• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator Rand Paul's Epic Filibuster: Reads 'Alice in Wonderland'

ModerateGOP said:
1. Oh yeah? Have you not read anything I have talked about on this thread or are you just brushing away my words and claiming that I am part of some problem? Just because libertarians see a problem with this or agree with it doesn't mean I have to! It's amazing that only libertarians are even on this thread. I see very few other leanings on this thread.

2. It is you who assume that I haven't given these any thought for some strange reason. Can't take criticism much?

3. Really? Then why did your heroes the founding fathers create one? Oh yea and questioning the government is amazing even if it is a silly hypothetical open ended scenario....:roll:
Click to expand...


1) You Kidding me? I've seen conservatives, centrists, and liberals comment on this thread agreeing with Rand Paul. I'm not stating you have to agree, but you blindly attack my views without any cause...I will answer those attacks. You want to label Libertarians as "paultards" or some other derogatory name...then I have no issue coming right back at you with that same verbosity.

2) I can take constructive criticism all day long. I don't take blind attacks and name calling from anyone.

3) They created a government to be controlled by the people. The people who created our government always had a distrust of centralized government and the power they try to hold. That is basic US History. Questioning the government and demanding transparency are part of it. Making sure the government doesn't infringe on our right or create an avenue for a future administration to do it is part of how we keep a check on their power.
 
AreteCourage said:
3) They created a government to be controlled by the people. The people who created our government always had a distrust of centralized government and the power they try to hold. That is basic US History. Questioning the government and demanding transparency are part of it. Making sure the government doesn't infringe on our right or create an avenue for a future administration to do it is part of how we keep a check on their power.
Click to expand...

So is this the one where politicians are reptilians or robots? Because as far as I am aware, politicians are people. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise please show me!
 
ecofarm said:
Well, I was referring to what the rest of us mean when we say 'left', that being the democrat party (and their fringe). If you're going to define "the left" as socialists and communists, to the exclusion of the democrat party, then I don't see the point in your argument at all and it certainly has no bearing whatsoever upon mine.
Click to expand...

I understand that there's a tendency amongst many to label anyone that supports Obama as "the left". It is based on misrepresentation that Obama himself is a leftist of some type, and the mistaken notion that if you're not a typical rightwinger in every respect, then you're a leftist. Heck, I've seen people on DP label republicans like McCain and Romney as "liberals".

And while the term "leftist" does include socialists and communists, it is not limited to those two groups. I think of "leftists" as those people who's position are further to the left of "center-left" (ie wishy-washy "liberals")
 
joko104 said:
There is NO issue of using deadly force against those doing an attack nor against those imminently undertaking one.

This is the issue. You (or another American sitting beside you) are dining at a sidewalk cafe in San Francisco overlooking the bay. The government - accurately or inaccurately - believes you are planning a terrorist attack in the future. Does the Executive Branch of government have the Constitutional authority to rush in an armed drone to kill you (or the person beside you)?
Click to expand...

According to Holder, "No"


The Executive Branch and its agencies say yes
Click to expand...

You are lying.

Holder clarifies drone strike policy on U.S. soil

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Click to expand...
 
ModerateGOP said:
So is this the one where politicians are reptilians or robots? Because as far as I am aware, politicians are people. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise please show me!
Click to expand...

Politicians are people who have power and a responsibility....when they abuse it or misuse it....the private citizen has a right to object and fight that misuse of power.
 
Gaius46 said:
This is a different response than Holder's letter of 4-March. If Holder's new letter is as reported I withdraw my objection
Click to expand...

Different? Yes, in that it clarifies his and the govts position. However, it in no way contradicts what he said in the earlier letter.
 
AreteCourage said:
Politicians are people who have power and a responsibility....when they abuse it or misuse it....the private citizen has a right to object and fight that misuse of power.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is a politician who is just trying to spread his silly ideas exactly like his father. I have no idea why you hold him to a higher standard than Obama just because he says what you like to hear.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Rand Paul is a politician who is just trying to spread his silly ideas exactly like his father. I have no idea why you hold him to a higher standard than Obama just because he says what you like to hear.
Click to expand...

There are many aspects to Rand Paul that i do not agree with....just as with Obama. I thought what Rand did yesterday was great. I never liked his support of Romney...and some other issues.

Obama I hold to the exact same standard. I do not like the right blindly attacking him for things he has no control over, but I do attack him for signing legislation like the provisions in NDAA, an extension on the Patriot Act, and keeping Gitmo open despite his promise to close it.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Rand Paul is a politician who is just trying to spread his silly ideas exactly like his father. I have no idea why you hold him to a higher standard than Obama just because he says what you like to hear.
Click to expand...

So you find an equivalence between the Illinois state senator who always voted "Present" and the United States Senator who stood up for thirteen hours to demand clarification for an idea he opposed?
 
AreteCourage said:
I thought what Rand did yesterday was great.

Obama I hold to the exact same standard.
Click to expand...

Eh for some reason, I see you in the same camp of people who would criticize Obama if he did the same thing and demand that he stop campaigning.
 
Ray410 said:
So you find an equivalence between the Illinois state senator who always voted "Present" and the United States Senator who stood up for thirteen hours to demand clarification for an idea he opposed?
Click to expand...

Yes, I hate both of those situations equally.

Obama's position was stupid because we all know he loves abortion as he regularly pals around with planned parenthood people

Rand Paul's filibuster is stupid because he hijacked the senate for 13 hours while meaningful things could have been done, while he was going off about random nonsense and most of it if not all of it was!
 
CanadaJohn said:
Care to back this statement up or is this just another of your thoughts into facts statements?

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Source: Poll finds broad support for Obama?s counterterrorism policies - Washington Post
Click to expand...

Forum Post: #StandWithRand: Rand Paul filibuster in opposition to Brennan, Obama drone policy ends after 13 hours | OccupyWallSt.org

Global opposition to drones and disappointment with Obama on climate change and Middle East

Growing Opposition to US Drones Program

Obama ‘drone-warfare rulebook’ condemned by human rights groups

Obama Orders Pakistan Drone Attacks | Atlantic Council

Drones Watch | A coalition campaign to monitor and regulate drone use
 
ModerateGOP said:
Yes, I hate both of those situations equally.

Obama's position was stupid because we all know he loves abortion as he regularly pals around with planned parenthood people

Rand Paul's filibuster is stupid because he hijacked the senate for 13 hours while meaningful things could have been done, while he was going off about random nonsense and most of it if not all of it was!
Click to expand...

That's just silly, you didn't even listen. Very, very weak.
 
I just heard this snippet from Jay Carney on the radio...

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
Click to expand...

Makes me fell a little better but the phrase "not engaged in combat"? Hmm... seems like "combat" can be massaged to include a lot of things beyond what most people immediately think of when they hear the word "combat".
 
ModerateGOP said:
Eh for some reason, I see you in the same camp of people who would criticize Obama if he did the same thing and demand that he stop campaigning.
Click to expand...

I don't go that route with the president because it is well within his rights to take the issue on the road if he desires. Matter of fact, I admire Obama on his up front nature a lot. I think he is generally doing what he thinks is right. I have issues with certain pieces of legislation. I thought what Governor Brewer did was disrespectful.


I don't call our president "Hussein"...I don't tout the right wing conservative slogans. I believe Obama was born in Hawaii and is a real American. I hate when people bring up the birther nonsense.

I go after policies he has made...not him as a man or personally because I think he is a good person at heart.
 
Ray410 said:
That's just silly, you didn't even listen. Very, very weak.
Click to expand...

I think I'm pretty accurate on that one. Can you add up all the times when Rand Paul made valid points? If you can, include the hour count. how much of those 13 hours weren't a complete waste of time, I could analyze it.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I just heard this snippet from Jay Carney on the radio...



Makes me fell a little better but the phrase "not engaged in combat"? Hmm... seems like "combat" can be massaged to include a lot of things beyond what most people immediately think of when they hear the word "combat".
Click to expand...

Oy vey!

It just goes to show that the uproar has nothing to do with anything Holder or anyone else said. No matter what is said, the wingnuts will claim that they can't be trusted, which shows that their poutrage is just a feeble attempt to link their congenital mistrust of Obama to reality
 
ModerateGOP said:
But the answer isn't as simple as no. Many on here have said they welcome the use of a drone strike on a terrorist that has hijacked an airplane or something else. The vehicle that is used by the terrorist to carry out the attack will no doubt have American Citizens on it. Eric Holder said they would only use the drones in that situation. Which has yet to happen! I have no idea what else you want to hear.

This administration has a way with words that tries to keep everything neutral so that it doesn't come back to bite Obama in the *ss. That is true, but if you actually listen to what Holder said, he has already answered your question. The reason Holder hasn't answered the question, "Does the President have the right to target US Citizens on American soil?" with a simple answer like NO. is because this administration believes that there are home grown domestic terrorists here in the US. Obama has warned us about this since 2008. If he answered no, to that question, then he couldn't target those terrorists with drones.
Click to expand...

I happen to be one that disagrees. You cannot let the government bypass our constitutional rights as citizens "for the greater good". The government should never be allowed to step on our rights for any reason, period. If enough people are so concerned about their safety they can amend the constitution.
 
Baralis said:
I happen to be one that disagrees. You cannot let the government bypass our constitutional rights as citizens "for the greater good". The government should never be allowed to step on our rights for any reason, period. If enough people are so concerned about their safety they can amend the constitution.
Click to expand...

Terrorists actively engaged in an attack have no right to trial before having their heads blown off.
 
sangha said:
Oy vey!

It just goes to show that the uproar has nothing to do with anything Holder or anyone else said. No matter what is said, the wingnuts will claim that they can't be trusted, which shows that their poutrage is just a feeble attempt to link their congenital mistrust of Obama to reality
Click to expand...
I would hardly classify anything I said in the post you quoted as "uproar". Concern... yes.

"Engaged in combat" is broad enough to bend around just about any situation where the President would take somebody out. What this seems like is a license to kill people with drones when there is real-time intelligence showing that they are engaged in or about to engage in an act of terror. I just hope they use a little more discretion on American soil and American citizens than they use overseas.
 
sangha said:
Terrorists actively engaged in an attack have no right to trial before having their heads blown off.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not but I believe it opens a rather large door for government abuse. It is probably much more difficult to abuse when you use personal on the ground then simply flying a drone over and dropping a bomb. I do not trust the government and will always question their true motives. And I feel that if the American people accept this that in a decade or two they will be using drone bombings for civilian crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom