drones. Here's the link, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:44:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A statist disagreeing with a libertarian? I'm shocked.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:06:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So are we all still confused on whether the drone program will lead to drone attack on American soil?

Or was the "No" from Holder not clear enough?

And I await the laughable response that Rand filibustered asking for an answer from Holder, Holder gave an answer, but we should consider Rand's challenge still not fulfilled because no one can trust anything Holder says.

It's like trying to argue against the Iraq war by saying "but if Bush pre-emptively goes to war, who is to say he can't pre-emptively strike his own country?"

The question ignores the important part of the equation in favor of a moronic fear mongering scenario.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:31:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 12:06:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
So are we all still confused on whether the drone program will lead to drone attack on American soil?

Or was the "No" from Holder not clear enough?

And I await the laughable response that Rand filibustered asking for an answer from Holder, Holder gave an answer, but we should consider Rand's challenge still not fulfilled because no one can trust anything Holder says.

It's like trying to argue against the Iraq war by saying "but if Bush pre-emptively goes to war, who is to say he can't pre-emptively strike his own country?"

The question ignores the important part of the equation in favor of a moronic fear mongering scenario.

First of all, believing Eric Holder will get you on the business end of a cattle prod in lifetime detention sans habius corpus for something you were made to understand wasn't a crime (also by holder)...and that's if you're lucky enough to be black.

BUT

It's not Holder who is at issue here. It's the guy we don't know about yet.

You think Ashcroft would have blinked twice if Bush used this instrument on US Soil?

As the Head of the DOJ, it would be the job of the Attorney General to arrest the person, president included, who put forth this weapon domestically, anyway, not communicate defense policy to the nation.

Does Holder have the launch codes for the nukes as well?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 1:22:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 12:31:09 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 12:06:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
So are we all still confused on whether the drone program will lead to drone attack on American soil?

Or was the "No" from Holder not clear enough?

And I await the laughable response that Rand filibustered asking for an answer from Holder, Holder gave an answer, but we should consider Rand's challenge still not fulfilled because no one can trust anything Holder says.

It's like trying to argue against the Iraq war by saying "but if Bush pre-emptively goes to war, who is to say he can't pre-emptively strike his own country?"

The question ignores the important part of the equation in favor of a moronic fear mongering scenario.

First of all, believing Eric Holder will get you on the business end of a cattle prod in lifetime detention sans habius corpus for something you were made to understand wasn't a crime (also by holder)...and that's if you're lucky enough to be black.

BUT

It's not Holder who is at issue here. It's the guy we don't know about yet.

You think Ashcroft would have blinked twice if Bush used this instrument on US Soil?

As the Head of the DOJ, it would be the job of the Attorney General to arrest the person, president included, who put forth this weapon domestically, anyway, not communicate defense policy to the nation.

Does Holder have the launch codes for the nukes as well?

Again, BELIEVING Holder is not what's relevant. What's relevant is that Rand's big challenge was "Have Eric Holder write the word 'NO' in capital letters and send it on a pretty notepad."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 1:25:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Drone missiles are expensive. Why the heck would we use them on American soil when we have policemen with guns and CIA spooks with god-knows-what?

Especially because drones are the LEAST subtle method of assassination in a geographic area with media coverage.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 1:31:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 1:25:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
Drone missiles are expensive. Why the heck would we use them on American soil when we have policemen with guns and CIA spooks with god-knows-what?

Especially because drones are the LEAST subtle method of assassination in a geographic area with media coverage.

For the same reason, one assumes, we used them on Americans who are NOT on American soil, who posed no imminent threat (he spoke out against America and there is evidence that he MAY have provided some housing for low level members of al Qaeda, but this was never proven, and his kid was 16yo and didn't do sh!t) when we have SEAL and CIA Wet Teams - terrorism (as in we are terrorists).

You do understand that Obama has an assassination list filled with the names of American Citizens, don't you? This is neither belief or rhetoric. This is demonstrably true.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 1:32:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 1:22:53 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/10/2013 12:31:09 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 12:06:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
So are we all still confused on whether the drone program will lead to drone attack on American soil?

Or was the "No" from Holder not clear enough?

And I await the laughable response that Rand filibustered asking for an answer from Holder, Holder gave an answer, but we should consider Rand's challenge still not fulfilled because no one can trust anything Holder says.

It's like trying to argue against the Iraq war by saying "but if Bush pre-emptively goes to war, who is to say he can't pre-emptively strike his own country?"

The question ignores the important part of the equation in favor of a moronic fear mongering scenario.

First of all, believing Eric Holder will get you on the business end of a cattle prod in lifetime detention sans habius corpus for something you were made to understand wasn't a crime (also by holder)...and that's if you're lucky enough to be black.

BUT

It's not Holder who is at issue here. It's the guy we don't know about yet.

You think Ashcroft would have blinked twice if Bush used this instrument on US Soil?

As the Head of the DOJ, it would be the job of the Attorney General to arrest the person, president included, who put forth this weapon domestically, anyway, not communicate defense policy to the nation.

Does Holder have the launch codes for the nukes as well?

Again, BELIEVING Holder is not what's relevant. What's relevant is that Rand's big challenge was "Have Eric Holder write the word 'NO' in capital letters and send it on a pretty notepad."

You're using (or trying to) conventional wisdom to argue against non-convention. It doesn't work.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 1:46:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 1:25:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
Drone missiles are expensive. Why the heck would we use them on American soil when we have policemen with guns and CIA spooks with god-knows-what?

Especially because drones are the LEAST subtle method of assassination in a geographic area with media coverage.

Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ricin is nasty.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 2:46:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
America is a battlefield under the National Defense Authorization Act, Wnope. Get that through your head.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:27:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:46:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America is a battlefield under the National Defense Authorization Act, Wnope. Get that through your head.
What? No it doesn't.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:11:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:27:42 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:46:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America is a battlefield under the National Defense Authorization Act, Wnope. Get that through your head.
What? No it doesn't.

You are clueless. Don't speak about things you know nothing about.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union"s Washington office."

http://rt.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:51:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/7/2013 3:15:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
I haven't been following this filibuster so I am a little confused as to what everyone is up in a tizzy about. To those who are so passionately against Obama's position, please clarify something for me...

Suppose you are a cop. You walk into a gas station and see a man telling the clerk to put all of the money in the bag or he will take out his gun and shoot him. The clerk tells the man to go screw himself. The man responds by saying "that's it", takes out his gun, and points at the man as if he is about to pull the trigger. The question is: Do you shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder, or do you wait for him to kill the clerk before you take action?

I assume you would shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder. If so, then how is Obama's position with regards to terrorists any different?

Well, even Paul agrees with killing people if there is an immediate threat, the difference is Obummer thinks it's fine to suspend writs of habeas corpus and kill people without a fair trial who are not doing something that puts anyone in immediate danger.
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:34:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:11:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:27:42 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:46:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America is a battlefield under the National Defense Authorization Act, Wnope. Get that through your head.
What? No it doesn't.

You are clueless. Don't speak about things you know nothing about.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union"s Washington office."

http://rt.com...
Legally, sure, but everywhere is considered a "battlefield". Its not as if America is a war-zone. Yet.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:37:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:34:33 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:11:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:27:42 AM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:46:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America is a battlefield under the National Defense Authorization Act, Wnope. Get that through your head.
What? No it doesn't.

You are clueless. Don't speak about things you know nothing about.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union"s Washington office."

http://rt.com...
Legally, sure, but everywhere is considered a "battlefield". Its not as if America is a war-zone. Yet.

I am fine with this, but we must have a clear definition of what this warzone is. Someone could say that 9/11 constitutes a warzone and therefore writs of habeas corpus will be taken away. Until the government votes on what the definition of a war zone is, this could be too easily exploited.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:51:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:51:52 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 3:15:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
I haven't been following this filibuster so I am a little confused as to what everyone is up in a tizzy about. To those who are so passionately against Obama's position, please clarify something for me...

Suppose you are a cop. You walk into a gas station and see a man telling the clerk to put all of the money in the bag or he will take out his gun and shoot him. The clerk tells the man to go screw himself. The man responds by saying "that's it", takes out his gun, and points at the man as if he is about to pull the trigger. The question is: Do you shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder, or do you wait for him to kill the clerk before you take action?

I assume you would shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder. If so, then how is Obama's position with regards to terrorists any different?

Well, even Paul agrees with killing people if there is an immediate threat, the difference is Obummer thinks it's fine to suspend writs of habeas corpus and kill people without a fair trial who are not doing something that puts anyone in immediate danger.

Who knows what means Congressman Paul might resort to to protect capitalism if a mass, grassroots insurgency to replace it with socialism arose?! Do you honestly think that he would prove to be a paragon of your faux lofty "libertarian" principles?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 4:38:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:52 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 3:15:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
I haven't been following this filibuster so I am a little confused as to what everyone is up in a tizzy about. To those who are so passionately against Obama's position, please clarify something for me...

Suppose you are a cop. You walk into a gas station and see a man telling the clerk to put all of the money in the bag or he will take out his gun and shoot him. The clerk tells the man to go screw himself. The man responds by saying "that's it", takes out his gun, and points at the man as if he is about to pull the trigger. The question is: Do you shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder, or do you wait for him to kill the clerk before you take action?

I assume you would shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder. If so, then how is Obama's position with regards to terrorists any different?

Well, even Paul agrees with killing people if there is an immediate threat, the difference is Obummer thinks it's fine to suspend writs of habeas corpus and kill people without a fair trial who are not doing something that puts anyone in immediate danger.

Who knows what means Congressman Paul might resort to to protect capitalism if a mass, grassroots insurgency to replace it with socialism arose?!

Interesting way to put it, but it doesn't prove anything except that you can make absurd statements with no logic to back them. Has he done anything in the past that has proven that he only wants to protect the freedoms of people who share his views? I don't think so.

Do you honestly think that he would prove to be a paragon of your faux lofty "libertarian" principles?

He is a great paragon of libertarian principles. He is not afraid to say what needs to be said. Did his filibuster give him some good publicity? Of course! He did not expect it to gain as much attention as it did, he probably expected it to be dismantled by the leftist media, like MSNBC, Huff. Post and WaPo, but instead even these liberal outlets embraced, only extreme neocons and stubborn leftists who would rather identify themselves by their political party then their nationality. They like america, but only their vision of it, like yourself.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 4:40:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 4:38:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 3:51:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 12:51:52 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 3:15:21 AM, Double_R wrote:
I haven't been following this filibuster so I am a little confused as to what everyone is up in a tizzy about. To those who are so passionately against Obama's position, please clarify something for me...

Suppose you are a cop. You walk into a gas station and see a man telling the clerk to put all of the money in the bag or he will take out his gun and shoot him. The clerk tells the man to go screw himself. The man responds by saying "that's it", takes out his gun, and points at the man as if he is about to pull the trigger. The question is: Do you shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder, or do you wait for him to kill the clerk before you take action?

I assume you would shoot the man to prevent him from committing murder. If so, then how is Obama's position with regards to terrorists any different?

Well, even Paul agrees with killing people if there is an immediate threat, the difference is Obummer thinks it's fine to suspend writs of habeas corpus and kill people without a fair trial who are not doing something that puts anyone in immediate danger.

Who knows what means Congressman Paul might resort to to protect capitalism if a mass, grassroots insurgency to replace it with socialism arose?!

Interesting way to put it, but it doesn't prove anything except that you can make absurd statements with no logic to back them. Has he done anything in the past that has proven that he only wants to protect the freedoms of people who share his views? I don't think so.

Do you honestly think that he would prove to be a paragon of your faux lofty "libertarian" principles?

He is a great paragon of libertarian principles. He is not afraid to say what needs to be said. Did his filibuster give him some good publicity? Of course! He did not expect it to gain as much attention as it did, he probably expected it to be dismantled by the leftist media, like MSNBC, Huff. Post and WaPo, but instead even these liberal outlets embraced, only extreme neocons and stubborn leftists who would rather identify themselves by their political party then their nationality found some petty way to object to it.. They like america, but only their vision of it, like yourself.

Correction

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.