ohio traveler Posted March 7, 2013 #26 Share Posted March 7, 2013 The more things change the more they stay the same. The current people who idolize Odrama don't seem to get it yet. He's one of them. He's a Bush 2.0 That is what makes me so mad about our political system. The only reason that Democrats are not up in arms over drone strikes is because Rand is a Republican and their party ( Obama & Holder ) are Democrats saying it's okay. Flip the rolls and they would be on the other side of the issue. ( IMO anyway ) Prime examples are The Patriot Act and Gitmo. I'm not just pointing fingers at Democrats. Republicans have been equally guilty of this. Instead of being on the side of Right over Wrong, it's siding with which party is for it and which is against it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 7, 2013 #27 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Does either party really represent so many people so accurately? Where are the individuals? I don't understand how the parties get the support they do. There probably isn't one person on this entire website that's an admittedly enthusiastic party lover either republican or democrat, and yet every election we have continues to prove we have no more than two choices on the ballot - paper or plastic. And I don't want to accidentally imply that paper means it's paid for and plastic means it's not. I just mean the choice we have is between two different types of bags to carry around the exact same crap inside of either way. Partisans judge the book by its cover because it's the only thing that changes in the story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted March 7, 2013 #28 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Does this administration think it has have the authority to use deadly force against American citizens on American soil without a trial? If people think the answer to this question is yes, what don't they think the government has the authority to do to us? What the hell's left? I like your strike through. I said "think it has" because though I am not a Constitutional Scholar...the Constitution is very clear on this...No...they do not have the authority regardless what they might "think". The Bill of rights is not something you can arbitrarily cast aside for your convenience. It applies to all American Citizens, all the time (well, when they are on American soil anyway)..."off of American soil" is a topic that I also think deserves serious study, review and debate. But that can come after we clearly establish the fact that the Executive Branch cannot assassinate American citizens on American Soil without a formal charge and a trial. Edited March 7, 2013 by Jeremiah65 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohio traveler Posted March 7, 2013 #29 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Does either party really represent so many people so accurately? Where are the individuals? I don't understand how the parties get the support they do. There probably isn't one person on this entire website that's an admittedly enthusiastic party lover either republican or democrat, and yet every election we have continues to prove we have no more than two choices on the ballot - paper or plastic. And I don't want to accidentally imply that paper means it's paid for and plastic means it's not. I just mean the choice we have is between two different types of bags to carry around the exact same crap inside of either way. Partisans judge the book by its cover because it's the only thing that changes in the story. I think those individuals are fewer than we think. I know people myself who walk into the ballot booth and pull the lever for every Republican. Doesn't matter who they are or what they've done. Straight ticket top to bottom. And I know many Libs who defend every single decision Obama has made. Heck, the man could kick a dog and they'd find a way to defend his actions ( or blame Bush ) That's why Rand ( and his dad ) are a breath of fresh air. And I gave credit to Dennis Kucinich too. He often said what he thought, regardless of his party's view. And even though many people ( especially the Republican elite ) don't like the Tea Party, they're probably the only group responsible for us not having major taxes already breaking our backs. I have no doubt that the main-stream Republican party would have caved long ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #30 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Holy smokes! Van Jones says Rand is the man for his filibuster. He tweeted that at #hatetoadmitit, lol. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/you-will-never-believe-who-said-rand-paul-is-the-man-for-filibuster-seriously-you-wont/ Now, have any democrat leaders stepped forward in support yet? I seen D- Dick Durban on the floor last night. He used the 9/11 fighter jet taking down the passenger planes scenario to see if he could pull a gotcha moment even though if he'd have paid any attention all day he'd have known that was talked about several times already. Well everyone was in agreeance with that scenario which satisfied Dick who conceded to agree with Rands filibuster and said that he is correct in his demand for particular written answers as to the constitutionality of the drone situation. So I was happy to hear that. Anyone pick up that the only time AG Holder uttered the word 'constitutional' was when Barracks limited authority was questioned (admittedly i forget the content of the question) but couldn't utter the words yes/no/constitutional when asked about the legality of drone strikes. Just a lot of pussyfooting around with no direct answer. As Rand kept saying, it shouldn't be that hard and take that long for the President of the United States of America to confirm wether something is or isn't constitutional. Yea I know that's the M.O. Of this administration but they really have to come forth with specifics. If they don't, then what? We have an official dictatorship? Seems like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 7, 2013 #31 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) I wonder how long it will be before our government starts killing it's citizens for sport. I can't believe that we live in a world like this where governments go after their own people just because it feels like it. It's not right and I'm tried of it. Something needs to change. Read post 16 again: "Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means." ------------ Is there ANY part of that you do not agree/understand? Edited March 7, 2013 by pallidin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #32 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I just pulled this comment from some dumb lib on the huffpo... Honestly, can anybody imagine what would happen to a President if he was informed that we had ten minutes to stop somebody from setting off a nuclear bomb in NYC, and using a drone was our best shot, and he said no I need legal clearance? I know most here understand the difference but some don't and are sure to say something as dumb. A situation like that would be an imminent threat. Just like the 9/11 planes situation. It would've been a shtty thing but if they could've taken out those planes before they hit the towers the collateral damage that would've been avoided is tremndous. We all know what that damage was since it did happen but nobody could say that the world wouldn't be different today if that threat was eliminated first. We all agree imminent threats must be dealt with quickly and with extreme prejudice. The whole purpose of the filibuster is because the language behind these drone strike abilities do not specify imminence. The language suggests probable/likely/possibly and all of those things must be dealt with constitutionally meaning with due process. Cops aren't supposed to shoot someone even if that person just killed someone else two minutes ago. The threat is no longer imminent. If the cops were there two minutes earlier and seen the perpetrator draw his gun the cops would've justifiably been able to take out the threats it was imminent. Also, they can't shoot someone for making a threat. Unless they're caught about to act on it the cops can only act with constitutional due process to obtain and try the threat maker. SAME THINGS APPLY TO THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCERS ESPECIALLY AND INCLUDING THE POTUS! Get it now? I'm just some regular dude and I get it. Why do only a dozen or so of our elected officials get it too? All of them should. Actually I now all of them do. Problem is most of them don't care, including the administration. They're under the delusion that its a government and its people instead of the people and its government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #33 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Read post 16 again: "Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means." ------------ Is there ANY part of that you do not agree/understand? Yea well talk is cheap and it's not in writing. The filibuster was an effort to obtain this in writing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted March 7, 2013 #34 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Read post 16 again: Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means. Based on past nuttery, the US government isn't qualified to identify an "imminent threat". Surely there will be plenty of p***ed off people when they realize how bad they got screwed by this borrowed economy, the rich will evacuate in a timely fashion and leave the little guys, the "dumb money", holding the bag as always, and maybe there'll be some terrorists created out of that ponzi scheme. No worries, we'll just bomb them!. Great idea, neocons, ya started out in the democratic party and now you're back home where you belong. A hypothetical: If Obama or Rubio kills an American citizen with a drone, what should we do? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #35 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Just turned on FOX. Rands being interviewed. AG Holder sent a written letter and the answer to the big question was NO. Rand is happy and vindicated but said he hasn't received that letter yet. Fox, Megan Kelly, had to read it to him but I assume it's real. He, like I, only have one more question. Why'd it take so damn long to answer that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted March 7, 2013 #36 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means. Holder was held in contempt of Congress over fast and furious. But don't worry, clearly we should trust everything he says because he obviously cares about us so much. Edited March 7, 2013 by WoIverine 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 7, 2013 #37 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Based on past nuttery, the US government isn't qualified to identify an "imminent threat". So, offer a solution. Who IS qualified? You? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama13 Posted March 7, 2013 #38 Share Posted March 7, 2013 No-one fifteen years ago would have imagined that an exceptional case would be flying civilian aircraft into buildings. Exceptional, by definition, is something that is not currently legislated for. Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means. So you don't think this is a violation of Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3? It clearly says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Bill of Attainder: A "bill of attainder" is any act of a legislative body declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and assessing a punishment without the benefit of trial. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 7, 2013 #39 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Holder was held in contempt of Congress over fast and furious. But don't worry, clearly we should trust everything he says because he obviously cares about us so much. An intelligence operation that went very wrong. Every intelligence community in the ENTIRE WORLD has screwed-up from time-to-time. Does that mean they can no longer be trusted? No, that's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted March 7, 2013 #40 Share Posted March 7, 2013 @ OP......... if this was Old School filibustering, what's New School filibustering like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted March 7, 2013 #41 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Honestly, can anybody imagine what would happen to a President if he was informed that we had ten minutes to stop somebody from setting off a nuclear bomb in NYC, and using a drone was our best shot, and he said no I need legal clearance? That would be an act of war and authorizing MILITARY drone strikes like Bush ordered MILITARY jets to fire on civilian planes if need be would be fine by most peoples standards. The difference is DHS doesnt need X number of any military grade hardware period. It is an internal service ONLY. They serve no function outside the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama13 Posted March 7, 2013 #42 Share Posted March 7, 2013 An intelligence operation that went very wrong. Every intelligence community in the ENTIRE WORLD has screwed-up from time-to-time. Does that mean they can no longer be trusted? No, that's just silly. So a man sells you a used car and it turns out to be a lemon, do you buy another used car from him? Hopefully not. It doesn't mean you can't trust anyone to sell you a used car, but you shouldn't trust that guy. Trusting him again would be silly indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremiah65 Posted March 7, 2013 #43 Share Posted March 7, 2013 New School Filibusters is they say they are going to filibuster...the bill or legislation gets dropped...This was a rare treat to see a Senator actually hold the podium...they just don't do this anymore. Threaten a filibuster and whatever was up for vote is killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #44 Share Posted March 7, 2013 @ OP......... if this was Old School filibustering, what's New School filibustering like? Don't really know. Someone in the MSM probably coined that phrase last night. Far as I can tell an old school filibuster is actually getting up there and doing what Rand was doing. Asking questions, being concerned and generally acting like a public servant. I guess actually making the filibuster an act if substance. A new school filibuster is probably just announcing a filibuster while never acting on substance. At least a conversation was had and people across the isles(citizens I mean) became involved and interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted March 7, 2013 #45 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I might just filibuster this thread if you all dont get along 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketgirl Posted March 7, 2013 #46 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Read post 16 again: "Holder's already clarified that a drone strike would only be used if the individual had been identified as an imminent terrorist threat and could not be contained by any other normal law enforcement means." ------------ Is there ANY part of that you do not agree/understand? I read it before I made my post and understood it. However, I don't think you understood my post. It was meant to be a thought not a statement. You seemed to not get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #47 Share Posted March 7, 2013 they just don't do this anymore. Exactly. This reminded me of the debates held by the founders. Intelligent meaningful conversation in defense of the constitution and the people. Issues of substance. Elected men actually acting as if they work for the people. It's rare these days. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted March 7, 2013 #48 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I might just filibuster this thread if you all dont get along Whew, thought you were going to break out the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama13 Posted March 7, 2013 #49 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Or let me out it another way: No-one was filibustering on the floor of the Senate the day after Bush gave orders for military jets to shoot the planes out of the air on 9/11. I believe that first the FAA grounded all flights. Therefore any planes still flying were in violation of the grounding order, which is against the law. So they would actually be in violation of the law, not potentially in violation of the law. Big difference to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted March 7, 2013 Author #50 Share Posted March 7, 2013 SO WHAT EXACTLY IS AN OLD-SCHOOL FILIBUSTER AND HOW DOES IT WORK? Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) began an actual talking filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director on Wednesday, a move the Senate hasn’t seen in a while. Most in the political chattering class say when Paul, who said at the start “I will speak until I can no longer speak,” finishes, Brennan will be inevitably confirmed. So what’s a filibuster and how’s this going to end? A filibuster is when a senator holds up a vote. Technically, it refers to a senator talking on the Senate floor to hold up the vote, but in modern times, one need only inform the Senate majority leader that he will filibuster. The leader will usually then simply hold up the vote until an agreement to proceed is reached. Sixty votes are needed to end filibuster, which is known as cloture. Once cloture has been attained, debate can follow on a proposed bill or appointment and then it is voted upon. ... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/so-what-exactly-is-an-old-school-fillibuster-and-how-does-it-work/ [/Quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.0332af9e78f2251ae24e5aa89207b58c.png){kind=tracking}
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now