51–60 of 79 posts
What amazes me is the hypocrisy in all this. The American people have basically known about this since about 2006. It's just that there wasn't as much proof or specifics but the media covered this and it was pretty much common knowledge that all phone calls and Internet activity were being watched. Of course that's not okay and I still get the current outrage. Totally understandable. But then there are the senators..…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Tea Party faction of the GOP is a pretty vigorous libertarian movement-- Rand Paul is the most libertarian elected official of either party.
You must be thinking of a different "tea party faction" than the one I know. Because the one I know has been doing its damnedest to to elect "social conservatives" who support "traditional family values". But yeah, they're pretty libertarian with respect to the liberties they like. Everything else can go.
I was surprised by Rand Paul's proposed bill "To stop the [NSA] from spying on citizens of the United States": http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/EAS13699.pdf The effective body is fairly direct: "The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States Government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause." What really su…
Rand Paul would probably do a lot more good by learning how to think rationally.
Rand Paul needs a class in civics, looks like.
Since he's a member of the Senate, a more direct route than the judicial branch would be to pursue legislative-branch solutions, such as introducing a bill to amend the FISA statute in a more civil-liberties-friendly manner.
He knows that a legislative branch approach will fail without making any waves what-so-ever. That's very obvious. Too many members of Congress are openly fascist in their beliefs when it comes to supporting the police state (eg Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein). The judicial branch approach is meant to spur action and interest on the part of citizens. It's meant to create waves. He's intentionally looking to bypas…
Not blaming the man, political capital is not free.
What amazes me is the hypocrisy in all this. The American people have basically known about this since about 2006. It's just that there wasn't as much proof or specifics but the media covered this and it was pretty much common knowledge that all phone calls and Internet activity were being watched. Of course that's not okay and I still get the current outrage. Totally understandable. But then there are the senators..…
In scenario A, a group of senators learn of a widespread domestic surveillance program. They all think it's a good idea, or at least a good enough idea that there's no reason to protest, gum up the works, or raise an alarm. When the program is accidentally disclosed to the public, they all greet widespread popular outrage with the message "we've considered this, and we want to keep it going".
In scenario B, a group of senators learn of a widespread domestic surveillance program. They all think it's a good idea, or at least a good enough idea that there's no reason to protest, gum up the works, or raise an alarm. When the program is accidentally disclosed to the public, they all respond to widespread popular outrage by sounding even more outraged than the public. There is much senatorial roaring and gnashing of teeth. Investigations are opened. All this despite the fact that the senators don't really see what the big deal is.
The highest function of an American politician is to reflect the views of the public. When the facts change, their minds must not change; that would betray the base. But when public sentiment changes (if, for example, the public were to come into possession of information that was new to it), their minds change with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He knows that a legislative branch approach will fail without making any waves what-so-ever. That's very obvious. Too many members of Congress are openly fascist in their beliefs when it comes to supporting the police state (eg Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein). The judicial branch approach is meant to spur action and interest on the part of citizens. It's meant to create waves. He's intentionally looking to bypas…
My guess is that if he hadn't filibustered the drone program a few weeks ago, he would of used a filibuster here. Seems like he did the math, and two filibusters this close would make him look like an obstructionist. Not blaming the man, political capital is not free.
Yeah this should happen, but no Rand Paul shouldn't be in front of it.
What amazes me is the hypocrisy in all this. The American people have basically known about this since about 2006. It's just that there wasn't as much proof or specifics but the media covered this and it was pretty much common knowledge that all phone calls and Internet activity were being watched. Of course that's not okay and I still get the current outrage. Totally understandable. But then there are the senators..…
Rand Paul may have its faults. Many people like libertarianism but they don't like the pro-religion/prolife and pro-rich aspects that come with it. That's why Bill Maher has distanced himself recently from the libertarian appelation. However to say that it's not sincere coming from Rand Paul is not fair at all. If you know a little bit about who he is, who his father is, you couldn't say that... Of course Rand Paul i…