• 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'

Wrong. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong. He's so completely discredited himself and bankrupted himself that I would rather be "wrong", that's how bogus Ron Paul is...................

You're simply not worth anyone's time

You only expose yourself as irrelevant with responses such as the one above
 
No one said anything about Christianity. Morality is not simply a religious issue.

No. "Morality" is what got us into the God/Jesus quagmire............................
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread has a topic. Note, that topic has zero to do with Religion. Continued attempts to derail the thread will result in further action
 
You're simply not worth anyone's time

You only expose yourself as irrelevant with responses such as the one above

And I should care about you, let alone what you think because ?...........................
 
Good night, sweet people, I see we have the world you wanted..........................
 
Paul really impressed, as did Cruz and Lee.
 
And I should care about you, let alone what you think because ?...........................

And we should care about your opinion of Paul because ? .................................
 
Eric Holder believes that under "extenuating circumstances", drone strikes should be used against US Citizens. What these circumstances are, is unknown. I'm fine with them using unarmed UAV's for tedious roles like border patrol, but drone strikes are out of the question. They may as well be launching F-15 and AH-64 strikes against the citizenry. There is no scenario in my mind that justifies that type of military force against the populace.
 
It was an interesting grandstand that brought rand's name back into the spotlight and fired up his base. Still, in the end this was just a huge distraction from the many problems that face the country, and even he did not believe in the reason he was doing it. The confirmation as going to happen anyway, by his own admission, and though the thing about drone strikes on US citizens on US soil was an interesting topic, it was a distraction from the job at hand, and he did not even get the senate to vote on that specific issue. So rand blathered on for many hours doing nothing, saying random stuff, and proving he is ineffective at actually getting something done despite working really hard at it because even he admits he was going the wrong direction. Even the republicans and conservatives could see a reason the US might have to act in immediacy with drones to save lives. At least they weren't doing anything useful anyway. I guess it is official that rand is going to take up his father's mantle of failed presidential runs in the future and we will have a paul to kick around for the immediate future. The hipsters and pseudo libertarians will be so happy. It is really bad when you are a right wing flunkie and the republicans won't goosestep with you when you are attacking obama.

This all seems so stupid as they would have wasted those hours anyway. they didn't need to highlight it all with some pointless grandstanding to spotlight their lack of accomplishment.
 
If the Senate works procedurally like I used to experience here, a member may yield time to another member and when he returns that other member may yield time back to him. As I understand it, so far today several Republicans have done this for him as well as Senator Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon who also opposes the Obama drone doctrine.

That's what I was thinking, but apparently he's not allowed to leave the senate floor, is what I just read at the NY times. That's insane. He should've gone with a stadium buddy.
 
It was an interesting grandstand that brought rand's name back into the spotlight and fired up his base. Still, in the end this was just a huge distraction from the many problems that face the country, and even he did not believe in the reason he was doing it. The confirmation as going to happen anyway, by his own admission, and though the thing about drone strikes on US citizens on US soil was an interesting topic, it was a distraction from the job at hand, and he did not even get the senate to vote on that specific issue. So rand blathered on for many hours doing nothing, saying random stuff, and proving he is ineffective at actually getting something done despite working really hard at it because even he admits he was going the wrong direction. Even the republicans and conservatives could see a reason the US might have to act in immediacy with drones to save lives. At least they weren't doing anything useful anyway. I guess it is official that rand is going to take up his father's mantle of failed presidential runs in the future and we will have a paul to kick around for the immediate future. The hipsters and pseudo libertarians will be so happy. It is really bad when you are a right wing flunkie and the republicans won't goosestep with you when you are attacking obama.

This all seems so stupid as they would have wasted those hours anyway. they didn't need to highlight it all with some pointless grandstanding to spotlight their lack of accomplishment.
When is it ok to send a drone to kill an American eating a burger somewhere in Kansas in order to "save lives"? Is a tip good enough? If the government had a tip that McVeigh was heading to OKC in a Ryder truck loaded with a homemade bomb, would it be prudent to send a drone and blow him out of his wheels on I-40?
 
When is it ok to send a drone to kill an American eating a burger somewhere in Kansas in order to "save lives"?

Actually, i never claimed such a thing, nor did anyone else so this is just a perversion of reality. Nor do i think the government is going to do such a thing without any cause. not that i think the government would not screw a person's life, just that they have much easier and less conspicuous ways of doing so.
Is a tip good enough? If the government had a tip that McVeigh was heading to OKC in a Ryder truck loaded with a homemade bomb, would it be prudent to send a drone and blow him out of his wheels on I-40?

yes, actually in your example it would have. oddly enough i think these regulations have far more to do with mcVeigh than any foreign terrorists. the patriot act has much more to do with domestic terrorism than it does with foreign terrorism.
 
1. Actually, i never claimed such a thing, nor did anyone else so this is just a perversion of reality. Nor do i think the government is going to do such a thing without any cause. not that i think the government would not screw a person's life, just that they have much easier and less conspicuous ways of doing so.


2. yes, actually in your example it would have. oddly enough i think these regulations have far more to do with mcVeigh than any foreign terrorists. the patriot act has much more to do with domestic terrorism than it does with foreign terrorism.
How does your argument in #2 not override what you wrote in #1?

2. I could not disagree more. If the "tip" tells you McVeigh is heading to a federal building with a truckload of explosives, then LEO needs to stop him and arrest him, not send a drone up in the sky to blast him to kingdom come.
 
He should have read "Game Change" instead.
 
It was an interesting grandstand that brought rand's name back into the spotlight and fired up his base. Still, in the end this was just a huge distraction from the many problems that face the country, and even he did not believe in the reason he was doing it.

Actually, they should have filibustered a while ago when NDAA 2012 was up. Obama said he would not sign it and yet he did. As Rand asked, "Where is the Obama of 2007?" He sold out.
 
It's amazing that a person questioning the authority and scope of the Executive Branch to deprive people of their rights of due process, and potentially take unilateral military action against U.S. Citizens without judicial review, is insulted somehow for "playing to the base" of the Republican party. Turn back the dial 4 to 5 years ago and you had those on the other side who now claim that this sort of thing is just "playing to the base" demanding trails, making accusations of war crimes, declaring a person fascist, holding giant marches, and other such things on issues they felt wrongly extended the scope of the Executive, denied people due process, and lack of judicial review.
 
I believe AG Holder's testimony has been twisted to the point of breaking.

Grandstanding Sen. Paul asked a series of what-ifs and Holder testified that wouldn't happen, only in an imminent threat would a drone strike be sanctioned.

Some now wail that the Administration has some newly increased right to 'slaughter' Citizens without due process.

But let's look at that claim.

As it stands now if a US Citizen is part of a highjack crew to fly an airliner into a high value target, the military will attempt to intercept the plane, which means shoot it down killing ALL onboard.

Not a lot of 'due process' involved

When asked if a drone strike would be authorized on a suspect sitting in a coffee shop with no imminent threat, what we routinely do overseas, the answer was a very firm- NO.

A cop can kill anyone he deems an imminent threat without 'due process', so can a CCW.

So I see Sen Paul's stunt as little more than that. He and his party can hold hearing on drone use and bring it into the open- a move I think is long overdo- rather than attempt a pretty pitiful attempt to block the CIA director from being confirmed- that is going to happen.

Now on the McVeigh example. His truck bomb was parked infront of a building not under it and it still blew off the front half and sent shrapnel a city block away. Suppose enough cops could be marshaled on the road to form an effective road block. How many of them would die if Tim decided to detonate?

I'd say the problem isn't drones but rather the basic new laws counter-terrorism operates under in this country.
 
It's amazing that a person questioning the authority and scope of the Executive Branch to deprive people of their rights of due process, and potentially take unilateral military action against U.S. Citizens without judicial review, is insulted somehow for "playing to the base" of the Republican party. Turn back the dial 4 to 5 years ago and you had those on the other side who now claim that this sort of thing is just "playing to the base" demanding trails, making accusations of war crimes, declaring a person fascist, holding giant marches, and other such things on issues they felt wrongly extended the scope of the Executive, denied people due process, and lack of judicial review.

You hit the nail on the head. Many on the left, who bashed Bush for spying on the American people, are giving Obama a huge pass on this, and are even supporting him. I guess this goes to human nature - "It's horrible, except when our side is doing it. Then, it's the right thing to do". Such hypocricy. I have often criticized Republicans for being hypocrites, but today, the Democrats have taken the cake and eaten it too.
 
Last edited:
I believe AG Holder's testimony has been twisted to the point of breaking.

Grandstanding Sen. Paul asked a series of what-ifs and Holder testified that wouldn't happen, only in an imminent threat would a drone strike be sanctioned.

Some now wail that the Administration has some newly increased right to 'slaughter' Citizens without due process.

But let's look at that claim.

As it stands now if a US Citizen is part of a highjack crew to fly an airliner into a high value target, the military will attempt to intercept the plane, which means shoot it down killing ALL onboard.

Not a lot of 'due process' involved

When asked if a drone strike would be authorized on a suspect sitting in a coffee shop with no imminent threat, what we routinely do overseas, the answer was a very firm- NO.

A cop can kill anyone he deems an imminent threat without 'due process', so can a CCW.

So I see Sen Paul's stunt as little more than that. He and his party can hold hearing on drone use and bring it into the open- a move I think is long overdo- rather than attempt a pretty pitiful attempt to block the CIA director from being confirmed- that is going to happen.

Now on the McVeigh example. His truck bomb was parked infront of a building not under it and it still blew off the front half and sent shrapnel a city block away. Suppose enough cops could be marshaled on the road to form an effective road block. How many of them would die if Tim decided to detonate?

I'd say the problem isn't drones but rather the basic new laws counter-terrorism operates under in this country.

And who is to decide what a "imminent threat is"? The government? I don't trust them, and I have good reason not to. They have lied to me many times before. Due process, folks. It's our Bill of Rights that is at stake here. I don't want to be knocked off by my own government, just because some bureaucrat decides that he doesn't like me.

But, you ask, when has the government made up crap about ANYBODY? Think about what you are saying before you ask that stupid question. LOL.
 
Right. You're what I like to call "behind the curve", to be polite....................

If due process is behind the curve, freedom certainly isn't around the curve on your side.
 
The neverending, mounting crescendo of hysteria......................

Despite cheers from all members of the paranoid conspiracy minded morons who think they follow politics, Rand Paul's filibuster included him eating dinner reading Alice in Wonderland as well as eating various candy bars while joking with Marco Rubio about water... President Obama and Eric Holder were laughing throughout the whole debacle because the very question that Rand Paul spent 14 hours trying to ask, was already answered numerous times by the Administration. President Obama will NOT use Drones on US Citizens. There will be no circumstances where this will be needed! Unless if there is a 9/11 style attack, and then all you libertarians would want them blown out of the sky and will be accusing the Obama Administration of stalling and/or working with the terrorists if it doesn't happen ASAP! You see, he phrases this in a way that makes it seem that Obama is sitting in the oval office and just planning random attacks on random citizens. This was probably more damaging to the Republican Party than George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Oil combined!!! I'm ashamed that more people aren't criticizing Rand Paul for stalling the government for his own personal Television Show!

Let me know when Drones start attacking random people. This falls under black helicopter nonsense.
 
Despite cheers from all members of the paranoid conspiracy minded morons who think they follow politics, Rand Paul's filibuster included him eating dinner reading Alice in Wonderland as well as eating various candy bars while joking with Marco Rubio about water... President Obama and Eric Holder were laughing throughout the whole debacle because the very question that Rand Paul spent 14 hours trying to ask, was already answered numerous times by the Administration. President Obama will NOT use Drones on US Citizens. There will be no circumstances where this will be needed! Unless if there is a 9/11 style attack, and then all you libertarians would want them blown out of the sky and will be accusing the Obama Administration of stalling and/or working with the terrorists if it doesn't happen ASAP! You see, he phrases this in a way that makes it seem that Obama is sitting in the oval office and just planning random attacks on random citizens. This was probably more damaging to the Republican Party than George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Oil combined!!! I'm ashamed that more people aren't criticizing Rand Paul for stalling the government for his own personal Television Show!

Source? If he won't then he doesn't need the drones or the power to do so.

Let me know when Drones start attacking random people. This falls under black helicopter nonsense.

Really? You won't care until its too late? Who cares about rights or due process in the law so long as nobody you know has been violated :roll:
 
And who is to decide what a "imminent threat is"? The government? I don't trust them, and I have good reason not to. They have lied to me many times before. Due process, folks. It's our Bill of Rights that is at stake here. I don't want to be knocked off by my own government, just because some bureaucrat decides that he doesn't like me.

But, you ask, when has the government made up crap about ANYBODY? Think about what you are saying before you ask that stupid question. LOL.

Oh I understand- don't trust the man. I sat up when the 'Patriot' Act was passed so easily.

About Uncle Sugar 'caring' about me- long ago we used to say- 'It is a case of mind over matter- they don't mind and you don't matter' :)

So I got the answer to your question up close and personal many moons ago.

Right now a cop decides what imminent threat is. A CCW holder does as well. The military has had the ability to shoot down civilian airliners for years now... how many have been shot down? Do you fly? I fly every month, if some bureaucrat doesn't like me.....

Our Bill of Rights has been at stake for awhile now- you DO read other posts here don't you? They want our GUNS, they want our GAWDS. they want our JOBS!!!!

I have a news flash for everyone here.... the GUBMINT already decides who is or isn't an imminent threat and if 'they' wanted to kill you, you would die 'resisting'.

I wouldn't mind a review of the LAWS governing imminent threat in counter-terrorism but adding drones to the mix isn't a game changer. FYI YOU are far more likely to be collateral damage to the primary target than the guy someone in Gubmint wants dead.

You do have a rather high opinion of your grain of sand capability don't you.... :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom