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

#31    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,022 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 - 06:50 PM

View PostRocketgirl, on 07 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

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 by pallidin, 07 March 2013 - 06:57 PM.


#32    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,459 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:01 PM

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.

Posted Image

#33    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,459 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:03 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?
Yea well talk is cheap and it's not in writing. The filibuster was an effort to obtain this in writing.

Posted Image

#34    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,601 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:06 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.
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?

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#35    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,459 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:14 PM

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?

Posted Image

#36    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:18 PM

View PostTiggs, on 07 March 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

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 by WoIverine, 07 March 2013 - 07:23 PM.


#37    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,022 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 - 07:22 PM

View PostYamato, on 07 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Based on past nuttery, the US government isn't qualified to identify an "imminent threat".

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


#38    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

View PostTiggs, on 07 March 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

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.

" 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

#39    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,022 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 - 07:30 PM

View PostWoIverine, on 07 March 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

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.


#40    Child of Bast

Child of Bast

    Queen of the UM Asylum

  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • The Mad Hatter: "Have I gone mad?"
    Alice: "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers.But I'll tell you a secret: all the best people are."

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

@ OP......... if this was Old School filibustering, what's New School filibustering like?

'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde

#41    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 - 07:50 PM

Quote

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.


#42    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:50 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.

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.

" 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

#43    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Seeker of knowledge

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:51 PM

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.

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#44    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,459 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:52 PM

View PostLady Kasey, on 07 March 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

@ 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.

Posted Image

#45    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 - 07:53 PM

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users