Rand Paul filibustering

[Tiggs]

The Congress cannot abdicate its responsibility to legitimate and responsible government. By way of the open-ended AUMF, it has done so. Just one example is that no reports required by WPA have ever been offered, much less discussed by the legislative branch.

But they have been offered. There's this six monthly report from the Whitehouse Press Releases, for example. I expect you'll find that the Armed Service Committee's of both the Senate and the House discusses the whole war on terror thing on occasion, too.

No-one normally legislates restrictive timescales on military actions, because Stuff Happens™.

The AUMF was political theater meant to distract the public. It succeeded. Ignorance and misinformation was the basis for the document, and 11 years later that is obvious to anybody that is curious and informed of recent events. The proper remedy for bad legislation is repeal, and that's what responsible leaders would be talking about.

The death of thousands of US citizens was the basis for that document. Anything else is pure conspiracy theory.

You can repeal whichever legislation you wish, but terrorist threats do not disappear just because you close your eyes and pretend that they're not there.

As former US Army, I completely understand the Article II powers granted the President. I have no problem whatsoever with that provision of the law. I support it.

That said, when the power is abused, as it has been by at least the last 2 presidents, the man or men who abuse it should be punished by impeachment at the very least. Through at least 2 administrations, the government makes a mockery of the rule of law.

In your opinion. In mine, not so much.

[Babe Ruth]

Yes I know Tiggs. In your opinion.

[F3SS]

Which is always final.

[Tiggs]

Which is always final.

Actually - it's not.

My opinion is falsifiable - in this case, it would just take Congress to impeach a President to persuade me that the President had committed an impeachable offense.

You'll note that there's no possible future event that could ever occur that would change Babe Ruth's unfalsifiable opinion, however.

[F3SS]

Guess it depends on the time of day. You've told me otherwise before. Sounds good to me though. Point taken and noted. No hard feelings.

[Babe Ruth]

Actually - it's not.

My opinion is falsifiable - in this case, it would just take Congress to impeach a President to persuade me that the President had committed an impeachable offense.

You'll note that there's no possible future event that could ever occur that would change Babe Ruth's unfalsifiable opinion, however.

Is falsifiable really the correct word?

It seems to me that an opinion, once exposed to rational public dialogue, is either valid or invalid. I understand that like belly-buttons everybody has one, but some opinions are informed, and others are not.

I never have a problem standing corrected on any given issue. So far on this matter, you have not offered much to support your contention/opinion/whatever that the President can usurp power.

As for impeachment as it relates to the US Congress, in the first place politicians assembled are notoriously corrupt and self-serving. Keep in mind that Kucinich, Wexler, and a few other honorable men (those two gone from Congress now, Mr. Smith) brought the case for impeaching Bush for his crimes. The Leader Of The Democrats, Pelosi, thwarted those good efforts.

For virtually the same crimes Obama should be impeached, but I'm old enough and cynical enough to understand that it ain't gonna happen.

[Tiggs]

Is falsifiable really the correct word?

Yes.

You've created a conspiracy spanning over a decade and across multiple sessions of congress, where you claim that Congress refuses to impeach the President regardless of whether or not he's committed impeachable acts.

As opposed to the President not committing an act which it would be possible for Congress to successfully impeach him for.

Because you believe that conspiracy exists, you can now claim that any President, now or in the future, has committed an impeachable offence - regardless of whether he has or not - because you've created this conspiratorial shield that you can use to deflect the obvious "Then why hasn't Congress impeached him?" question, which makes your claim unfalsifiable.

In short - there's a single test for impeachability - actually impeaching someone - and you're claiming that that test is now and forever rigged, just because a President wasn't impeached at your whimsy.

It seems to me that an opinion, once exposed to rational public dialogue, is either valid or invalid. I understand that like belly-buttons everybody has one, but some opinions are informed, and others are not.

I'm sure that your opinion is informed, but not all information holds equal weight.

In general, it's possible to form opinions which are non-falsifiable - which are then impervious to any form of rational public dialogue. Most Conspiracy theories take this form, and are generally created by an initial false assumption held sacrosanct, which is then worked backwards to invalidate any tests which would have shown their assumption to be false.

Such as believing that Adam Lanza didn't use an Assault Rifle, even though both the police and the coroner claimed that he did, for example.

I never have a problem standing corrected on any given issue. So far on this matter, you have not offered much to support your contention/opinion/whatever that the President can usurp power.

Probably because it's not my position that he particularly has. That would be your case to attempt to make.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Tiggs

[Kowalski]

Even if Obama was impeached (which I doubt would ever happen) it still doesn't mean that they would kick him out of office. Remember the whole Clinton fiasco?

If he DID get impeached and kicked out of office, then that would make BIDEN our president...

[Babe Ruth]

Tiggs

I am just judging history, nothing more. And then interpret the events of history through the prism of how humans behave. Tempered with a fair knowledge of the law. I can't help how people in government act--they never ask me my opinion on anything, but I know what the law says, and I know how it USED TO BE back before these last 2 administrations, those waging that notorious Global War On Terror.

So rant if you must, but I can see where you stand. It appears to be squarely with John Yoo and Eric Holder.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Tiggs]

I am just judging history, nothing more. And then interpret the events of history through the prism of how humans behave. Tempered with a fair knowledge of the law. I can't help how people in government act--they never ask me my opinion on anything, but I know what the law says, and I know how it USED TO BE back before these last 2 administrations, those waging that notorious Global War On Terror.

Welcome to Terrorism. Apparently you're new here.

Some of us have been living our entire lives under terrorist threat. Some of us have lost friends and families to terrorist bombs. Some of us have survived being bombed by terrorists.

Terrorists really don't care what your particular interpretation of the events of history are. They're going to try and kill you, regardless.

So rant if you must, but I can see where you stand. It appears to be squarely with John Yoo and Eric Holder.

Because in your head, everyone who disagrees with you obviously advocates torture.

[danielost]

"Weapons of mass destruction, mass graves, torture chambers, imminent threat, immediate danger, Saddam is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda, terrorists, has chemical weapons, terrorists, probably has biological weapons, yellow cake, Saddam Hussein 9/11, uranium from Africa, 9/11 Saddam Hussein, in 45 minutes, September 11th, there is no threat greater than Saddam Hussein, terrorists, terrorists, terrorist attacks, the final proof the mushroom cloud, massive quantities of VX nerve gas September 11th and Cyclosarin toxin September 11th, buh blah buh blah bu blah blah blah buh blah buh blah bu blah blah blah".

Well it seems the kool aid has finally stained the fabric. Yeah the gubmint has the "right" to protect itself from Americans with military force because when it talks about "terrorist attacks on US soil" it's so eminently believable after the past 12 years of its bloodthirsty BS.

Lucy, I'm home!

The people in office and in the military swear to defend the constution not the government.

[Babe Ruth]

Welcome to Terrorism. Apparently you're new here.

Some of us have been living our entire lives under terrorist threat. Some of us have lost friends and families to terrorist bombs. Some of us have survived being bombed by terrorists.

Terrorists really don't care what your particular interpretation of the events of history are. They're going to try and kill you, regardless.

Because in your head, everyone who disagrees with you obviously advocates torture.

Finally we agree on something--yes, it seems terrorists rule the world.

The only thing that is really not determined is just who, exactly, the terrorists are. And while you apparently live in some measure of fear of the terrorists, I do not. I am very much a fatalist. Death comes when it wants to, and there is precious little I can do about it. I am certain that the government is impotent to protect me, or you, from death or assault.

I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me advocates torture. No Tiggs, I do not think that.

But I find it curious that the same people who advance the sophistry of The Unitary Executive just happen to advocate torture.

I guess it's just a coincidence, eh?

[WoIverine]

Rand CPAC Speech.

[media=]

[/media]

Wonder how many regret voting for whichever candidate they voted for in the previous election?

Edited March 17, 2013 by WoIverine

[Tiggs]

Finally we agree on something--yes, it seems terrorists rule the world.

The only thing that is really not determined is just who, exactly, the terrorists are.

In your opinion. For everyone that's not you, there's a list, and everything.

And while you apparently live in some measure of fear of the terrorists, I do not. I am very much a fatalist. Death comes when it wants to, and there is precious little I can do about it. I am certain that the government is impotent to protect me, or you, from death or assault.

Well, that's certainly news to me. I won't bother to thank you for your apparently useless military service, then.

I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me advocates torture. No Tiggs, I do not think that.

But I find it curious that the same people who advance the sophistry of The Unitary Executive just happen to advocate torture.

I guess it's just a coincidence, eh?

I've yet to meet anyone that doesn't believe that the constitution doesn't vest the executive power of the United States to the President, in at least one form or another. Perhaps you meant Strong Unitary Executive.

Either way - it's possible to hold the viewpoint that torture is a bad thing and still believe that the current administration is acting constitutionally. See the majority of Americans for details.

As much fun as it is to be accused of advocating torture, you'll have to excuse me if I decline to continue this conversation with you any further.

[Yamato]

Thank goodness there's a few people in our government today who take our Bill of Rights seriously.

This is the future of the Republican party or else the Republican party will continue to die its slow death. People will need to say that the reason they're Republicans, that the reason they're conservatives, is because they're libertarians. It confers a real difference with the democratic party, not just one in name and rhetoric only. Two opposing sets of values, two different ideologies with real differences not just in speech making, but as they manifest themselves in policy, will restore a real reason to have two parties in the first place.

[Ryinrea]

I agree with Triggs on this topic, that I do believe constitutionally speaking the president is acting within the rules set in placed by congress. However, I do not agree with the use of drones in battle or other types of them being in use. I also do not agree with Rand Paul trying to bring up the topic at a nomination vote and I am a libertarian. People don't realize what this is truly more about them trying to not do a damn thing. Again this is not the right time to bring this up now if lets say it was a bill being introduced then have at it...

[Babe Ruth]

Thank you Tiggs, for not thanking me.

[Tiggs]

Thank you Tiggs, for not thanking me.

Given that I have trouble determining whether your response is sarcastic or not, I suspect that it's also not obvious to you that I was being sarcastic, but just so we're clear:

I believe that the Government via the United States Armed Forces protects me on a constant basis from death and assault, and on that basis, I both honor and thank you for your service to the United States and to the world in general.

As I've said - It's difficult for me to tell if your response is sarcastic or not, but if not - then I'm sorry that you're not in a position to currently see how obvious a truth that is to so many people. I'm sorry if you possibly believe that the arenas in which you served in were unjustified and mere political scams.

But you served, and for that, I thank you, regardless of whether you believe you deserve it, or not.

Now. If it's all the same to you, it's fairly obvious that this conversation isnt heading anywhere particularly good or productive, and I have a prior engagement with some kittens that I apparently need to advocate torturing.

Live long and prosper, BR.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Tiggs

[Yamato]

I do believe constitutionally speaking the president is acting within the rules set in placed by congress. However, I do not agree with the use of drones in battle or other types of them being in use.

How is that "constitutionally speaking"? The debate here is whether the rules set in place by Congress are constitutional. There is no authority to deny any American their due process; it is forbidden by law. If bringing up the Bill of Rights isn't worth it at a "nomination vote", what is? These NDAA and Patriot Act "rules" need to be a Constitutional Amendment in order for them to be Constitutional since they destroy the 4th and 5th Amendments. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Preventing a crime is the police's job, and laws dealing with "terrorism" are already on the books. But, because of fear in the wake of 9/11, when bureaucrats fail to prevent a sensational event (but succeed in causing it well enough), it's used as an excuse not to question and change the policy but to surrender our rights to the bureau. What kind of libertarian supports that?

Take me down that slippery slope of Mt. Imaginationland where a drone strike against a US citizen is going to be the least bit practical. Ever. Actually getting scared of bureaucratic fantasy-aid that there's some kind of special bogeyman coming right at us - because of God-knows-what crazy story someone is dreaming up - is just more creative license to control our people and destroy our liberty. That's all it is. It's just a play by government officials to grab power.

Let's not mince words or let the crystal get cloudy: This is the destruction of our rights over reactionary laws created by moral hazard in our foreign policy. Letting our government enslave us into debt and control us like cattle is the only way that Osama bin Laden wins.

[Babe Ruth]

What you say, Yamato! It is a sad state of affairs, and certainly suggestive of 'end times', when ordinary citizens advocate for assaults on the founding document.

[Kowalski]

How is that "constitutionally speaking"? The debate here is whether the rules set in place by Congress are constitutional. There is no authority to deny any American their due process; it is forbidden by law. If bringing up the Bill of Rights isn't worth it at a "nomination vote", what is? These NDAA and Patriot Act "rules" need to be a Constitutional Amendment in order for them to be Constitutional since they destroy the 4th and 5th Amendments. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Preventing a crime is the police's job, and laws dealing with "terrorism" are already on the books. But, because of fear in the wake of 9/11, when bureaucrats fail to prevent a sensational event (but succeed in causing it well enough), it's used as an excuse not to question and change the policy but to surrender our rights to the bureau. What kind of libertarian supports that?

Take me down that slippery slope of Mt. Imaginationland where a drone strike against a US citizen is going to be the least bit practical. Ever. Actually getting scared of bureaucratic fantasy-aid that there's some kind of special bogeyman coming right at us - because of God-knows-what crazy story someone is dreaming up - is just more creative license to control our people and destroy our liberty. That's all it is. It's just a play by government officials to grab power.

Let's not mince words or let the crystal get cloudy: This is the destruction of our rights over reactionary laws created by moral hazard in our foreign policy. Letting our government enslave us into debt and control us like cattle is the only way that Osama bin Laden wins.

Great post Yamato!

[AsteroidX]

+1 Yamato. Good post.

I personally would rather live under the threat of terrorism then the Tyrrany thats been created by Washington DC.

[WoIverine]

+1 Yamato. Good post.

I personally would rather live under the threat of terrorism then the Tyrrany thats been created by Washington DC.

Reminds me of Bejamin Franklin's famous quote about liberty.

Edited March 18, 2013 by WoIverine

[AsteroidX]

I believe this is the Franklin quote your referring too. It was written in 1755 (20 years before the revolution) in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania (British) asking for arms and ammunition for the frontiers people at the beginning of the French Indian war. The beauracrats of the time saw little need to help defend them from the hardships of that frontier life.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

“If we are thus to be driven from Bill to Bill, without one solid reason afforded us; and can raise no Money for the King’s Service, and relief or security of our country, till we fortunately hit on the only Bill the Governor is allowed to pass, or till we consent to make such as the Governor or Proprietaries direct us to make, we see little use of Assemblies in this Particular; and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the Country the Expense and Trouble, All debates and all reasonings are vain, where Proprietary Instructions, just or unjust, right or wrong, must inviolably be observed. We have only to find out, if we can, what they are, and then submit and obey. But surely the Proprietaries conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King, must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not only formally refused to bear any art of our yearly heavy expences in cultivating and maintaining friendship with the Indians, tho’ they reap such immense Advantages by that friendship; but they now, by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an Invasion of the King’s Colony, committed to their care; or to submit Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.

In fine, we have the most sensible concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pensylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe, that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both as far as Arms could be procured, out of monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s use; and the large supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every thing else that should be judged necessary for their further Security, if he shall think it fit to accept it.”

[Kowalski]

Really great post AsteriodX!

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

George Bernard Shaw