How will you respond if Republican sellouts break the Paul-Lee-Cruz filibuster?

Beretta92FSLady said:

*YAWN* That's the best you got? I expected more...I truly expected more.

Click to expand...

People who want to facilitate death camps cannot be reasoned with.

It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.

rushcreek2 said:

It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.

Click to expand...

equal protection clause

rushcreek2 said:

It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.

Click to expand...

Well then. So, the Second Amendment spoke nothing to Females?

If that's your conclusion, I encourage anyone who wants to come pick up my firearms, I'm your Huckleberry.

minarchist said:

People who want to facilitate death camps cannot be reasoned with.

Click to expand...

LOL, you're funny. I like you.

I'm going to propose a new forum rule: before anyone can respond to B92Lady, he must read at least three pages of her post history.

That ought to show her extensive history of self-contradiction, intellectual dishonesty, going in circles, evasion, and dismissiveness. If anybody is dumb enough to argue with her after reading her post history, they deserve any frustration they get.

Citizen said:

I'm going to propose a new forum rule: before anyone can respond to B92Lady, he must read at least three pages of her post history.

That ought to show her extensive history of self-contradiction, intellectual dishonesty, going in circles, evasion, and dismissiveness. If anybody is dumb enough to argue with her after reading her post history, they deserve any frustration they get.

Click to expand...

I'm not the only person who engages in those items.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you, and others, aspiring for Truth.

Don't blame me for the nature of logic, or reason, I didn't instill it with contradictions. Life is a paradox....dig it!

Citizen said:

I'm going to propose a new forum rule: before anyone can respond to B92Lady, he must read at least three pages of her post history.

That ought to show her extensive history of self-contradiction, intellectual dishonesty, going in circles, evasion, and dismissiveness. If anybody is dumb enough to argue with her after reading her post history, they deserve any frustration they get.

Click to expand...

She likes the attention, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with that, all of us do to some extent or we wouldn't be posting on a social site. But some just don't care what kind of attention they get or how. I honestly try to limit my contact with this type but I admit the more outrageous the post the harder it is to just walk away. Something to do with that train wreck theory.

rushcreek2 said:

It is an indisputable fact that the "people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment were 100 percent MALE - comprising the militia. Therefore it logically would follow that citizens of the female gender have no CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED right to keep - let alone actually BEAR ARMS - lest at the forebearance of their fathers, brothers, husbands, or sons.

Click to expand...

I'll disagree with that on the sole basis that the militia has NOTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms. It simply states that for a state to remain secure it needs the ability to form a militia, and in order to conceive of a militia the people(everyone) has the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say the right of the "militia members" to keep and bear arms. It says everyone.

WalkingWolf said:

She likes the attention, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with that, all of us do to some extent or we wouldn't be posting on a social site. But some just don't care what kind of attention they get or how. I honestly try to limit my contact with this type but I admit the more outrageous the post the harder it is to just walk away. Something to do with that train wreck theory.

Click to expand...

Oh, its easy. I saw who quoted me just above, and then didn't even bother to read it. I just scrolled right past down to your post. Piece of cake.

She doesn't pay genuine attention to other people's logic. In fact, given her self-contradictory history, she doesn't even pay attention to her own ideas. Why should anyone else bother to pay attention to her?

Beretta92FSLady said:

Please, let's keep this thread clean, my friend. The filibuster you're talking about is not the filibuster Paul is engaged in; Senators do not have to talk during a filibuster, anymore.

Click to expand...

Senators do not have to do anything about anything, but they are not prohibited from taking the floor if that is what they desire. Historically, the filibuster has been a useful tool for the Senate minority party since 1841. In the Senate, unlimited debate continues on the grounds that any Senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue. Debate is only limited in the House. "Cloture", the tool available to limit lengthy speeches since 1975, requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. If they can't get those votes, they get to listen awhile longer.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Paul is less than a Patriot, he refuses to follow the Constitution. The filibuster IS NOT in the Constitution. Maybe Paul will read about that during his silent filibuster?

Click to expand...

The filibuster is a procedure, and therefore not in the Constitution... but that does not make it a violation of the Constitution any more than using Robert's Rules of Order is a violation of the Constitution.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Indefinite filibusters, particularly silent ones, are for cowards...no wonder Paul is engaged in them so regularly.

Click to expand...

The "silent filibuster" is another legitimate political tool. The announcement by the either party of an impending filibuster in the Senate forces them to take one of five actions, or possibly endure a 24 hour-18 minute "Strom Thurmond Special". They may choose to wait it out, invoke cloture, negotiate, surrender on the issue, or reform the bill. The Senate is not without options.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Also, Reid not taking up a House Bill, is not a filibuster. You need to read-up, please, I'm begging you, on these sorts of processes.

Click to expand...

Reid "not taking up a House bill" is blatant cowardice... but, that power goes with the position he holds. (It should not.)

Straight from the source:

filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm)

Click to expand...

If they are aware of nothing else in the Constitution, our Senators are cognizant of the First Amendment... for their use, anyway. Pax...

Beretta92FSLady said:

Well then. So, the Second Amendment spoke nothing to Females?

If that's your conclusion, I encourage anyone who wants to come pick up my firearms, I'm your Huckleberry.

Click to expand...

Liberal.....err, a armed liberals selective bravado. B92FSL knows very well that no mere citizen will be coming to take her gun(s).

B92FSL makes very very few valid points. On the rare occasion that she does make a valid point, , it is almost certainly obscured by her inability to distance herself from her liberal agenda. The liberal agenda drives a liberal to express liberal personality traits that we read from her posts.

OC for ME said:

Liberal.....err, a armed liberals selective bravado. B92FSL knows very well that no mere citizen will be coming to take her gun(s).

B92FSL makes very very few valid points. On the rare occasion that she does make a valid point, View attachment 10252, it is almost certainly obscured by her inability to distance herself from her liberal agenda. The liberal agenda drives a liberal to express liberal personality traits that we read from her posts.

Click to expand...

I'm definitely a Liberal. I have no agenda here.

Citizen said:

Oh, its easy. I saw who quoted me just above, and then didn't even bother to read it. I just scrolled right past down to your post. Piece of cake.

She doesn't pay genuine attention to other people's logic. In fact, given her self-contradictory history, she doesn't even pay attention to her own ideas. Why should anyone else bother to pay attention to her?

Click to expand...

That's because she has herself on "ignore"

georg jetson said:

That's because she has herself on "ignore"

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!! :lol:

Beretta92FSLady said:

The filibuster should be smashed, crushed, filleted.


If you're against the bill, get your ass on the podium, and argue your ass off. Filibusters are for cowards.

Click to expand...

Do you really think either party would debate in good faith changing anyone's mind? They vote along party lines unless someone buys their vote. I want a permanent filibuster. DC has done enough damage!

cyras21 said:

Do you really think either party would debate in good faith changing anyone's mind? They vote along party lines unless someone buys their vote. I want a permanent filibuster. DC has done enough damage!

Click to expand...

I don't care if they're debating in Good Faith to change minds. I want each of the parasites from both sides of the isle to stand their spineless asses up, and get their views on record. Politicians, ALL POLITICIANS are brownie-hounds.

If you don't like what they have to say, peel your butt off the couch on voting day, and make your mark.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I'm definitely a Liberal. I have no agenda here.

Click to expand...

Here? On OCDO? I cannot disagree.

Since I didn't expect anything different from them how should I respond?

Why would anyone be surprised at Republicans "compromising"?

sudden valley gunner said:

Since I didn't expect anything different from them how should I respond?

Why would anyone be surprised at Republicans "compromising"?

Click to expand...

SVG, I like you, you have style. Republicans are the opposite side of the parasitic coin.