Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#61

Post by MarkPNeyer »

sjwright wrote: post #58
jbrown wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will pr…

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…

> Between two people there is just one relationship.

no there isn't.

my wife talks to my dad in a way i never have. they get each other. they understand one another, and she respects aspects of him that i didn't know existed until i saw that a lot of what i love about my wife is true of my dad.

my wife talks to my mom in a way i haven't understood until recently. my mom is very loving; i never knew how much more loving she was until recently, when my wife explained just how intense that is.

i have a relationship with mama, my catonese mother-in-law, who understood the importance of computers even when it was the early 90's and she'd never seen one, who grew up during the cultural revolution, who doesn't trust authority figures for the same reason i don't.

my wife is good friends with many of my siblings - that's 8 more relationships there; 13 when you include the in-laws. my brother matt is married to michelle, who's talked to my wife, christine, about a lot of topics, and the two of them have a relationship far more intense than many biological siblings.

no man is an island.

no man is an island.

no man is an island.

no man is an island.

please for the love of all that is good in the world, can we stop pretending otherwise?

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#62

Post by zxcvcxz »

adamnemecek wrote: post #53
hackinthebochs wrote: post #18

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of…

are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?

I'd still vote for him.

The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system.

When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulating that power much easier for the elites. No longer do they have to bribe politicians in each state, just the ones in Washington DC. The founding fathers knew this (they experienced this with the British Monarchy) and that's why they intended on having a very limited federal government that had little control over social programs and whose main purpose was to see that states take it upon themselves to enforce rights provided by the constitution.

Remember when we integrated schools? The left would like you to believe the DOE is some kind of federal schooling system when in fact all it really does is issue pell grants. The federal government did not take over the schooling sector. The only thing the federal government did was step in when a state refused to integrate.

I urge leftists to reconsider their position. I'm in favor of social programs like single payer healthcare, but having the federal government do it is just asinine. The federal government needs to pass a bill that makes healthcare a right, then leave it up to the states to implement free healthcare. Those that don't will be forced to, just like we did when some schools refused to integrate.

If you hate too big to fail companies, then why allow one entity to monopolize a whole sector of the economy? As soon as one of these huge social programs fails, down goes the whole economy. It happened in the USSR and it could happen here. Just let the states handle it like they do in the EU. That way, when one states social programs fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. Notice that this is a compromise. The left still gets it's healthcare while the right still gets a small federal government. It's a win-win. Unfortunately both the left and right would like you to believe that any compromise is giving into the other side, they must perpetuate the idea that you only have one right choice and that if you're not with them you're completely against them.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#63

Post by tsotha »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51
joshuapants wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. Are you sure? Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. Couple that with the wave the Republicans had in the midterm elections (especially in a few states that typically go blue), I could see the Republican party just thinking it's their turn now. If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their…

> Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. But Romney wasn't a hardcore Christian Conservative either. > If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base. The religious right may not love Rand Paul but they hate Hillary Clinton. Most of them would show up to vote against her regardless of who the Republican candidate was. Meanwhile Rand Paul has more appeal with…

>The religious right may not love Rand Paul but they hate Hillary Clinton.

In light of the recent revelations regarding CGI I don't see how anyone, Republican or Democrat, could vote for Hillary Clinton. It'll be disastrous for the party to nominate her, and even worse for the republic if she wins.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#64

Post by meepmorp »

kelvin0 wrote: post #34

Anyone remember a certain president who was supposed to shut down guatanamo within a few months within being in office? This has the same 'smell' to it ...

Anyone remember the big ol' freak out in congress in response to closing Gitmo and moving detainees to the U.S. proper? In 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations act for that year that blocked funds to move or release Gitmo detainees, by a vote of 90-6.

That shit wasn't gonna happen. And maybe Obama ought to have known better, but he sure isn't exclusively at fault there.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#65

Post by hackuser »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #28
[deleted] wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge…

> he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage

I don't know about Rand Paul, and certainly many state's rights supporters are sincere, but be aware that state's rights has long been adopted by those who simply didn't like national law on a particular issue, for example on racial segregation. I'm always suspicious when I hear the term used like a philosphical principle.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#66

Post by hackuser »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #18

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of…

> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter.

Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule.

Many, many other things would happen that you probably would not like.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#67

Post by zxcvcxz »

jdp23 wrote: post #2

I changed the original headline to be more accurate. Paul's saying he'll block votes on USA Freedom or any extension to the current laws, which means that several clauses in the Patriot Act will sunset (section 215 including the phone dragnet and business records, roving wiretap, and lone wolf).

Not questioning you, but could you provide a source? I'm genuinely interested.

Also is it possible to prevent those provisions from passing?

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#68

Post by sjwright »

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #61
sjwright wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…

> Between two people there is just one relationship. no there isn't. my wife talks to my dad in a way i never have. they get each other. they understand one another, and she respects aspects of him that i didn't know existed until i saw that a lot of what i love about my wife is true of my dad. my wife talks to my mom in a way i haven't understood until recently. my mom is very loving; i never knew how much more lovi…

Your relationship between yourself and your father isn't marriage.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#69

Post by hackuser »

dataker wrote: post #7

I've been waiting years to see someone like him running for presidency, but I lack experience in Politics to determine if he could have a shot.

His biggest challenge is the primaries, where turnout is low and dominated by ideologically extreme party members (in theory, the more ideological you are, the more motivated you are to vote). For example, I read several years ago that the Tea Partiers accounted for half of GOP primary votes, even though they are a small portion of the electorate. His competitors are towing the extremist line, for example competing with each other over who can be most hawkish; he's not and it may cost him. Also, Fox News (and the Wall St Journal) have enormous influence among those voters and the desire and track record of nakely using it to promote their favorites; it's difficult to win without being on their good side. I'm not sure of Paul's status with Fox, but his positions don't seem like a good match.

Opposing or equivocating on gay marriage, no matter what the rationale, and some of his other more conservative ideas, will be a tough sell in the general election.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #28
[deleted] wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge…

> As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage.

Presumably, this refers to a different Senator Rand Paul than the one that sponsored the Life at Conception Act with the explicitly stated motivation to ban abortion federally. [0]

[0] http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fet...

Post reply on HN