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

#76    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,972 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:22 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 08 March 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

I disagree. I see the word appropriate being used to circumvent the Constitutionality of it.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#77    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,226 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:56 AM

Yes and no are far more detailed answers than appropriate. Appropriate is an opinion. Yes/no is a fact.
Edit: let's say specific instead of detailed.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 08 March 2013 - 02:04 AM.

Posted Image

#78    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,972 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:41 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 08 March 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

Yes and no are far more detailed answers than appropriate. Appropriate is an opinion. Yes/no is a fact.
Edit: let's say specific instead of detailed.


If the Senator had actually wanted a straight yes/no answer to the question of whether it is constitutional to launch a drone strike at an American on American soil who's not been designated an enemy combatant - then he would have just asked Holder that question directly.

You'll note the lack of the word Cafe in that question.

What actually happened was that he successfully baited Holder into giving him a reactionary answer, by setting up an alternate ridiculous scenario. Observe:

"Is it constitutional for the police to beat my wife, if she's just sitting in a cafe, on her own, just having a cup of coffee?"
"We would never do that, that would be an inappropriate use of force..."
"I didn't ask you if it was inappropriate! I can't believe that you, in your position as Attorney General, are refusing to to tell me whether American wife beating by the police is unconstitutional!"

You can either see that, or you can't.

Either way - Holder's on the congressional record as giving a specific No to drone strikes on Non-enemy combatants - and he did so prior to the start of Rand's stand-up.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#79    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:44 AM

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

Truth is, sometimes you have to shoot the terrorist with the suitcase nuke, regardless of their citizenship.

Holder's already said that theres no plans to use drones domestically, and that it's totally hypothetical, but for it to occur, there would have to be exceptional circumstances, such as to stop another Pearl Harbor, or 9/11, and that it wouldn't be used if it were possible for law enforcement authorities to otherwise stop the said terrorist threat.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that under exceptional circumstances, the government reserves the right to use military assets to protect itself from terrorist attacks on US soil.

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.

Presumably the difference today is that Rand needs the publicity for his 2016 Presidential nomination run.

We either do or don't honor the Constitution. It's one of the two. Do the new laws, such as drone regulations and the NDAA, contain wording that prevents any future tyrant from killing Americans in situations that aren't emergencies? We shouldn't even have to debate this. These new laws are prohibited by our Constitution. You can read it in black and white. Evidently, Rand Paul can do so. Thank God for him!

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#80    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,972 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:48 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 08 March 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

We either do or don't honor the Constitution. It's one of the two. Do the new laws, such as drone regulations and the NDAA, contain wording that prevents any future tyrant from killing Americans in situations that aren't emergencies? We shouldn't even have to debate this. These new laws are prohibited by our Constitution. You can read it in black and white. Evidently, Rand Paul can do so. Thank God for him!
I'm sorry - are we talking about the same Rand Paul that voted to pass the NDAA?


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#81    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:01 AM

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.

Do we now base laws on anomalies? As for this particular anomaly, the authorities had information and intelligence that it would take place. It's not just that. The World Trade Center was attacked in the '90s. Aircraft flew into buildings in the past. 9/11 wasn't a complete surprise to some people. Talk to some individuals in the CIA and the FBI. Look at the stock market during the days leading up to the events of that day. Both international friends and enemies warned our government. They couldn't have been *too* surprised, especially since Al Qaeda was very active in that time frame. After all of that, our leaders chose to start a war with Iraq right after the worst act of terrorism in our country. Do you really trust these people to make wise choices about which Americans deserve to be killed with drones?

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#82    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:04 AM

View PostTiggs, on 08 March 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

I'm sorry - are we talking about the same Rand Paul that voted to pass the NDAA?

He voted against it. He said that it was an "abomination".

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#83    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,972 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:18 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 08 March 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

He voted against it. He said that it was an "abomination".
And then promptly voted for it in 2013.

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 08 March 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Do we now base laws on anomalies?
No. That's the reason that the executive branch hasn't been replaced with Computers. Because you can't legislate for everything.

Edited by Tiggs, 08 March 2013 - 04:20 AM.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#84    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:30 AM

View PostTiggs, on 08 March 2013 - 04:18 AM, said:

And then promptly voted for it in 2013.


No. That's the reason that the executive branch hasn't been replaced with Computers. Because you can't legislate for everything.

93 senators did. He wasn't one of them. As for your second statement, the executive branch indeed has powers and responsibilities. Overriding the Constitution isn't one of them.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#85    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,972 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:35 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 08 March 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

93 senators did. He wasn't one of them.

The Senate says otherwise.

Quote

As for your second statement, the executive branch indeed has powers and responsibilities. Overriding the Constitution isn't one of them.
And where do you believe that they've done that, exactly?


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#86    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:41 AM

wow, not a single nay vote.

i also would like to know what falls under  other purposes, and what does not.

Edited by aztek, 08 March 2013 - 04:43 AM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#87    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,226 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:48 AM

I don't care what you say. Rand brought a very important issue and the country took notice. Very many people are glad he did. Many more are disappointed that no one on the left cares about such an important human rights issue. This was a commendable act which is rarely seen in politics these days. People deserve clarity. It's too bad the administration can only get clear when their backs are against the wall. Sad, weaslely, pathetic.

Posted Image

#88    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,972 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 March 2013 - 04:53 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 08 March 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

I don't care what you say.
And the same here, too.

So that's that, then.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#89    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,378 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:48 AM

Reality check:

1)  If Rand Paul voted no, there was a 0.00% chance that the NDAA would be gotten rid of (see NDAA 2012).
2)  If Rand Paul voted no, it would signify there was nothing good about the NDAA worth voting for, which is farther from the truth than not.
3) If Rand Paul voted no, he'd isolate himself from his constituents, put his political future in jeopardy, and we'd no longer have him there to challenge and change the system from within.
4) For the first time ever, for just about every one of us, is voting no on something that isn't perfect the standard that we expect from a politician?    Where'd that belief come from?
5) Is this just another political football where we're seeing how well Rand jumps over the hurdles left by his father?  Yeah, it is.
6) This is the Constitution vs. tyranny and nothing less.

There's a lot of good in the NDAA, if you struck it down in totality, you'd lose everything.  The idea was to remove the glaring offense that it contains and keep the rest.   Rand Paul tried and failed.  Is voting no for everything that's imperfect the new ideal?   Then not paying our lawmakers and sending them home to spend more time with their families is too.  

It's not enough to know what happens, it's enough to also know why.   That's what message boards are for.  Ask me, I'm here to help.   Forgiving mixed votes over mixed Acts, let's learn why together.  Here is Rand Paul on the "indefinite detention" provision:



"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

#90    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,184 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

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

Posted 08 March 2013 - 06:05 AM

What the hell is this? Are some of you guy's friggin nut's?

I don't care if the imminent, deadly threat is from a twisted American citizen, foreigner, or my neighbor's dog.

I'll gladly kill either one.

Edited by pallidin, 08 March 2013 - 06:05 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users