Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

The most dangerous words in America are "the debate continues".

This country has no concern for expedient action to achieve solutions. We only believe in Rand Paul filibustering, talking about nothing instead of being solution oriented. In what other country would a Senator speak for 13 hours just because he wants to see the President from the opposition party fail?

Report as

One of the things that makes America unique is its constitution. No other country protects the rights of the individual like America does. Most governments are in charge of deciding what is the law of the land but in America the people are in charge and speak to the government through their representatives. When the leadership becomes tyrannical by declaring changes to the law (or constitution) the people have the right , and responsibility, to speak out in disagreement personally and through their representatives. The constitution establishes that right and guarantees my freedom to buy a gun and defend those rights if my government refuses to do so. Only in America! The land of the free :)

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Yes I agree but Rand Paul's filibuster was to get a definite answer to - will the president be able to take out a US citizen on US soil if he deems him to be a terrorist without due process of a trial. Rand stood up for all of us and should be thanked by both left and right. He is a hero and the kind of person we all need to represent our interests in the senate.
Eric Holder finally sent an email to him with the answer of NO they can not legally do this.
Report as
Yes but when you glorify the gridlock that free speech produces where nothing seemingly ever gets done without 50 years of hot air it's awful. Free speech is fine, but it will always result in gridlock. It's one of the reasons we have a crumbling infrastructure in the U.S., so far behind all the other industrialized nations that it's a joke.
Report as
Gridlock is good when policy is bad
Report as
Add a comment...

That's your view !

Helpful (4) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
It's not just my view. It's facts.
Report as
If your here to slam America in some way , go home !
Report as
Your facts are wrong. If we allowed a president to be judge, jury and executioner, you might not be too happy when the next president might consider all liberals to be terrorists. Like Reno said that Tea Party members, returning vets or those that love the constitution could be terrorists.
Rand Paul stood up for the Constitutional rights of all Americans with his 13 hour filibuster to get a definite NO from Eric Holder that they legally could not take a citizen out on US soil, unless of course they were in the act of committing terror.
Report as
Who are you talking too ?
Report as
Add a comment...

I am not as important as an American "Senator", but I feel it is so difficult for so many of us to take reasonably, and they could refuse to admit a very simple reason and try to distort it!!! :-)

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (10)
Report as
You are as important as any Senator or even the president. They work for us.
Report as
thank you very much, then maybe it is difficult for anyone to discuss with others?
Report as
It is difficult because too many people have there minds made up and rather than discussing things in a civil manner they resort to personal attacks and to insulting and belittling opposing points of view.
Report as
Thank you. Maybe we could set some rules and let people discuss some cases openly and seriously on media, and there are even some judgers to tell who is right and why he is right.
Report as
Interesting idea. They do have rules of procedure in the Senate regarding when it is appropriate to speak, how long they can speak and then they vote. If enough members vote for a particular speaker to be finished they have what is called cloture.
In our United States Government we have Congress who Debate and vote on law. This is the legislative branch. We have the President and he (or maybe she someday) is the head of the Executive branch meaning they carry out that which has been decided by the people and the Legislative branch. Finally we have the Judicial branch consisting of The Supreme Court and other courts who's job it is to decide if legislation or executive action is lawful according to our Constitution which is the Supreme Law of The Land. Unfortunately because of corruption, pride and greed, things don't always work the way they should.
As individuals we have free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution. This means that no government entity is supposed to tell us what we can say. They cannot throw us in jail or punish us for speaking our minds about our government or anything else. This sometimes (mostly because of pride I think) leads people to be rude and insulting to each other. This is unfortunate but we value our right to free speech so we put up with some of the unpleasantries that go with it.
Report as
I don't think it would be a good idea for the government to regulate what kinds of things the media say other than not allowing obscenity. Media bias is something that does exist and it is up to each of us to decide what political beliefs we accept or reject.
It would be nice if we could be polite to each other and not resort to personal insults but what I do when things start getting hostile is to stop interacting with those people because they are not going to change their minds and you can't get someone to change what they believe by insulting them. There is no constructive purpose in continuing to interact with such a person.
Report as
Thank you for your detailed explanation JDBoDean. What I said is just a kind of debate on some problems in our society depends on real facts or something we have to obey. If it is not official some peronal insults have to happen during the debate, which could partly because that the facts might not be reliable.
Report as
Yes, I understand. We do have some structured debates with moderators keeping track of time limits and making sure the participants adhere to the rules of the debate. The Presidential Debates are an example of this and even then people question whether or not they are fair.
Report as
When we have some important problems, I think It is important that there are some rules we must follow when we debate, and make it officially recorded to avoid redundant debate.

I know it is difficult, because even everything is written, most of people won't read through and start to speak.
Report as
When there are judgers in the debate, the one who ask redunant question should not continue, and everybody who want to talk have to read through.
Report as
Add a comment...

In no other country. That's what makes America so grand. Given, our parties representatives are bloated, self-serving swine, but in what other country would gonzo journalism-style critique of it's leaders not get us killed?

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (10)
Report as
Define grand and if your idea of greatness is that we can talk without getting killed you're a pinhead. You can't eat free speech, putz!!
Report as
Define grand,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ok............
A M E R I C A !
Report as
'Grand' was meant with a slight tinge of sarcasm, as I do understand your constantly posted political tantrum throwing a bit. But the antisemit bull**** you always preach on this site gets old fast, destroying the credibility of anything you say. I was a follower of your last profile.
Report as
Give me facts, not slogans.
Report as
Same here, buddy.
Report as
So, no response? Don't sweat, pal, I've been in your shoes before. Political extremism is a recipe for disaster, especially when you're not active in anything other than running your mouth. I can picture you, wasting away your nights pouring over every Thompson book you own, sprinkled with bits of Bukowski, to even out the bourbon fueled rage. How old are you? Nineteen, or thirty five? By the way, the Yankees suck. BOSTON!!
Report as
Owww cummon Texas is wayyyy better
Report as
Lol!
Report as
No I'm serious Texas is better
Report as
Grrrrrrrr. .
Report as
Add a comment...

Yes he did want to see the president fail at being able to just kill US citizens on US soil for the only reason that they might be a terrorist. (Not in the act of committing terror.) Rand Paul did this for all of us, left or right. He wasn't getting a definite answer that they would not legally be able to do this so his 13 hour rant got the answer we should all be thankful for, a NO. Every citizen should be thanking Rand Paul for standing with the rights of all Americans.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I think we should all be thanking him for prying that answer out of holder that americans would not me killed on American soil

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
Be*
Report as
Add a comment...

He's gearing up to run for Prez in the next campaign, it was all a political move to gain media time...

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Finally your rant ends with a question albeit an argumentative one. Why don't you get down off of your soap box and find out how our government works? We need more people like Rand Paul who are willing to stand up for the Constitution. If we actually went by the Constitution things would work better. Sometimes it's more dangerous to say "The debate is over." Than "The debate continues."
Do you think it's ok for a President to kill American citizens just because he thinks they might be involved in terrorist activity? Do you think it's ok to ask the President to give a clear answer to that question?
Do you think filibusters are good when Democrats do them but bad when Republicans do? Do you think it's ok for a Democrat to violate the 5th Amendment? How about a Republican?

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Isn't the filibuster just such a grand way for a self important little man to feel big? Especially when he has already gotten the answers he purportedly wants, they were just multi syllable so he didn't get it.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (9)
Report as
The answers he got were smartass and inconclusive. He wanted real answers and an acknowledgement that killing American citizens not engaged in war against the United States without due process would not be done. Not by any President.
Report as
He got answers everybody else understood.
Report as
Would you have been satisfied with those answers from the Bush Administration? I wouldn't have and I was not in favor of some provisions of the Patriot Act. I wanted him held accountable as well. Both sides are playing games and I don't like it.
Report as
I would have been satisfied with any of the original answers, even from bush and I believe the patriot act needs to go away
Report as
Boo you are a hypocrite
Report as
And whom ever is POTUS I don't want drones flying around watching us
Report as
It's creepy stalinistic bull
Report as
Sure bud, whatever you say
Report as
Ok.....
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches