If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "And so it's come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. It is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse...of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 337
    More: Sad, Rand Paul, White House, filibusters  
•       •       •

10963 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 08:34:32 AM  
Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.
 
2013-03-07 08:38:45 AM  

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.
 
2013-03-07 08:44:15 AM  

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.


I'm sure there are a few neocons floating around Fark that agree with her; but yes, people are getting tired of the "attack everyone bad" mentality.

/Benghazi!
 
2013-03-07 08:51:40 AM  
You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:37 AM  

GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.


Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.
 
2013-03-07 09:02:37 AM  

EatHam: GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.

Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.


Yes, I do give him plenty of credit for that.  And it was on a legitimate issue, though I don't think he's sincere about it.

But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.
 
2013-03-07 09:04:32 AM  
I heard that it was only an hour into the filibuster that he brought up his first Hitler mention.
 
2013-03-07 09:05:32 AM  

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


Without clicking the link, I knew it would be something from her.
 
2013-03-07 09:34:37 AM  

GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.


Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.
 
2013-03-07 09:38:18 AM  
Tag teams were used in the past, The Golden Days of Filibustering, but were so painful the rules were changed.  They should go back to the old ways.
 
2013-03-07 09:47:01 AM  

EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.


I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:55 AM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-07 09:58:27 AM  

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.


Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.
 
2013-03-07 09:59:10 AM  
*click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*
 
2013-03-07 10:11:17 AM  
I wonder if, at this point, the WaPo just keeps her around so they can read the lulzy comments.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:34 AM  
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Paul's accusation of the media circling wagons is true. Fox is by all accounts the top-rated 'news' channel out there. Does anyone tune into Brian Williams with the same sort of zeal they do Fox? No, it's just the news, usually just playing in the background. Do people specifically tune in because he's helping to circle the wagons around Obama?

Do people tune into CNN for any other reason but a missing white girl or a sinkhole that killed a guy?

And even MSNBC - does anyone actually watch it? I'm one of the biggest libtards here and I've only seen it through Maddow clips posted at Fark. When I still used cable I had it, but never bothered with it.

Who, precisely, is this media circling the wagons when you guys own the most powerful infotainment/propaganda machine out there? Can't have it both ways.
 
2013-03-07 10:32:12 AM  

MrBallou: GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.

Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.


He is the standard for how to do a filibuster though. It's never really been about winning a vote but delaying one you don't want passing.

But he has the standard simply because he has the longest in history.
 
2013-03-07 10:48:26 AM  

dickfreckle: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 307x164]


I think using phone books is cheating. Make them filibuster on the topic at hand, and don't let them use notes. It would be fun to see what they make up when they don't have anything to refer to.
 
2013-03-07 11:20:26 AM  
So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.
 
2013-03-07 11:22:48 AM  

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.
 
2013-03-07 11:27:00 AM  
I wish we had a functioning Congress.  *not amused*
 
2013-03-07 11:37:50 AM  

raerae1980: I wish we had a functioning Congress president.  *not amused*

 
2013-03-07 11:41:22 AM  
www.sbm21.com

b-b-b-b-but BENGHAZI!!1!
 
2013-03-07 11:42:12 AM  
The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.


/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!
 
2013-03-07 11:46:31 AM  

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I don't get the distinction that makes drones a huge problem that didn't exist before.  The debate should be about using lethal force on citizens on US soil, whether it's through a remote-controlled drone, a well-trained sniper, or a heavily armed SWAT team.

Ditto on places that are up in arms about surveillance drones, but have never had any problem with police helicopters.
 
2013-03-07 11:47:56 AM  

GAT_00: MrBallou: GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.

Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.

He is the standard for how to do a filibuster though. It's never really been about winning a vote but delaying one you don't want passing.

But he has the standard simply because he has the longest in history.


Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if we had legislators who intelligently chose to accomplish things?

What's the value of delaying a vote for 24 hours? The law might be in effect 1 day less, at best. If it would somehow help sway people's opinion by calling attention to it, it would be worth something. Otherwise it's just grandstanding.
 
2013-03-07 11:50:11 AM  

MrBallou: Otherwise it's just grandstanding.


That is the filibuster.  I've always seen it as the minority dissent in exceptional form not able to be seen in simply voting no on a bill.
 
2013-03-07 11:50:53 AM  
I bet Rubin smells like cat piss.

That's all I've got.
 
2013-03-07 11:52:16 AM  

PreMortem: *click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*


Pretty much what I did
 
2013-03-07 11:52:20 AM  
Because filibustering an appointment nominee for political posturing has an established precedent.
 
2013-03-07 11:52:27 AM  
Rubin is a neo-con spineless bandwagoner.

Rand Paul actually believes what he says and stands up for it.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:02 AM  

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US?


I think the average republican is waiting for Obama to rule it out so they can criticize him for "not having the guys to defend America".
 
2013-03-07 11:53:07 AM  
Another victory for Romney.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:34 AM  
Of course, when Obama appoints officials during recess to avoid this bullshiat, we'll hear about how the authoritarian dictator is circumventing constitutional law.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:41 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US?

I think the average republican is waiting for Obama to rule it out so they can criticize him for "not having the guys to defend America".


"not having the guts to defend America"

dammit
 
2013-03-07 11:53:47 AM  
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-07 11:54:08 AM  
I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.
 
2013-03-07 11:55:29 AM  
I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:02 AM  
Yes, 12 hours of bullshiatting for the sake of LOOKATLOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMEVOTE PAULIN'16 being covered by everybody with a camera and a microphone is indicative of this blatant liberal media bias.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:06 AM  

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


I KNEW it was her column before clicking on it.
I knew it, I knew it.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:33 AM  

SilentStrider: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

Without clicking the link, I knew it would be something from her.


Came here to say this.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:36 AM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?
 
2013-03-07 11:56:41 AM  
FTFA: " I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens." "

God, i agree with Jennifer Rubin on something. I feel like i need to change my opinion just to disagree with her.
 
2013-03-07 11:57:11 AM  

Lee451: So, the average Farker strawman thinks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.



FTFY
 
2013-03-07 11:57:16 AM  
The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/
 
2013-03-07 11:57:35 AM  

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.


She's an Ann Coulter wannabe; her less attractive friend who emulates her and takes her castoffs and sloppy seconds.

She serves a useful function for the Post, which can claim that giving her a forum is proof that they're fair and balanced.
 
2013-03-07 11:58:19 AM  
Well, it's a real filibuster.  Got to give him props for that, considering all the "filibusters" we've had in in the past decade have basically been "we promise we'll filibuster so don't even try it" and then nothing, but the media still calls it one
 
2013-03-07 11:58:47 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com

/over three hours and forty posts with no mention of this
//Fark, I am disappoint
 
2013-03-07 11:59:04 AM  
If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.
 
2013-03-07 12:00:15 PM  

GAT_00: MrBallou: Otherwise it's just grandstanding.

That is the filibuster.  I've always seen it as the minority dissent in exceptional form not able to be seen in simply voting no on a bill.


fark 'em. Let them vote and STFU. They have the honor of being in the legislative body of perhaps the greatest form of government ever devised by humans. They should behave accordingly.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report