This wasn't a filibuster

Badger Paul said:
"The senate rules limit debate to one hour at a time for a total of 25 hours. The article fails to highlight Paul's true strategy, which was to delay the vote as long as possible for the public to be able to apply pressure. If 6 additional (traitorous) Republicans had voted nay to cloture then it would have been delayed another 25 hours. And so on until you get to Nov 5, or whatever day the debt ceiling is reached and we go into default (which is a fantasy of another thread).
i wish they still taught civics... "

No kidding! And it takes longer than a brief speech to do it. What pressure was on those GOP Senators to vote against the deal? Hmmm? Hear anything on talk radio? Limabugh say anything? National Review? Glenn Beck? Bill O'Reilly? Hmmm?

Reminds me of an old saying: "You want some, ya got to bring some!"
Click to expand...
That's up to We The People to bring the pressure...he was all over Fox, CNN, various right wing blogs. Let it not be said that we did nothing...unless we do nothing. Did you call your Senators?
 
You mean the one Democrat who was a sure vote for the deal and the one Republican who was a sure vote against it? Figured my vote got cancelled out
 
OK, it wasn't a filibuster... It was a feel-a-buster! Trying to get the American sheeple to wake up and start paying attention about getting our house in order! Rand does much better on the Senate floor and I'm quite delighted as how he speaks when he's there (it would pleasantly surprise me if he's able to do this in the next debate, that is provided that the moderators actually do their job and let underdogs like Rand speak when he's supposed to!) :D:toady::cool:
 
derek4ever said:
OK, it wasn't a filibuster... It was a feel-a-buster! Trying to get the American sheeple to wake up and start paying attention about getting our house in order! Rand does much better on the Senate floor and I'm quite delighted as how he speaks when he's there (it would pleasantly surprise me if he's able to do this in the next debate, that is provided that the moderators actually do their job and let underdogs like Rand speak when he's supposed to!) :D:toady::cool:
Click to expand...

Underdogs? GTFO!
 
Well, aren't we underdogs? We are because we have to deal with the beltway all the time. I don't let the media brainwash me at all, since i've been very critical of them since i woke up un 06. Besides, have any of you checked the post i put un the rand at 2% thread the other day, saying that rand has the potential to over perform just like ron did in 2012!
 
fcreature said:
Why are you spreading outright lies?
Click to expand...

All he does here is attack Rand and promote his rivals.

The other day he was shilling for Bernie Sanders...

:rolleyes:

Presumably he's one of the many anti-war leftists who took a liking to Ron without ever understanding libertarianism.
 
Badger Paul said:
Well I tell you all what, you all call Amber Phillips at the Washington Post and demand she retract this story if indeed a lie (not misinterpretation, an outright falsehood) and I will certainly apologize for posting it.

However, even if it was one hour, in the annals of Senate filibusters it's a drop in the bucket. There have been entire speeches that were not filibusters that went longer. It's hard to fight the good fight when the fix is in (all set-up by the same man who endorsed him for President. Glad to see it meant something:rolleyes:) I understand that. But what pisses me off is a another lackluster effort in the wake of a build up. I'm sure some were expecting an epic showdown, lasting for over 24 hours and hoping that talk radio hosts and others would whip the old outrage machine together and flood Capitol Hill with phone calls and find six Senators to change their minds and stop the budget. Didn't happen, not even close.

Why I'm trying to prevent is grassroots supporters being taken advantage again both emotionally and physically. My Lord, people in Louisiana got their bones broken trying to get Ron Paul delegates at the state conventions in 2012 only to have them traded away in a crooked-assed backroom deal to keep Ron Paul from being nominated from the floor. I don't want to see that ever again. I don't want to see the campaign rake in contributions for an effort they weren't prepared to give or even try to do. You see what I'm getting at? If there are still people connected with Rand who see this as a way to make money by staging stunts like this and then not have any meaningful impact, I want no part of it. But I will blow the whistle if only to shine the light on if not purge such grifters from the Revolution.

As for being a troll, all I can say is if standing for six hours in 96 degree heat handing out Ron Paul brochures during the Iowa Straw Poll of '07 and getting signatures for him in minus -11 degree weather in January of 2012 to get him on the Wisconsin primary ballot isn't evidence enough of devotion, then I don't know what is. All I know is I smell something rotten and I'm going to say so.
Click to expand...

Go fuck yourself
 
Last edited:
Gladly, just give me instructions. A cocksucker like you should know how.

How about we call you the Dick Morris of Ron Paul Forums? I think that fits.
 
Since we've upgraded the level of this thread from sandbox to high school hallway, I would like to use the words of one poster on another thread on recent events to make my larger point:

"That's why the campaign should jump on this. I watched Rand's speech to the Iowa GOP today, (huge crowd of elderly white voters) and while he railed against this budget deal, there was no mention of raiding social security.

Indeed. Here was a great opportunity for Rand to make breakthrough with voters who, quite frankly, don't like him very much. I doubt very much Social Secruity recipients like the idea of their money going into the general fund to pay for things that politicians want. And if your Rand, you say it like this: "They're taking the money supposedly set aside for you and your children and your grand children and spending it on undeclared wars, spending on subsidies which put small farms out of business, sending on useless studies, spending it on pork. You can't reduce the size of government when Social security becomes the biggest piggy bank of all the politicians use to feed their appetities. But you vote for me and I'll make sure this practice stops and your money is safe."

See? Pretty simple. Yet he doesn't mention it. Just like he barely mentioned in passing the budget deal or filibuster during the last debate and here before a group of senior citizens in Iowa he doesn't mention the effort he made against raiding Social Security surpluses. My Lord, if isn't wasn't for Mike Lee we wouldn't have a brief video to go viral. Did this come from Rand Paul's Senate office? No.

Here we are, political amateurs, and we see these opportunities that the "professionals" let pass by. And their response and the response of others is just to make more phone calls? I'm sure Jeb Bush has a pretty extensive campaign organization (which he should with all that money) yet he's getting his clock cleaned because he's aterrible candidate and no amount of "organization" and money can fix that. And Rand is headed towards the same fate unless he changes and siezes these opportunities that we all see but apparently he doesn't or, quite frankly, doesn't want to. He's certainly not stupid, so the answer must lie somewhere.
 
so things don't go your way in here, you find it appropriate in your mind to trash Rand in a Rand Paul Forum....the answer lies in your head....

you either get behind Rand, or you do not...and the reasons you do, or do not is your right to do so...either way. Tell me, who are you really supporting?...be truthful. If you say Rand, then send the motherfucker some BIG bucks on the 5th and post your donation here,...or GTFO...
 
PCKY said:
Filibusters, by definition, are delay tactics. Since the rules change in 1917 (Woodrow Wilson anyone?) it is some tactic to delay invoking cloture, which ends debate. It is almost never a talking filibuster. It's about strategy and leverage.
Here is the process: McConnell files a motion for unanimous consent to end debate (this is an important part of the rule that Wilson got changed). Paul objects and invokes the filibuster. The rule then calls for a delay of 1 day + 1hour to continue debate. Prior to Wilson, Senators could drag debate out for months. Republicans were doing this in 1917 to delay the vote to go to war.
At the end of that time, it takes 60 votes to break the filibuster, which is why Rand needed 41 nays to continue the filibuster (delay).
Here is the strategy: Push the opposing side (in this case McConnell) as close to the default date (November 5?) so he can try to get public pressure to vote against the bill. The test vote was to see if Rand's filibuster could be broken.
The poster who started this thread needs to do some homework on what a filibuster actually is and why it can be used to delay/derail bad legislation. Rand did the right thing and 63 of his colleagues didn't.
Click to expand...

You're wrong because the writer of the article said so and if she doesn't admit fault, then Badger is right.

I do believe that is Badger's thought process.
 
"If you say Rand, then send the motherfucker some BIG bucks on the 5th and post your donation here,...or GTFO..."

Oh, so now I need an admission fee to be a supporter of Rand Paul? Terrific! I guess my $25 donation doesn't count then because I'm not a BIG bucks donor am I? My apologies for being a poor political junkie. I hope you gave to the max asshole.

"you either get behind Rand, or you do not...and the reasons you do, or do not is your right to do so...either way. Tell me, who are you really supporting?...be truthful."

Paranoid aren't we? Given what I believe who the hell am I supposed to support for President then? All I'm doing is simply expressing the concern I and I'm sure others have this campaign from the candidate himself has been less than a 100 percent effort and may well wind up another giant sucking machine designed to part donors from their for little in return as what happened at the end of the 2012 campaign. As I said I don't want to see that happen again. If my words light a fire under Rand and claque, well then that's what I hoped for.
 
Badger Paul said:
"If you say Rand, then send the motherfucker some BIG bucks on the 5th and post your donation here,...or GTFO..."

Oh, so now I need an admission fee to be a supporter of Rand Paul?
Click to expand...

How about, you need to not continually trash Rand on a pro-Rand forum to be a Rand Paul supporter?

All I'm doing is simply expressing the concern I and I'm sure others have this campaign from the candidate himself has been less than a 100 percent effort and may well wind up another giant sucking machine designed to part donors from their for little in return as what happened at the end of the 2012 campaign. As I said I don't want to see that happen again. If my words light a fire under Rand and claque, well then that's what I hoped for.
Click to expand...

Well, since you copied/pasted this from another thread, I'll just copy/paste my response from that thread:

No, you're intentionally undermining the only libertarian candidate in the race, for reasons unclear (stupidity? "burn it all down!" nihilism? ...dunno).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top