Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President • Hacker News Board

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#121

Post by maratd » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

marincounty wrote: post #79

jfaucett wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of you're statements about his political views appear to be false: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions ) Its always nice to have a link when you make such claims :)

"Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, also asserts that he's heard of cases where vaccines have caused "profound mental disorders." "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input." http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02…

> I was kind of shocked

What's so shocking about letting parents decide what medical treatment their children undergo?

He has repeatedly said that parents should get their children vaccinated. And they should. Parents who don't are irresponsible, both socially and toward their children.

However, should and must are two very different words.

When you start talking about mandatory, you're talking about cops breaking down doors, taking children away, and vaccinating them by force.

Is that what you support? That's sick.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#122

Post by meepmorp » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #103

rayiner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe, they asked the Republican candidates whether they support a stronger Patriot Act or not. Like all the other 4 or 5 other candidates tried to out-match each other in how much stronger they would like the Patriot Act and other such laws to be. It's worth thinking about the significance of that. These guys aren't doing it because it's wildly unpopular with voters.

That's true but it's only GOP primary voters they were concerned about.

I think you're overestimating the degree to which the average US voter gives a shit about the Patriot Act (or NSA surveillance, for that matter). The response was red meat for the primary voters, sure, but it's not likely to be significant negative for the wider electorate.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#123

Post by pdonis » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 2:57 AM UTC

atom-morgan wrote: post #86

pdonis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. If you mean "most stable" in the sense that all the others fared even worse, I guess I can't argue with that. But I'm not sure the word "stable" is the best one to describe the USD since the Fed was created. A "stable" currency would not, I think, have inflated by a factor of about 30 (especially since, before the Fed was created, th…

Purchasing power of USD: http://goldsilverworldscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads...

I like this one even better:

http://www.economics-charts.com/cpi/cpi-1800-2005.html

First, it goes back to 1800; second, it's from the Fed itself, which means it's doubly entertaining. For example, I love this little note in the "description and comments" section:

Notice how the peaks in inflation over the last 200 years have coincided with major wars.

But don't notice at all how there was, on average, no inflation until after the Fed was created, but since then it's skyrocketed. No, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#124

Post by joshuapants » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 2:58 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #100

joshuapants wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do please show me where he's proposed banning same-sex marriage and not simply stated his personal distaste for it.

Here's one source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/28/rand-ditche... My favorite quote from that (showing how intellectually dishonest Paul really is): "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."

I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. I wanted to see an example of him proposing a policy that would proscribe same-sex marriage in contrast with his statements that he is personally uncomfortable with it. You have offered only the latter.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#125

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 2:59 AM UTC

cowsandmilk wrote: post #59

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what they said about Barack Obama?

no... Barack Obama was viewed as a major contender for the Democratic Party nomination from the beginning of the primaries. He and Hillary were the only two candidates that had raised over $20MM in the first 3 months of 2007. So, 19 months before the election, the two serious democratic candidates had already taken the lead. In January 2008, Obama won 3 of the 4 first primaries, and tied with Hillary in the 4th. Rand…

I distinctly recall a whole slew of pundits ready to hold a coronation for Hillary Clinton in 2007 prior to a single primary vote being cast.

The Republican field is completely different, of course, but that's why Rand Paul could win. The "front runner" has less than 17% of the vote and there are less than ten percentage points between #1 and #7. Those are exactly the conditions under which a candidate who can differentiate himself can succeed by capturing the entirety of his own base while the base of the other camp is split between several different candidates.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#126

Post by maratd » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:00 AM UTC

MCRed wrote: post #101

natmaster wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years" - baseless argument. comparing fiat money to fiat money says nothing about efficacy of fiat money. "Too bad when California deregulated their energy market..." - http://www.tylervigen.com/ Furthermore, where does this money appear from? If the government…

I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of l…

> I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws.

Why stop there? Take marriage out of the laws completely.

If your religious institutions marries men to men, women to women, or hell, men to goats or chairs, I don't see why the government should stick its nose in it.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#127

Post by jebblue » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:04 AM UTC

crazy1van wrote: post #108

morgante wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian.

> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian. Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in individual liberties. So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. Regarding same-sex marriages: Again, relating this question t…

>> The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person.

The core of the debate should be human life is not terminable based on convenience.

Anyone who argues that it is, personage, would have no way to argue against any war, past, present or future.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#128

Post by crazy1van » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:04 AM UTC

morgante wrote: post #111

crazy1van wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian. Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in individual liberties. So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. The crux of the debate is when does does a fetus become a person. Regarding same-sex marriages: Again, relating this question t…

> So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with libertarian-ism to protect its life. Is it though? Most libertarians say the government shouldn't force you to feed a starving person, but banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person). > Regarding same-sex marriages: Can you explain how a governmental (even at the sta…

> banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person).

There's a difference between murdering a person and being forced to feed him. So assuming for this argument that a fetus is a person, an abortion would be akin to murder. Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise him. Libertarians who believe fetuses are persons are arguing you can't abort the baby, but you can have the baby adopted.

> Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?

I might not understand the question, but many libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage at all except where it relates to interacting with the government. Paul seems to have dithered on this issue quite a bit, but this quote of his to National Review in 2013 seems fairly libertarian: "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage...That being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code."

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#129

Post by Lorento » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:08 AM UTC

hifier wrote: post #75

This is my litmus test for all future elections until this issue is resolved. There is and will never be a candidate that reflects all or even most of my positions. But, if a candidate is willing to unequivocally say that they will end domestic surveillance programs and uphold the 4th amendment, they will get my vote over anyone else who shows even the slightest hesitation, period.

Even over the candidate who promises to end the 2-party system? In other words, make real and lasting overall change, instead of just a single issue.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#130

Post by GabrielF00 » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:09 AM UTC

natmaster wrote: post #110

MCRed wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of l…

This. Marriage certificates were invented by the government originally to prevent white and black people from marrying. Their only purpose seems to be to oppress.

Some googling shows this to be, at best, partially true. While marriage license requirements were used to prevent miscegenation, they were not invented for that purpose and they have been used for other purposes.

>Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

>The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

>By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

>In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

>But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents. The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information. Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html]