Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sen. Rand Paul is Giving a Genuine Filibuster


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#46 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:16 AM

I Hope he beats that racist democrat records A*s.

Its nice to see him getting more support with this filibuster, the most people I've seen on the floor all night.

On another forum I frequent they have sent him (Rand) a few pizzas, security wouldn't let the delivery guys through or get him the delivery. One delivery guy waited 45 mins before he had to leave. They ended up giving the pizzas to security who let them park with their flashers on outside the building.


hey did you know that strom thurmond set that record over the civil rights act? and, by chance, do you know rand paul's position on the civil rights act? i mean hey it's good that this broken clock is right this time but chill out, rand's still a pretty shitty dude

#47 AR-15 Panther

AR-15 Panther

    Cough "Here" Cough

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:25 AM

Yes I did know that about Stroms record, hence my racist democrat line... As for Rand I see no one else filibustering for my liberties. No politician is perfect, he's good in my book.

Hey there's the first african american Senator helping out Rand, R SC Tim Scott.

#48 AR-15 Panther

AR-15 Panther

    Cough "Here" Cough

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:41 AM

That's it. Good job Rand.

#49 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,679 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:02 AM

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?

#50 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,679 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 07 March 2013 - 02:07 AM

if 9-11 had been accomplished through a different mode than aircraft, and a drone killing an individual on american soil would have stopped 9-11 from happening, would you support the use of drones on american soil?

it's a weak argument, i understand, but i'm asking for the sake of determining if there is ever a time when this sort of thing would be acceptable. if there is, i'd wager that provisions like this are being made in case of scenarios like that. i don't think this means that there'll instantly be squadrons of drones patrolling the skies of suburban america waiting to zap every anarchist kid in an NOFX tshirt.

that said, i see the argument that this sets a very dangerous precedent, and i lean towards agreeing with that.

#51 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,384 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:18 AM

“The condition that an operational leader presents an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”


this is the problem as far as i see it. during rand's thing, durbin basically asked what you're asking (specifically saying that flight 93 would have been shot down had it not crashed, and that that would have been the correct thing to do) and that wasn't even really contested. it's the twisting of the word "imminent" that has created the weird union between aclu types and assholes like rand paul

#52 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 03:40 AM

Not forgetting the fact that Rand Paul is a nutjob that feels private businesses should be able to be racist or not accommodate people with disabilities, this is an interesting discussion to have, regardless.

So what if, like in the scenario Holden gave and Paul blew up for political gain, we were faced with a hijacked place full of people speeding towards NY, Houston, Chicago, etc and we had a drone in the air nearby? I think most would agree that, horrible as it would be, you take down the plane.

The question is how do you allow for that, but still make it difficult to legally justify a more mundane killing?

It's good that the far right is starting to come around to the questions a lot of us had years ago.

#53 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,691 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:21 AM

The pres should not have powers of judge jury and executioner. Brennan does not appear to believe this is so. thats what the fillibuster is about. hypotheticals do nothing for this arguement.

#54 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,485 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:31 AM

The NSA and the DHS are not part of the military.

It would be political suicide to use a drone for anything like this unless you were sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being monitored was on their way to perform an attack and there was a chance conventional law enforcement would not be able to stop them. Again, chances are remote but there is a chance, so I think this was just CYA.


The NSA is part of the military. It falls under the DOD and its leader is usually a general or an admiral. Currently, its General Keith Alexander.

#55 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,485 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:38 AM

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?


If South Carolina tries the succession thing again. :) Last time, they used warships, muskets and cannon against them, this time it will be tanks and drones (to go after the leaders). A highly unlikely circumstance of course, but then thats what is meant by extreme circumstances.

#56 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:48 AM

can anyone in here think of a situation conceivable in which knocking out an individual with a drone would be beneficial to the greater good of a vast number of people?


If we could nuke DC, that would be a great start in my opinion.

#57 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,647 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:23 AM

How is anyone with a blanket authority to kill US citizens w/o some form of due process?

#58 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,506 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:17 PM

Questions were posed about non combatants on American soil and no assurances given. Only, "we don't intend to". Well, what about 20 years from now? Who will be operating with this set of open rules then?

Very short sighted to put in something without looking to the future

#59 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hari kari for amari

  • ALL-PRO
  • 21,679 posts
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:30 PM

Questions were posed about non combatants on American soil and no assurances given. Only, "we don't intend to". Well, what about 20 years from now? Who will be operating with this set of open rules then?

Very short sighted to put in something without looking to the future


that's my problem with it, you open the door to a lot of hazy interpretation down the road. a dangerous precedent to set unless you're very specific right off the bat as far as how use of them is restricted/regulated.

#60 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

Posted Image

seems reasonable.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com