The filibuster

It is nothing to do with disagreement. It is the reason the person using it. Stop thinking of it being me. Because then I would think that you are against voter id and for killing babies who survived abortions. And I doubt you are like that. Think of what the filibuster is doing. For instance is the filibuster doing it to prevent a bad law from going in or the opposite? And think of what Rand Paul was doing to prevent drone strikes against American citizens in America and of course if they are allowed, that would make the FBI and the police very lazy. I am for filibusters, because in most case, they are used to prevent bad laws coming in. It also makes people think. That is, those who were for drone strikes might think "well it might go too far and even though we want to kill that evil terrorist, he might be holding a family captive, and we cannot have that."

Allow the filibuster when you agree with the person doing it, but not when you disagree? No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. Either both sides can use it, or neither.

I get your point, but if one side can use the filibuster to prevent a bad law, the other side has equal right to use it to prevent a good law. It's frustrating, but if you allow the filibuster, it's a frustration that you just have to deal with.

Of course it started with Obama. Bush never threatened to use drones to kill American citizens on American soil. He never implied that he would even consider such a thing.

I was referring to drones in general, not their use against American citizens specifically. The use of drones started with George W. Bush.

I agree with you on the drones, but I would point out that it didn't start with Obama.

What if that vote puts a man in office who believes it's ok to murder American citizens, on American soil, using military drones, without being charged with a crime?

A matter of principle - if you could use it to prevent a vote for something that was morally abhorrent to you, wouldn't you?

Well let's just use the example that Taskr mentioned above. Obama's choice for CIA Director. There was questioning about the use of drones to kill people the US government had targeted, including American citizens. He basically ducked all the questions on the subject. So there was a filibuster to try and prevent a vote on confirming him. I assume it was a matter of conscience for the Senator doing the filibuster, and possibly, since his party is in the minority, he felt that it was the best way for his party to have some control. The filibuster ended though, so I'm not sure what it accomplished.

one small step

Sadly, all too true...

The US is not a democracy. You should have learned that in grade school. The constitution makes it very clear how our government works and it's not a simple majority rule system as that would be two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Does the idea of a filibuster really bother you more than the idea of murdering American citizens, on American soil, who have not been charged with, much less convicted of a crime, just because the president unilaterally decides to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Tell me, do you think that's constitutional? Have you ever read the 5th amendment? "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am5.html

The US is not a democracy. If it were, we would be directly voting for laws, as opposed to voting for representatives who vote for use. As for the filibuster, it is hilarious how the Democrats hate it when the Republicans have the majority, and vice versa.

I get your point, how come that logic does not work towards the working class? Hell I rather them bomb the sh@t out of me than taking all the rights away that makes life worth living. People freak out about this stuff but they let people with money screw us royally. Why aren't Constitutionalist defending that point of view?

Which is why I didn't sign the petition.

Crossbones, I don't think you realize how easy it is to convince people to accept things like what the Nazis did. FDR threw Americans in concentration camps and you didn't see revolution or riots in the streets. Even today, ignorant morons proclaim him one of the greatest presidents ever despite his use of concentration camps. Now we have a president who feels he has the right to murder American citizens on American soil using military drones. As you can see, most Americans just don't care. I don't see anything crazy about a man doing everything in his power to bring crap like that to light. We know that the left wing media outlets are covering for the president and the left in this country doesn't trust Fox News so he had to do everything in his power to make sure the American people knew exactly what was going on.

I think it does do one thing and that is you are being genuine about the cause on which you are talking about. I do not know many many people that can ramble on about something for so many hours, unless they have a passion for subject the are talking about In that way I can respect what they people are doing. The thing is I have now only heard 2 people do this. One was Bernie Sanders which is considered one of the top senators in the country even though he is a self proclaimed socialist and now Rand Paul. The difference between the two is Bernie Sanders (whether you agree or not with his view points) seems to have a logical approach to life where Rand Paul just seems a bit crazy. I know I only watched the highlights of Rand Paul's Filibuster but when you start talking about how Americans might turn to Nazism 30 minutes in. The person appears to be a bit paranoid and are adding problems to the situation that is not needed. Bernie Sanders might of said some off the wall crap when he did his filibuster but it did not make me queasy to my stomach. I am sure this is just personal preference on where your view points stand Ideologically though. As they say, "It takes one to know one."

I think maybe I would have no problem with the filibuster if people actually stood their and talked for days. At least then, I would know then they are not playing politics. I am sure somehow people would find a way to corrupt that too.

All countries have their problems...

he did stop, but I suppose he made a point...

He also, indirectly made it painfully obvious the difference between the Old Guard GOP and the new Tea Party GOP. Some are saying he breathed new life into the Grand Ol' Party.

I assume many times, they tell a bunch of junk. As to think of something to talk about for 13 hours. has to be hard..