Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Rand Paul filibustering


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#46    Rocketgirl

Rocketgirl

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Earth

  • "I envy the dead for they do not have to see how the world is changing for the worst."
    -Rocketgirl

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:54 PM

View Postpallidin, on 07 March 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:



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.

"I envy the dead for they do not have to see how the world is changing for the worst."
-Rocketgirl

"Try to change the world for the better, if you fail keep trying. Always aim for that impact of change in a positive way."
-Rocketgirl

#47    F3SS

F3SS

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,430 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:55 PM

View PostJeremiah65, on 07 March 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

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.

Posted Image

#48    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,682 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:56 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 07 March 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

I might just filibuster this thread if you all dont get along :whistle:

Whew, thought you were going to break out the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator...


#49    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostTiggs, on 07 March 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

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.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#50    F3SS

F3SS

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,430 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

Quote

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....w-does-it-work/


Posted Image

#51    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:01 PM

View Postpallidin, on 07 March 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

So, offer a solution. Who IS qualified?  You?

If you are a US citizen, a jury of your peers would be quailified.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#52    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:04 PM

By filibustering we now have an answer "AMERICANS cannot be killed by drones on American soil" By any President. So :tu: to Paul Rand.

Now we gotta address the spying on Americans. And get the predators out of DHS hands and LEO paws. They dont need them. Predators are killing machines.


#53    F3SS

F3SS

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,430 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:05 PM

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

Posted Image

#54    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:07 PM

Quote

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

Wasnt DHS created to protect us from this imminent threat if its no longer needed disband the DHS and return the agencies it swallowed up back to their original missions.


#55    F3SS

F3SS

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,430 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:11 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 07 March 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:



Wasnt DHS created to protect us from this imminent threat if its no longer needed disband the DHS and return the agencies it swallowed up back to their original missions.
I don't know about all that right now but things can happen and lone wolfs can go from unknown to imminent threat out of nowhere.

Posted Image

#56    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:22 PM

View Postpallidin, on 07 March 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

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.

This is not about trust, though the administration would like to reframe the question that way.

This is about the rule of law, in particular, the Supreme Law of this Land, the US Constitution.

Under that law there is NO authority for the President to summarily execute anybody, whether by stabbing with a knife or by drone missle.

Under that law, the taking of one's life requires DUE PROCESS.  The President must follow the law, and the law does not empower him to do such things.  Obama has attempted to usurp unlawful power.  Tyrants and kings have been doing that over mankind's history.


#57    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,146 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:28 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 07 March 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

Exactly.


#58    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:28 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 07 March 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#59    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,146 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 March 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

This is not about trust, though the administration would like to reframe the question that way.

This is about the rule of law, in particular, the Supreme Law of this Land, the US Constitution.

Under that law there is NO authority for the President to summarily execute anybody, whether by stabbing with a knife or by drone missle.

Under that law, the taking of one's life requires DUE PROCESS.  The President must follow the law, and the law does not empower him to do such things.  Obama has attempted to usurp unlawful power.  Tyrants and kings have been doing that over mankind's history.

So, if you happened to be a room with a terrorist ready to set-off a suicide bombing, nuke or chemical weapon or "dirty bomb", you would do NOTHING ????????????? because of "due process"

That is totally asinine.

Edited by pallidin, 07 March 2013 - 08:45 PM.


#60    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,146 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:53 PM

View PostBama13, on 07 March 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

Wrong. The government decides this. As well it should with respect to terrorism, not "simple domestic' matters.

Edited by pallidin, 07 March 2013 - 08:56 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users