Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52
  1. Default Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    I thought Rand Paul was a tool for the longest time, but I am slowly beginning to pay more attention to him and I like what I see.

    What he's asking for isn't unreasonable by any means; he would like the administration to be more forthcoming about their drone policy and answer a simple question with a yes or a no before he puts the issue to rest. I think most of us are united in the belief that different rules apply in war-time abroad and that the administration should have to level with us if they intend to potentially bypass a citizen's right to an attorney and due process.

    What do you all think?
    Last edited by Jordan; 2013-03-08 at 12:43 AM.

  2. Proton
    IGN: Mehta
    Server: Scania
    Level: 200
    Job: Angelic Buster
    Guild: Infiniti
    Alliance: Saga

    Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Major props to this guy for standing up on principle. We need more senators looking out for our civil rights.

  3. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    I didn't know about him before, I only liked his father, but more and more I'm liking this guy. Is there a full video of the entire 13 hours? I'm a boring enough person that I'd like to listen to it.

    Jesus, what channel is that on? I'm so glad I don't watch the news, that guy is annoying as pomegranate, I hate people that needlessly polarize everything.

  4. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    The commentators? That's TyT, its just a small youtube station. I watch them because the gut out the fluff and give the general story.

  5. Nuclear testing facility Straight Male
    IGN: VerrKol
    Server: Zenith
    Level: 204
    Job: Bowmaster
    Guild: LegacyReborn
    Farm: Kolville

    Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    I think his filibuster is a little bit misguided, but I do like Rand Paul in general. He's one of the few politicians that makes headlines for reasons other than stupidity or scandalous behavior.

    It's weird that drone attacks are getting so much attention. How are theoretical/hypothetical drone attacks within the US any different than CIA use of more traditional military force? This should be about Civil Rights, Due Process, and Utilitarianism principles.

    Disclosure: Yes I am biased toward drones.

  6. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    All I'm willing to give him is a thumbs up for at least doing a real filibuster.

    The Young Turks, possibly my least favorite "news" station. They even make Fox look good in my opinion.

  7. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Kind of already answered the question and that is one uneducated opinion but hey, entitled to it.

  8. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Seems to me people are freaking out about getting rid of traitors we execute them anyway and it's not like were gonna drone attack a major city in the US to kill one person. If they were in the US a simple tactical team would be enough. We have only killed one citizen he was an al-quea spokesperson who happened to be in Yemen at the time.

    I'm not really for giving constitutional rights to people who wish to see this country destruction or who would seriously support those people.

  9. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    That's not the point; the point is, it is up to THEIR discretion whether someone lives or dies, not ours. The filibuster wasn't even really aimed at Brennan, it was aimed at the president and the attorney general for their pisspoor response to his initial question of "will you kill americans on US soil", which was essentially "the 5th amendment is open to interpretation". That's one of the worst goddamn responses I've ever heard in the history of ever. The "updated response" yesterday after the filibuster was almost as bad, "we will not use drone strikes on american citizens on US soil UNLESS THEY POSE AN IMMINENT THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY". How do you alone suddenly get the authority to decide whether or not someone should live or die based on some arbitrary rating system akin to Bush's threat level color chart? How does one chart "imminent threat". If a dog walks on the white house lawn, he is posing an imminent threat to the grass because he might take a pomegranate on it, maybe we should bomb the dog! That's how I see that response; he can still use them on literally anyone he wants, because absolutely anyone can be seen as "a threat", and all he has to do is say "I thought he/she was a threat". As long as he doesn't use it on a celebrity or a little kid, the media won't give a pomegranate, and if the media doesn't give a pomegranate, the general populace doesn't give a pomegranate.

    He just makes himself look like more and more of an assclown with every passing day.

    just as "non-vital" as gun control, amirite

  10. Default

    Rand Paul was grandstanding a non-vital issue.

    As your quote shows, the only way this is relevant is in extremely unlikely hypothetical examples which again is why it is precisely a non-vital issue.

    I assure you that every piece of legislation being stalled by his filibuster had more importance.

    Right. Analogizing gun control to drone attacks. Right.
    Last edited by Sardines; 2013-03-08 at 09:56 AM.

  11. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    An infinite number of extremely unlikely hypotheticals can very quickly snowball, just based on the sheer numbers involved. I've always been one to believe luck will always draw me the worst card, but if I'm given 100 chances to win a lottery that has a 1/100 chance of winning, I'd say my chances in that situation would be better than if I had only 1 shot at it. It's not unlikely precisely because of how vague it is; it can apply to absolutely anything. Man brushing his teeth on the way to work? Toothpaste is considered a bomb material at airports or some pomegranate, take that pineappleer out. Woman handing her son a glass of water? THAT PSYCHOTIC peach IS TRYING TO DROWN THAT LITTLE BOY, TAKE HER OUT.

    There are literally an infinite number of situations that can be construed by an outsider as "a threat", even "a threat to national security". Especially when the outsider in question is a paranoid/delusional whose only electable quality is that he had charisma (charisma that happened to be based entirely on lies, but charisma nonetheless) 5 years ago.

  12. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Wait. What does winning the Lottery have anything to do with this. Much less toothpaste or a cup of water. Do you think that these people would be the victim of drone attacks.

  13. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    I'm not sure how you missed my point, but, no, not those particular cases, hopefully. I'm saying, anyone doing just about anything can be construed as a threat to national security under some circumstances, and that answer he gave is just as terrible as the last. I have no reason to trust him with my safety or even my best interests or those of the country as a whole, so I'm not going to.

  14. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Flonne do you view yourself as being potentially marked as a threat to the national security of the United States of America?

  15. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    No more than any other person. Though I certainly do have an ingrained victimization complex when it comes to authority.

  16. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Flonne is known for being paranoid but he does have a point. If the government doesn't like you (internet activists) by the current legislation they could destroy you without a trial. Wikileaks is probably the entire reason for this. I don't think it's a power a government should/can have, yet the entire legal system is so goddamn retarded we might as well save money and off them as they probably won't get a fair trial.

  17. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    I don't think that most people view themselves as a thread to the United States. Or believe that they are likely to ever be misconstrued as threats to national security.

  18. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    Still shouldn't use a wrong method to fix a wrong method, you know.

    It isn't up to the person. They can think they are doing everything right, but it doesn't matter what you personally think about yourself, it's what the government thinks about you.

  19. Default Re: Rand Paul's 13 hour Filibuster

    I don't think that the government would send drones to kill these people in all honesty. It would make for horrible press.

    I don't see the government ever seeing me a threat to national security. Much less to the extent that they would waste taxpayer money to send a drone to assassinate me. I'm pretty sure that until there is a situation where an individual is assassinated by a drone, it is up to the person to worry about how that event will effect their current life. You know preparing 401k plans and future homes in case a random drone comes in to kill you.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts