Rand Paul's Filibuster

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    Oh, and while I'm at it:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/democratic-sen-ron-wyden-joins-rand-pauls-filibuster/


    Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has earned my respecct for bucking the progressive orthodoxy and following his conscience. That is a very rare quality to find in a Democrat nowadays.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    More republican waste of time.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    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.



    I'm with you on this one, mostly.

    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.

    I like parts of his message, and not other parts.  I do resonate with the dynamic tension he discussed on the relationship between government and the people.  As Ronnie said, government isn't the solution, governemnt IS the problem.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    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.

     

     

     

     




    Haha..aww come on. Ron Paul is nothing if not entertaining :-)

    I agree with you on defense. Although it's government's number one responsibility..we are clearly doing something wrong.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

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

    Just saying...

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.




    True...all true..but I will take a good old-fashioned filibuster over what currently happens with the procedural filibuster. If a politicial feels that strongly against a bill that they attempt to block the vote..then they should have to get up in front of everyone..and actually put in the work and go on record. Too many in Congress are afraid to go on record these days.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to macnh1's comment:

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

    Just saying...




    People on both sides of the aisle opposed (at least part of) the Patriot Act...just like people on both sides of the aisle oppose Obama's drone policy.  What is your point?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to macnh1's comment:

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

    Just saying...



    You mean the Patriot Act that was responsible for hundreds of thousands of actual constitutional violations?  That Patriot Act?  Were liberals unhappy with that?  But now they should be ashamed of themselves because of a hypothetical question posed by a man named after Ayn Rand?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    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.

     

     

     

     




    Not trying to slap Rand.  I would vote for him over ANY liberal/democrat, anytime, anywhere, any position.  I am suspicious, however, that the influences of his father may be lurking in the shadows.  So, no facts, just fear.  I mean, it is not like we have been burned by politicians saying one thing and doing another, right?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    Rand Paul won points with his hard core Libertarians Tea Partiers and the college crowd tired of the same old Dem story and those supporting the wild west on the internet.

    I'm not sure what this means for a restructured GOP; it could be a distraction or a big problem with the 2016 cycle.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.  

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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".

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    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.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    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.

     

     



    Except that it is a parliamentary procedure, is it not?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Rand Paul's Filibuster

    In response to slomag's comment:

    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.

     

     



    Part of the process.  USed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

    But, when it is your ox being gored, well, all of a sudden you have an issues with it.

     

Share