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.

(The Hill)   Thanks to the "success" of Sen. Paul's 13 hour AW-ing session, we can expect more Randstanding in the future   (thehill.com) divider line 79
    More: Stupid, Rand Paul, Jim Manley, Heidi Heitkamp, filibusters, Mitch McConnell, National Republican Senatorial Committee  
•       •       •

938 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 2:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 04:48:44 PM  

Thrag: Mikey1969: So now they're excited because he sparked a debate? What the fark are they doing when they're debating these faking bills then? I thought that was the point. Now apparently Paul is getting props because he remembered what our legislators are supposed to do.

Actually it is just the opposite. He evidently hasn't the slightest idea what his job is. He didn't filibuster legislation. He didn't propose any legislation. If he wants limits set on how drones can be used he happens to be a member of the branch of government that does just that. Instead of doing his job he attention whored for 13 hours to filibuster, not legislation that grants any powers to the president, but a nominee.

What he did is the exact opposite of doing his job. He wasted congress's time (and thus taxpayer dollars) to start his campaign for president, instead of doing the actual work of a legislator.


That's kind of what I mean by 'doing his job', the fact that I thought that's what they spent all of their time doing anyway. I was amazed that people are getting such hard ons over this when it should really be the 'norm', at least when it comes to getting legislation passed...
 
2013-03-08 05:05:59 PM  

Mikey1969: Thrag: Mikey1969: So now they're excited because he sparked a debate? What the fark are they doing when they're debating these faking bills then? I thought that was the point. Now apparently Paul is getting props because he remembered what our legislators are supposed to do.

Actually it is just the opposite. He evidently hasn't the slightest idea what his job is. He didn't filibuster legislation. He didn't propose any legislation. If he wants limits set on how drones can be used he happens to be a member of the branch of government that does just that. Instead of doing his job he attention whored for 13 hours to filibuster, not legislation that grants any powers to the president, but a nominee.

What he did is the exact opposite of doing his job. He wasted congress's time (and thus taxpayer dollars) to start his campaign for president, instead of doing the actual work of a legislator.

That's kind of what I mean by 'doing his job', the fact that I thought that's what they spent all of their time doing anyway. I was amazed that people are getting such hard ons over this when it should really be the 'norm', at least when it comes to getting legislation passed...


Filibusters are for when the majority has locked the minority out of the negotiation of new legislation. Filibustering should be the last nuclear option, not something that looks cool b/c a climatic scene in a movie used it and rubes can't pick up on a transparent ploy for free press from a shameless career politician.
 
2013-03-08 05:22:41 PM  

DarnoKonrad: You carry a rifle in service of al Qaeda anywhere in the world Mr. Obama and Mr. Paul agree on the powers to terminate you.


i_have_no_problem_with_this.jpg

Do you have a link to this new letter where they extend droning someone/something from the Next Pearl Harbor to merely "combatants"? Genuinely asking because I haven't heard of this. My current understanding is that Holder's original letter disavowed to use of armed drones in the US because, in short, we have a functioning legal & law enforcement system, but admitted that yes, in the event of a new Pearl Harbor they'd go Dalek on any collaborators on the ground. The new letter then restated that some guy won't be droned, again because we have a functioning law system. Is there a third letter?
 
2013-03-08 05:22:53 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Mikey1969: Thrag: Mikey1969: So now they're excited because he sparked a debate? What the fark are they doing when they're debating these faking bills then? I thought that was the point. Now apparently Paul is getting props because he remembered what our legislators are supposed to do.

Actually it is just the opposite. He evidently hasn't the slightest idea what his job is. He didn't filibuster legislation. He didn't propose any legislation. If he wants limits set on how drones can be used he happens to be a member of the branch of government that does just that. Instead of doing his job he attention whored for 13 hours to filibuster, not legislation that grants any powers to the president, but a nominee.

What he did is the exact opposite of doing his job. He wasted congress's time (and thus taxpayer dollars) to start his campaign for president, instead of doing the actual work of a legislator.

That's kind of what I mean by 'doing his job', the fact that I thought that's what they spent all of their time doing anyway. I was amazed that people are getting such hard ons over this when it should really be the 'norm', at least when it comes to getting legislation passed...

Filibusters are for when the majority has locked the minority out of the negotiation of new legislation. Filibustering should be the last nuclear option, not something that looks cool b/c a climatic scene in a movie used it and rubes can't pick up on a transparent ploy for free press from a shameless career politician.


Or asking a question that could have been asked and answered by picking up a goddamn telephone...
 
2013-03-08 05:26:58 PM  
On the one hand, I want to applaud Sen. Paul for taking the actual speaking on the floor until you can't anymore filibuster route.  And hell, if he has beef with the drones, I think filibustering the new CIA nominee makes sense.  But he's seriously worried about Obama using drones in the US?  Yeah right.
 
2013-03-08 05:34:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Crotchrocket Slim: Mikey1969: Thrag: Mikey1969: So now they're excited because he sparked a debate? What the fark are they doing when they're debating these faking bills then? I thought that was the point. Now apparently Paul is getting props because he remembered what our legislators are supposed to do.

Actually it is just the opposite. He evidently hasn't the slightest idea what his job is. He didn't filibuster legislation. He didn't propose any legislation. If he wants limits set on how drones can be used he happens to be a member of the branch of government that does just that. Instead of doing his job he attention whored for 13 hours to filibuster, not legislation that grants any powers to the president, but a nominee.

What he did is the exact opposite of doing his job. He wasted congress's time (and thus taxpayer dollars) to start his campaign for president, instead of doing the actual work of a legislator.

That's kind of what I mean by 'doing his job', the fact that I thought that's what they spent all of their time doing anyway. I was amazed that people are getting such hard ons over this when it should really be the 'norm', at least when it comes to getting legislation passed...

Filibusters are for when the majority has locked the minority out of the negotiation of new legislation. Filibustering should be the last nuclear option, not something that looks cool b/c a climatic scene in a movie used it and rubes can't pick up on a transparent ploy for free press from a shameless career politician.

Or asking a question that could have been asked and answered by picking up a goddamn telephone...


According to Fark it's cool now to filibuster even if you already have that answer and only an idiotic child or a shameless politician who appeals to childlike voters would need clarification on it.
 
2013-03-08 05:45:49 PM  
I have little respect for what Rand said; it was stupid and ignorant.  But I respect HOW he said it.  He actually filibustered.  No bullshiat secret hold, no filibustering by just threatening to do it.
 
2013-03-08 05:49:24 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: I have little respect for what Rand said; it was stupid and ignorant.  But I respect HOW he said it.  He actually filibustered.  No bullshiat secret hold, no filibustering by just threatening to do it.


I wish senate democrats would force more republicans to actually do this.
 
2013-03-08 06:04:24 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Nothing changed.  McCain was actually right for once.  It was a substance-less populist rant.

Consider the administration originally used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples -- immediate threats.  *After* the filibuster, it became a much less stringent qualifier of "combatant."  Which is anyone subservient to an enemy force -- which is hellva lot looser standard that *immediacy.*  You carry a rifle in service of al Qaeda anywhere in the world Mr. Obama and Mr. Paul agree on the powers to terminate you.


Stupidest filibuster evar.


Yeah, but he stood there and DID it.
 
2013-03-08 06:44:21 PM  

Somacandra: Doesn't bother me in the slightest. As long as "the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote" I don't have a problem with it. The longest effort ever recorded of this nature was Strom Thurmond and Co.'s 24 hour marathon. The non-talking threats of filibuster leave bills and nominees in limbo for months at a time. That's the shiat that must not stand.


But he didn't impede passage of the vote to nominate Brennan. He merely delayed it. His action didn't change anything. And neither did Strom Thurmond's. The Civil Rights Bill passed.

At least Thurmond actually opposed what he was filibustering against, whereas Paul's action really had more to do with a tangent than the actual matter at hand.
 
2013-03-08 06:56:03 PM  
I have no problem with this.  In fact, it's so great let's remove the procedural filibuster and make anyone wanting to filibuster do it.
 
2013-03-08 07:03:46 PM  

Somacandra: Doesn't bother me in the slightest. As long as "the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote" I don't have a problem with it. The longest effort ever recorded of this nature was Strom Thurmond and Co.'s 24 hour marathon. The non-talking threats of filibuster leave bills and nominees in limbo for months at a time. That's the shiat that must not stand.



i244.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-08 07:05:00 PM  
And the first fundraising letters by Rand Paul patting himself on the back for his PR stunt are already going out. Could it be any more clear that this filibuster was nothing more than the official kick off of the Rand Paul 2016 presidential run?

Dear Patriot,
My 13-hour filibuster yesterday is being called one of the longest in U.S. history.

I had been trying for more than a week to get a straight answer on whether or not the Obama administration believed it had the authority to use drones to target and kill American citizens on American soil - without due process.

And after receiving a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder claiming they DO have that authority, I could no longer sit silently at my desk in the U.S. Senate.

So I stood for thirteen-straight hours to send a message to the Obama administration, I will do everything in my power to fight their attempts to ignore the Constitution!

Millions of Americans chose to stand with me and put President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Congress in the spotlight...
And the good news is, it worked!

Just hours ago, I received a letter from Attorney General Holder declaring the President DOES NOT have the authority to use drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil.
Patriot, this shows what we can do when stand together and fight.

So won't you help me continue the fight to protect our Constitutional liberties today?
 
2013-03-08 07:58:01 PM  
Unless the filibuster was totally justified, I can't imagine anyone want to go on board to talk and put into the congressional records 13+ hours worth of speech. Can a senator not slip up and something stupid during that whole time? I doubt it. And when that happens, it will be recorded and replayed on the Ed Schultz show, the Rachel Maddow show, TPM, MediaMatters, etc., for all of eternity.
 
2013-03-08 08:20:38 PM  
I prefer this to the current style of filibuster, which seem to consist of raising ones pinkie and making a faint mewling noise behind closed doors. This way, the filibuster takes effort, and the deep is on the public record.
 
2013-03-08 08:30:24 PM  
I'd like to see all filibusters have to be done the old-fashioned way.
 
2013-03-08 09:35:42 PM  
Is only politician to take any sort of stand on drone warfare and the murders of hundreds of women and children in countries we're not even at war with.

Is promptly labelled crazy by mainstream media.
 
2013-03-08 09:51:24 PM  
Really, an Ayn Rand worshipper who talks a lot?

Is this common? I just discovered the internet today so I have utterly no idea.
 
2013-03-08 10:34:10 PM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Really, an Ayn Rand worshipper who talks a lot?

Is this common? I just discovered the internet today so I have utterly no idea.


If you're asking whether it's common for a Rand-head to ramble on for over half a day in one go, I honestly couldn't tell you. However, if you are asking whether or not it's common for a Senator to ramble on for over half a day in one go, then I am happy to report that I CAN answer your second question.

Sadly, the answer to that question is "No." It's not common for Senators to actually filibuster bills that they don't want to come up for a vote, regardless of what is being voted on or why the Senator doesn't want it to be voted on. And this is something that many people want changed, so that Senators must actually filibuster like Rand Paul did rather than delay the passage of bills for days, weeks or even months just by spending 1 or 2 seconds saying the word "filibuster" -- the latter is the status quo and causes bills to be delayed until they can be changed enough that a 60% supermajority of Senators would approve of it going to the floor for a 50% vote, while the former would reduce the delay of bills down to the endurance of the bladder, bowels and larynx of the Senator blocking the bill.

/Anyway, welcome to the internet. There are many cool things here. For instance, I was on the internet and I found THIS!
 
2013-03-08 11:25:47 PM  

King Something: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Really, an Ayn Rand worshipper who talks a lot?

Is this common? I just discovered the internet today so I have utterly no idea.

If you're asking whether it's common for a Rand-head to ramble on for over half a day in one go, I honestly couldn't tell you. However, if you are asking whether or not it's common for a Senator to ramble on for over half a day in one go, then I am happy to report that I CAN answer your second question.

Sadly, the answer to that question is "No." It's not common for Senators to actually filibuster bills that they don't want to come up for a vote, regardless of what is being voted on or why the Senator doesn't want it to be voted on. And this is something that many people want changed, so that Senators must actually filibuster like Rand Paul did rather than delay the passage of bills for days, weeks or even months just by spending 1 or 2 seconds saying the word "filibuster" -- the latter is the status quo and causes bills to be delayed until they can be changed enough that a 60% supermajority of Senators would approve of it going to the floor for a 50% vote, while the former would reduce the delay of bills down to the endurance of the bladder, bowels and larynx of the Senator blocking the bill.

/Anyway, welcome to the internet. There are many cool things here. For instance, I was on the internet and I found THIS!


Thou wert truly troll'd. I was on talk.politics.libertarian when Ozzy still spoke the queen's English, boy.
 
2013-03-08 11:36:19 PM  

Red Barchetta: Is only politician to take any sort of stand on drone warfare and the murders of hundreds of women and children in countries we're not even at war with.

Is promptly labelled crazy by mainstream media.


But he didn't take any sort of stand on it, that's the infuriating part of this whole asinine affair. His whole 13-hour foaming rant was about whether or not the President could fire A drone against US citizens NOT during wartime. In other words, the polar opposite of what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-09 12:43:36 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I can hear it now... "Who is John Galt?"


or even worse: "This is John Galt speaking....."
 
2013-03-09 02:51:04 AM  
I hope it's Rand again, because I surely couldn't watch Senator McCain or Senator Rubio talk for 13 hours, I can watch Rand's face do just about anything for 13 hours.
 
2013-03-09 03:27:07 AM  

Thrag: Dear Patriot,
My 13-hour filibuster yesterday is being called one of the longest in U.S. history.


It didn't crack the top eight. (I'd say top ten, but I only managed to find a top eight.)
 
2013-03-09 04:01:25 AM  

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Really, an Ayn Rand worshipper who talks a lot?

Is this common? I just discovered the internet today so I have utterly no idea.


imageshack.us
 
2013-03-09 09:32:02 AM  
you must respect the man for doing what he believes is right and fighting for what he believes in.
 
2013-03-09 10:12:41 AM  

Red Barchetta: Is only politician to take any sort of stand on drone warfare and the murders of hundreds of women and children in countries we're not even at war with.

Is promptly labelled crazy by mainstream media.


Actually, I think the "drones against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil" tempest is more an extension of the gun-rights argument we've been having the last couple of months.  Gun lovers finally got it through their thick skulls on some level that their AR-15 ISN'T a check on the power of the U.S. military.
 
2013-03-09 01:42:36 PM  

Thrag: And the first fundraising letters by Rand Paul patting himself on the back for his PR stunt are already going out. Could it be any more clear that this filibuster was nothing more than the official kick off of the Rand Paul 2016 presidential run?

Dear Patriot,
My 13-hour filibuster yesterday is being called one of the longest in U.S. history.

I had been trying for more than a week to get a straight answer on whether or not the Obama administration believed it had the authority to use drones to target and kill American citizens on American soil - without due process.

And after receiving a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder claiming they DO have that authority, I could no longer sit silently at my desk in the U.S. Senate.

So I stood for thirteen-straight hours to send a message to the Obama administration, I will do everything in my power to fight their attempts to ignore the Constitution!

Millions of Americans chose to stand with me and put President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Congress in the spotlight...
And the good news is, it worked!

Just hours ago, I received a letter from Attorney General Holder declaring the President DOES NOT have the authority to use drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil.
Patriot, this shows what we can do when stand together and fight.

So won't you help me continue the fight to protect our Constitutional liberties today?


Isn't he dreamy?
 
2013-03-11 03:30:52 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: NkThrasher: Thanks to the "success" of Sen. Paul's 13 hour AW-ing session Actual Filibuster, we can expect more Randstanding Actual Filibustersin the future

Fixed that for you  Subby.

Disagree with the content of it all you want, it's the way filibustering should happen.  Want to delay something in the Senate?  Then you need to be willing to stand there and talk in order to delay it.

Correlation does not equal causation.


I don't follow.

Unless this is fark debate madlibs, in which case an ad hominem poe's law to you too!
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report