Sen. Paul filibusters defense bill [NDAA]

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper
I'm a little confused on this, so if someone could shed some light on the subject for me, but i thought Obama already signed the NDAA into law like back in December or January. This says Defense Authorization Act but not National Defense and talks about paying the military bills. Is this the same thing?
Yes these are the same thing, but it has to be re-apporved every year. This issue is in the 2012 NDAA, but they are currently debating the 2013 NDAA.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Hey just for fun lets read the NDAA for 2013:
H.R. 4310 (NDAA for 2013)

In sec 1031 you will find this:

(H) ‘[U]nless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive’s discretion in the realm of detentions.’.


Then there is this:

SEC. 1032. FINDINGS REGARDING HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states ‘The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.’.

(2) Regarding the Great Writ, the Supreme Court has noted ‘The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.’


And then this:

SEC. 1033. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.
(a) Rule of Construction- Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights.

(b) Notification of Detention of Persons Under Authorization for Use of Military Force- Not later than 48 hours after the date on which a person who is lawfully in the United States is detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), the President shall notify Congress of the detention of such person.

(c) Habeas Applications- A person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall be allowed to file an application for habeas corpus relief in an appropriate district court not later than 30 days after the date on which such person is placed in military custody.


So what is Paul doing? Is he playing to a base that no longer matters? (ie. the TeaParty), or is he just playing a game to feed his ego?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 

I think that a lot of us share your disappointment but its actions like these which help to restore my faith in the man.

Many of us believe that he is/was trying to make nice with the establishment so we can continue to have at-least one freedom fighter in government.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by shelookslikeone
 


It is ok to call people out. You aren't calling him out for a specific reason though, you are just saying "call him out" with no real reason why we should.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


Getting better..... The only one I could find from that list was the Iran sanctions one, which I disagree with myself. What are the other bills that you speak of?
edit on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:01:15 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by jazzguy
 

I think that a lot of us share your disappointment but its actions like these which help to restore my faith in the man.

Many of us believe that he is/was trying to make nice with the establishment so we can continue to have at-least one freedom fighter in government.
Could you please explain what it is that he's doing? I only ask because the provision that he seems to be holding everything up is already in HR 4310 (NDAA 2013).

edit on 17-11-2012 by Guyfriday because: Fixed a small item



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills

Originally posted by jazzguy
im glad you're happy.

to me theres nothing this rat can do that will undo the damage he has done.

only reason i care to even look at articles like this is that he has the famous Paul surname


You better get over him endorsing Romney instead of his dad because he is the last Paul in Washington and the closest thing to a conscience since his dad left. Rand must now fulfill his fathers shoes or else ALL hope is truly lost. Time to forgive.


Indeed, Rand most likely endorsed Romney on his fathers advise to do so. Thats the feeling i get of it at least.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


1.Rand Paul endorses Mitt Romney



2.Sen. Rand Paul Explains His Vote In Favor Of Sanctions On Iran

www.dailypaul.com...

3..Rand Paul Just Added an Abortion Clause to the Flood Insurance Bill - Federal abortion ban


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is lambasting Republican Sen. Rand Paul for injecting a last-minute debate over abortion into a bipartisan attempt to pass flood insurance legislation.

"After all the work that's been put on this bill, this is ridiculous that somebody said 'I'm not going to let this bill go forward unless I have a vote on when life begins.'" Reid said Tuesday on the Senate floor.

On Monday, Paul introduced the amendment, which calls for defining life as beginning at conception. The bill at large would re-authorize the National Flood Insurance Program, a federal entity that offers flood insurance to more than 5 million homes.


politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

4. Rand Paul hating on Obama over his pro-gay marriage stance


articles.latimes.com...

5. Senator-Elect Rand Paul Breaks Tea Party Pledge, Now Vows To ‘Fight’ For Earmarks




Father and son, age 47, have different styles. Asked what he wanted to do in Washington in a Wednesday morning television interview, the senator-elect said that his kids were hoping to meet the Obama girls. He has made other concessions to the mainstream. He now avoids his dad’s talk of shuttering the Federal Reserve and abolishing the income tax. In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad “symbol” of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky’s share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it’s doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. “I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests,” he says.

So you’re not a crazy libertarian? “Not that crazy,” he cracks.

Rand Paul’s new-found support for earmarks marks a stark flip from his anti-earmark position he held as recently as yesterday. On ABC’s This Week, host Christiane Amanpour pushed Paul on the ways he’d cut spending. When she asked about earmarks, Paul declared “no more earmarks”:

AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?

PAUL: No — no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget.


thinkprogress.org...



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


1 and 2 I knew about.
3 Just a thought, maybe he did it to garner support for his S3359 bill?

4 I really don't care about gay marriage at all, I am against marriage contracts with the government.

5 I think earmarks should be done away with completely.

I don't expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time. I will have to keep an eye on Rand, to know whether I really like the guy or not. So far, so good, as far as voting on bills is concerned. I would say I agree with at least 75% of his votes, which is pretty decent.

I could care less about the "tea party" and their opinions of anything. I quit the TP not too long after palin spoke at a TP event, it was pretty clear by that point our movement was hijacked.

Oh yeah, thanks for putting up some specifics though, I am sure that will help other people make a more informed decision about Rand as well.
edit on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:44:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Cult of personality around the Pauls, please get off it.







??

I don't know where you're coming from all high and mighty. I do believe I've called you out in several threads already to back up what you say with facts and you always conveniently disappear.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
im glad you're happy.

to me theres nothing this rat can do that will undo the damage he has done.

only reason i care to even look at articles like this is that he has the famous Paul surname



yeah rand is a puppet, in my opinion...

although if he can pull this off then he may be on to something positve



Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement
confront Rand Paul on endorsing a Goldman Sachs flip flopping war mongering Bilderberg puppet.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cornucopia
 


I dislike that kind of reporting. It's got to be really annoying to be ambushed, then followed like that. He tells them politely right off the bat that he is busy and to make an appointment to do a proper interview. I stopped watching there. I wouldn't like to be ambushed like that, would you?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


1) Romney endorsement, Rand always said he would endorse the GOP nominee, it shouldn't have come to a surprise at anybody, unless you were hoping for a different outcome than was already stated. This is inarguable.

So why are we holding Rand Paul to something he never said he wouldn't do?


2) Voted for Iran sanctions, I don't know one Ron Paul/non-interventionist supporter that doesn't already disagree with this, we often say as does Ron Paul, sanctions are an act of war. I'm sure Ron was not happy about it one bit. One thing is for a fact, Rand Paul has always said he is not exactly like his father when it comes to foreign policy. That is why he is bearable to Republicans where Ron Paul could never get any favorability from the neocons.

So why are we holding Rand Paul to something he never said he wouldn't do?

3) As for defining life at conception, it is obviously something the left does not tolerate and can be viewed as sneaky but would Rand Paul actively fight states that want their abortion? No. The federal level criminalized drugs but do the Pauls actively argue that states can't go their own route regarding drug decriminalization? No, in fact they cheer states rights. Whats the difference?

So why are we holding Rand Paul to something he never said he wouldn't do?

4) Yes, first I encourage everybody to watch the clip and notice how outrageous it really is. The TYT guy claims Rand Paul labels himself a libertarian, but thats actually not the case. Rand Paul does not identify as a libertarian.
www.time.com...

Second, not only that but it is his and his fathers' views that the government should have no part in how a church conducts their marriage, you can't force a religion to bend to the states' wishes. I know plenty of gay people right here in Southern California that agree with Ron Paul's stance, they think the government being involved with marriage is ridiculous. If a church wants to allow gay marriage (and I know some that do) LET THEM. If they don't want to allow (and there are plenty of examples of those) THEN LET THEM.

Third, he was poking fun at Obama's opportunism.

5) I think the Q&A explained itself quite well. If you understand what earmarks are for, you understand any politician earmarking for their constituents and nothing else. If you don't understand earmarks, you also don't understand what happens when they are unaccounted for. Come on people, this is politics 101.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by cornucopia

Originally posted by jazzguy
im glad you're happy.

to me theres nothing this rat can do that will undo the damage he has done.

only reason i care to even look at articles like this is that he has the famous Paul surname



yeah rand is a puppet, in my opinion...

although if he can pull this off then he may be on to something positve



Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement
confront Rand Paul on endorsing a Goldman Sachs flip flopping war mongering Bilderberg puppet.

www.youtube.com...



Seriously? Its not like you don't already know his (and of course his fathers') positions on Bilderberg.

They've talked about it before, its on youtube...LOOK for it, you'll find it, I promise.

And yes Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney, like he always said he would. I don't understand why people make a big fuss out of this. I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter and I wasn't even surprised the day he dropped the endorsement. He was talking about it from day one.

The only reason why people are shocked is because they believed and hoped that he would do something different from what he has always said he would do.

Shockingly, he already discussed this with Peter Schiff and shockingly, its been on youtube since the week after his endorsement of Romney. Peter Schiff even titled the video: Rand's Romney Strategy.

Come on guys, don't be blind, Rand Paul went from being a doctor to running for senate because he saw his father make some real headway in his movement. How many of you really think Rand Paul got into politics just to advance his career? His career was in medicine.


edit on 17-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


1. Make some more excuses


So why are we holding Rand Paul to something he never said he wouldn't do?


That isn't the point. The point is Rand Paul is nearly just like all the other republicans policy wise but is held to some gold standard.

2.

Rand Paul has always said he is not exactly like his father when it comes to foreign policy. That is why he is bearable to Republicans where Ron Paul could never get any favorability from the neocons. So why are we holding Rand Paul to something he never said he wouldn't do?


This is about judging his war mongering tyrannical actions and condemning them.... Not going off what Rand said he'd do.

Your argument is equivalent to a neo-con saying, well, Mitt Romney always said he WOULD sign the NDAA act, so why hold him to something that he admits to. Can you see how ridiculous you sound now to people outside the cult?

3. a.You can't try to ban abortion on a federal level and be states rights.

b.You also can't go on about or liberty while trying to ban abortion.


The TYT guy claims Rand Paul labels himself a libertarian, but thats actually not the case. Rand Paul does not identify as a libertarian.


But Rand just said he was in the interview in my previous post. The guy flipflops like crazy...
And you're ignoring the meat and potatoes, which is that Rand claims to be for liberty but is VERY willing to deny gay people equal rights.


Second, not only that but it is his and his fathers' views that the government should have no part in how a church conducts their marriage, you can't force a religion to bend to the states' wishes. I


Um, marriage licenses come directly from the state, not a church. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage unless you make it, not the other way around. Pretending that the state isn't involved currently is just living in a fantasy world. Voting against gay marriage is directly voting against freedom for ALL.

Ron and Rand both do not believe in gay marriage because of their religion, they use the state involvement thing as an excuse. And it's not even a good one....


I think the Q&A explained itself quite well. If you understand what earmarks are for, you understand any politician earmarking for their constituents and nothing else. If you don't understand earmarks, you also don't understand what happens when they are unaccounted for. Come on people, this is politics 101.


So just ignore his flip flopping now despite all the "So why are we holding Rand Paul to something he never said he wouldn't do" in you previous answers ? This is just getting pathetic. Free market 101, earmarks aren't involved.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



And yes Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney, like he always said he would. I don't understand why people make a big fuss out of this. I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter and I wasn't even surprised the day he dropped the endorsement. He was talking about it from day one.


Endorsing Mitt Romney......no big deal. He might as well endorse Obama next. Who cares about being surprised about it? That's not the point, you kind of miss points a lot. I don't get your logic.


The only reason why people are shocked is because they believed and hoped that he would do something different from what he has always said he would do.


Who cares about people being shocked? Again you're missing the WHOLE POINT of the situation. You're caught up on peoples emotions about it more than the actual act of endorsement.... When Randy endorsed Mitt he endorsed Goldman Sachs and Bilderberg at the same time.


Shockingly, he already discussed this with Peter Schiff and shockingly, its been on youtube since the week after his endorsement of Romney. Peter Schiff even titled the video: Rand's Romney Strategy.


Rands strategy = political hackery


Come on guys, don't be blind, Rand Paul went from being a doctor to running for senate because he saw his father make some real headway in his movement. How many of you really think Rand Paul got into politics just to advance his career? His career was in medicine.


WOW. You're blind. You can make much more money off politics than being a doctor EASILY. This also made him "famous" and fed his ego of self importance. It's really easy to see that Rand Paul saw his opportunity of a glamorous, much easier, and much more money making career and took it.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Rand is just another play along politician.

Being realistic has nothing to do with endorsing a crooked establishment shill. Ron did not endorse McCain...Rand...you are full of it. You want to move up the GOP ladder and you couldn't do it without endorsing the crook.

Rand is not a substitute for his dad. It's a shame that the fruit has fallen so far from the tree.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
How sad that there has to be a discusion and legislative action just to uphold the constitution.

I love my country. But more and more, I fear my government. I'm scared of them. Say the wrong thing and you disappear. Constitution be damned.

I'll feel better after going out to my friends property and we all flaunt the second amendment by shooting out AK-47's, AK-74, mosins and AR-15's and various pistols.

Let's hope that one day we don't have to do this in secret whilst looking over our shoulders.
edit on 17-11-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
zxc
edit on 18-11-2012 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


How dare you call Rand Paul a rat? meanwhile your a worthless nothing commenting from the sidelines.






top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join