41–50 of 83 posts
It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.
It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't blame people for downvoting michaelwww because their comment is an ad hominem attack on Rand Paul. Paul's attitude on abortion has no bearing on the PRISM lawsuit.
Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.
It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.
Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living. It's not really that hard to grasp is it? Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, what about the political records or statements of Obama and Feinstein made you trust them with civil liberties and privacy?
Obama made plenty of statements that suggested he cares about civil liberties and privacy. Several of these quotes have been passed around: > "For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants." http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html This goes to show you why you should believe what politicians vote and do,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real sea…
I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or w…
Nuclear terrorism is example #1 of why "by any means necessary" is considered appropriate for surveillance. Since it's hard to argue this will "never" happen, well, it justifies a lot. Whether that is right or wrong, I still don't know.
It's unfortunate that he believes the government should control a woman's uterus, which is an even more serious invasion of privacy and more likely to cause harm than this data collection.
Because he believes that abortion is a state's rights issue, and furthermore, that at some point, the rights of the uterus should be superseded by the rights of the living. It's not really that hard to grasp is it? Regardless, that has nothing to do with this issue.
It kind of does, since a few posts above started with the Libertarian plug. One typical response to that plug is to point out that libertarians often care only about liberty as it pertains to them personally. This is a fourteen-year-old's view of the world and it's one of the things that marginalizes libertarians as it is depressingly common among them.
As a progressive, I have conflicts with some of Rand Paul (and his father Ron) policies and positions. However, you have to admit they're beginning to sound like profits. Like it or not, they adhere to a fairly strict view of the constitution and that's admirable in the current poll-based world of politics. That said, Paul (and father) were never good communicators. Both vocally and even prosaically. I'm surprised he…
I have similar conflicts as a Libertarian! To add another point: for one election I was deeply involved with the party. I found that many Libertarians went overboard in conspiracy theories: vaccines with trackers, 9/11 truthers, anti-GMO nonsense, etc. I have a really hard time calling myself a Libertarian along with these people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this. What we've always done is get warrants for searches. No warrants were required to monitor someone (say, to have a cop follow them around). That is still the case. The FISA warrants allow monitoring. An Article III warrant is still necessary for a real sea…
I think the central question here is whether a democracy can endure a constant state of war where every part of our lives is catalogued and cross-indexed by the government. The rest of it is just a legal discussion around property rights and Rand Paul's strategy, both of which are not really germane. It doesn't work. It's not that it's illegal, it's not that Rand Paul has to take this position to glorify himself or w…
With regards to the latter point, I think it's both inevitable and not likely to be the downfall of democracy. There is no future scenario in which the government does not have the kind of insight into our lives that Google, Facebook, etc, have. Not necessarily because the government will ignore any laws and collect that data anyway, but because people desensitized to privacy issues by a computer at Google scanning their e-mail just aren't going to care about a computer at the NSA doing the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes imagine what the US political system would look if all elected positions were "nonpartisan". What if voters had to listen to what politicians were actually saying without the blinders of "Red Team" or "Blue Team"?
I imagine it being quite wonderful. Imagine further if a bill could only contain 1 law in it and it had a built in shelf life of only 10-15 years and had to be renewed by a super majority vote in excess of 75%.