I don't like Rand Paul much in a general sense. I often think him guilty of grandstanding and hyperbole. I didn't care for the tone of his remarks after the State of the Union and really..he strikes me as a somewhat angry person. I think he is part of the problem with the Tea Party..and for sure..he is part of the gridlock problem in Washington ( though for sure there are those on both sides who are equally at fault).

That being said...Rand Paul recently did something that I respect greatly. He engaged in a good..old-fashioned filibuster. This is something that has been missing in this new political era of procedural or "secret" filibuster. I love the old fashioned filibuster. I think if you feel strongly enough about an issue to block a vote on it..then you should be willing to actually put some work into it.

What's more..even though Paul added no shortage of grandstanding and hyperbole to fill up his hours long filibuster..he also raised some valid philisophical points about Obama's drone policy with regards to American citizens. I share Rand Paul's viewpoint about this program and it concerns me as well as many other Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. I would add though..that the issue aside..I applaud Paul for choosing to engage in the old fashioned filibuster. I feel it involves American people on a larger scale than the procedural filibuster. I hope to see more of it going forward.

As a bonus..John McCain took to the floor to speak in opposition of Rand Paul. This tells me all I need to know about the issue of Obama's drone policy. The war monger McCain would have us taking out American citizens without a thought as to their due process rights.

 

More republican waste of time.

 

You're a lot like my 14 year old son. He thinks that anything he doesn't understand is a waste of time too.

 

 

I think the problem with Rand Paul is that, though he showed conservatvies how to get a message out, as time goes by, likely his views will be shown to be extreme even for conservatives.

 

Unlike his nutcase father I haven't seen "extreme" from the younger Paul as of yet. Perhaps you can explain?

 

 

I think it is high time that we rethink our military role in the world and the need for limiting the power of the presidency as Commander in Chief.  With the roll back of our armed forces' commitment to the Middle East now is the perfect time to have a healthy debate.  Frankly, it should have happened after the fall of the Soviets: we still have the foundation in place of our Cold War miiltary policy.  Scale back and let's look homeward.

 

Absolutely agree. We cannot afford to be the world's policeman anymore. It's long past time that western europe grow up and learn to defend themselves without big brother America ready to step in and help at a moments notice.

 

 

 

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

....does anyone remember how much the liberals made  a big deal about the Patriot Act and the names they called Bush???

Just saying...

....does anyone remember how much the liberals made  a big deal about the Patriot Act and the names they called Bush???

Just saying...

More republican waste of time.

 

You're a lot like my 14 year old son. He thinks that anything he doesn't understand is a waste of time too.

 

I think the problem with Rand Paul is that, though he showed conservatvies how to get a message out, as time goes by, likely his views will be shown to be extreme even for conservatives.

 

Unlike his nutcase father I haven't seen "extreme" from the younger Paul as of yet. Perhaps you can explain?

 

I think it is high time that we rethink our military role in the world and the need for limiting the power of the presidency as Commander in Chief.  With the roll back of our armed forces' commitment to the Middle East now is the perfect time to have a healthy debate.  Frankly, it should have happened after the fall of the Soviets: we still have the foundation in place of our Cold War miiltary policy.  Scale back and let's look homeward.

 

Absolutely agree. We cannot afford to be the world's policeman anymore. It's long past time that western europe grow up and learn to defend themselves without big brother America ready to step in and help at a moments notice.

 

 

 

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

 

If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

 

Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

 

If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

 

Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

 

Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

 

Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

 

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

 

If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

 

Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

 

Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

 

Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

 

 

 

The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

 

If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

 

Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

 

Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

 

Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

 

 

 

The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

 

 

The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

 

There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

 

If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

 

Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

 

Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

 

Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

 

 

 

The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

 

 

The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

 

There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

 

Paul had the right to cast a vote - instead of using it he tried to block all other "individuals" from casting theirs.  For a self-professed constitutionalist, that's the exact opposite of what the Congress was supposed to be.

 

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

 

In response to slomag's comment:

 

Even an old-fashioned Filibuster is an insult to Democracy.  It's a way for a single person or small group of individuals to prevent votes by our elected representatives.  How anybody could have thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  And it's about as far from constitutional as you can get.

 

Completely disagree.  i think you need to look at this in the context of individual rights and responsibilities.  Extend that to our politcial system.  Shorthand:  it is about the individual, not the collective.

 

 

If it is about the "individual" and not the "collective" then you surely support an individual judge engaging in "activism" in regard to those rights...  

 

Newsflash: It is about both individual rights and collective responsibilities.  It's been that way since we walked out of the woods.  

There is no natural right to fillibuster: for one individual to stop all others from collective action.  It exists because we want it to exist. 

 

Judges have a specific role.  If activism intereferes with that role, then it is wrong.

 

Until the Senate no longer takes individual votes, it is about individual thoughts and actions.  No real role for the collective.

 

 

 

The collective makes rules for its individual members.  

 

 

The individuals make rules for how to behave in the collective.

 

There is no intelligence in the collective.  It is always the intelligence of an individual.  There is always a deciding "vote", even if that vote is one.

In fact, collectives always end up being one individual foisting their will on the..."collective".

 

Paul had the right to cast a vote - instead of using it he tried to block all other "individuals" from casting theirs.  For a self-professed constitutionalist, that's the exact opposite of what the Congress was supposed to be.