Rand Paul threatens to filibuster again, this time over guns

reply to post by eXia7

I hope we have a lot of people like him running in 2016, and hopefully they can shake up congress by mid terms, there is a lot of corruption to expose, so I hope more people are willing to step up and fill this role before its too late.

They most definitely need to clean house.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I really love what Thomas Jefferson said, that bills should not be voted on until they were made public and sat for a period of 1 year without a single word changed. And if they wanted to have information changed it needed a 2/3 vote and the bill would sit another year in public for all to view.

I was shocked when heard that they need a policy telling them to read before voting. Are they children? Do they need mommy to supervise them?

Seems as though common sense is becoming rarer as time passes.

I think Rand Paul's stand on some issues, some that can't be discussed here, will bring the younger votes to him in droves. He may be a force to be reckoned with come 2016.

I do know the Kentucky Agriculture crowd is behind him all the way.

Des

Here is a video interview with Alex Jones that Rand did a little while back, he discusses a wide variety of topics



It's Alex Jones, who cares, he actually lets Rand speak. it's worth a listen if you get some time.

Ted Cruz Grilling Eric Holder for not answering a specific question regarding drone use.

reply to post by eXia7


Yes, Good on him.

I hope that he does.

The best part is that if Rand Paul and company do this they will more than likely do like the first time. Actually stand up and speak out. The fairy tales that get told need to be rebuffed. Also on my wish list is Rand Paul calling out Eric Holder on Fast & Furious. I believe that is a important part of put this all in perspective.

reply to post by eXia7

Rand/Cruz 2016? I am a fan of both just based on their willingness to stand up and speak out for what is right.

Thanks for the videos, I am watching the second one now.

Originally posted by Destinyone
I think Rand Paul's stand on some issues, some that can't be discussed here, will bring the younger votes to him in droves. He may be a force to be reckoned with come 2016.

I do know the Kentucky Agriculture crowd is behind him all the way.

Des

edit on 29-3-2013 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

Yes, just like the younger voters flocked to Ron Paul..oh wait

reply to post by Cynicaleye

Yes, just like the younger voters flocked to Ron Paul..oh wait

You might have missed the point. I think Des is spot on with that observation.

What she is referring to cannot be discussed here. Think about it and I'm sure it will come to you, if you closely follow the news, anyway.

Go, Rand! Thus far he definitely has my vote for POTUS, 2016.

For the millionth time, while I appreciate Rubio will also be joining in on the gun control filibuster, I see him as being quite phony....AND HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!! Please see Minor vs. Happersett which defines natural born citizen:

Born in the Country to parents (PLURAL) who themselves are citizens.

Rubio's parents were NOT citizens when he was born; ditto Jindal. Cruz was born out of country, etc.

Attorney Apuzzo has many articles concerning 'natural born citizen'. Also see Law of Nations (Vattel).

To be honest, there are times when I see Rubio and/or other ineligible candidates pushed as viable candidates, when I think the one pushing is quite aware that these people are NOT eligible. Sometimes I let it go...but not often...

...AND there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen...

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

Yes, just like the younger voters flocked to Ron Paul..oh wait

You might have missed the point. I think Des is spot on with that observation.

What she is referring to cannot be discussed here. Think about it and I'm sure it will come to you, if you closely follow the news, anyway.

edit on 29-3-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)

I would think it could be discussed in the context of a political platform or issue, not so much as a street pharmaceutical topic.

Im glad we have people like Rand still in Congress. Although I dont agree with him as much as his father, I would like to see him on the 2016 ticket. Hopefully all this anti 2nd amendment stuff gets tossed in the trash, and the anti gunners get voted out next election.

At the moment, Im also glad I voted for Cruz. First Republican senator Ive ever voted for. Although he has only been there for a few months, he really did what he said he would do. Only a few months and he's already got a ton of coverage by the media. I wouldnt go for a Paul/Cruz ticket yet though. Paul definantly, but Cruz is still pretty new and Im still waiting to see what else he does over the next few years. If he keeps it up like he has been doing, then I'll gladly go for a Paul/Cruz ticket.

For those, like me, who don't live in the US, the argument that if the people have more weapons they'll be safer from the government seems really strange. I don't think handguns and assault rifles will do much to defend anyone's freedom against the US military. If there ever was a coup in the US, the sheer power of the US military will blast away any armed opposition before it has time to organize itself. You know, you can turn your house into a fortress, but it all it really takes to burn it down is a few gallons of gasoline. The US is the country where civilizians have the most weapons in the world, and that hasn't stopped the US from the country with the highest prision population in the world, or from being one of the few countries that has sentenced mentally ill and underaged people to death. The Republican and Democrat party serve the same masters: the bourgeoise. I think this whole debate that has taken the US media is just a distraction from what really is important to the ruling class.

Originally posted by BrazilianAnarchist
For those, like me, who don't live in the US, the argument that if the people have more weapons they'll be safer from the government seems really strange. I don't think handguns and assault rifles will do much to defend anyone's freedom against the US military. If there ever was a coup in the US, the sheer power of the US military will blast away any armed opposition before it has time to organize itself. You know, you can turn your house into a fortress, but it all it really takes to burn it down is a few gallons of gasoline. The US is the country where civilizians have the most weapons in the world, and that hasn't stopped the US from the country with the highest prision population in the world, or from being one of the few countries that has sentenced mentally ill and underaged people to death. The Republican and Democrat party serve the same masters: the bourgeoise. I think this whole debate that has taken the US media is just a distraction from what really is important to the ruling class.

You seem to under estimate the resourcefulness of our people, we have a lot of retired and active military that would most certainly defend from tyranny if it all kicked off. The popular belief is that the US military wouldn't be turning on it's citizens, it would most likely be DHS or the UN under agenda 21.

As far as having the highest prison populations, that's because most people convicted of crimes are often drug related, alcohol related, or many other petty penal offenses. Not everybody in our prisons are in for a violent crime, especially specifically just "gun crime" as your statement implies.

reply to post by eXia7


Despite being able to relate to the Democrats when it comes to gun control (really who needs more than a hand gun for self defense anyway) I have to tip my hat to Rand Paul. These gun control measures wouldn't really do much aside from increasing the power of the bureaucracy.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by eXia7

 

Rand/Cruz 2016? I am a fan of both just based on their willingness to stand up and speak out for what is right.

Thanks for the videos, I am watching the second one now.

Wow talk about a power combo. I like this.

oops eligibility problem. Born in Canada, Cuban dad.... Or course that never stopped Obama and his buddies, but who cares about rules right?

Either Obama is dumber than a box of rocks or he really is a sociopath taking orders from above. I am leaning on the second possibility more and more each day. After all the "mistakes" he made in his first term, starting off the second with such ill intentions is beyond belief.

I am starting to dislike liberals more than conservatives. Scary!!

Way to go Obama. Give bailouts left and right, start more proxy wars, take guns away, make the debt skyrocket.

As for Rand Paul he is desperately needed to correct for Bush Jr "mistakes". The previous globalist shill.

Clinton was the last half-way decent president we had.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by eXia7

 

Rand/Cruz 2016? I am a fan of both just based on their willingness to stand up and speak out for what is right.

Thanks for the videos, I am watching the second one now.

Wow talk about a power combo. I like this.

oops eligibility problem. Born in Canada, Cuban dad.... Or course that never stopped Obama and his buddies, but who cares about rules right?

edit on 31-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I guess I hadn't considered that.

I just took my two favorites at the moment and smashed them together.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by eXia7

 

Rand/Cruz 2016? I am a fan of both just based on their willingness to stand up and speak out for what is right.

Thanks for the videos, I am watching the second one now.

Wow talk about a power combo. I like this.

oops eligibility problem. Born in Canada, Cuban dad.... Or course that never stopped Obama and his buddies, but who cares about rules right?

edit on 31-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

At least Rand/Cruz seem to have good intentions whereas Obama does not. Rules tend to matter for those that are not politically connected enough.