What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

An anonymous reader writes: Sen. Rand Paul held up a vote on the Fast Track Authority for an eleven hour dissertation on the flaws of: the Patriot Act, the replacement the USA Freedom Act, bulk data collection including credit card purchases, the DEA and IRS's use of NSA intel. for "parallel construction", warrant-less GPS bugs on vehicles, as well as the important distinction of a general warrant versus a specific one. "There is a general veil of suspicion that is placed on every American now. Every American is somehow said to be under suspicion because we are collecting the records of every American," Paul said. The questions is what did the "filibuster" really accomplish? The speeches caused a delay in Senate business but it's unclear what larger effect, if any, that will have.

Comments

What was the effect?

[fustakrakich]

Public relations... What was everybody expecting?

Re:What was the effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are far easier ways to nab headlines than to do a ten hour filibuster. The average American probably doesn't even know what that means anymore.

Re:What was the effect?

[SONETengagementRING]

I felt like the true PR whore was Ted Cruz, showing up right at the end to fellate Rand for a couple minutes and make sure his name got included in all the news stories without having to really do anything.

Re:What was the effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reddit peed a little, otherwise, no effect.

why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid article intended just to bash Rand Paul. It brought attention to a matter that deserves attention. That's enough to warrant the fillibuster.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end. About the only real action I see happening is that he's getting attention for his presidential campaign. However, given his fringe opinion on many subjects I doubt he'll ever get the nomination, much less actually get elected. But since he's tied into the party insiders, it's likely his true intention is to keep his demographic distracted during the primaries while the party maneuvers a mediocre candidate into place to get the nomination. If he was serious about getting into the oval office and serious about his libertarian ideals, he'd run as an independent.

Re:why is that the question?

[rock_climbing_guy]

His father Ron Paul once ran third party and got less than 1% of the vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

> But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

Not so.

There's a fable about a man who preached everyday for 20 years in a public place, only to be asked by a friend why wouldn't he quit -- since nobody was caring about the issues he talked about. He answered: "If I quit, they will have won."

I didn't hear his discourse. But 11h talking is enough for me to believe at least one American is concerned by the current state of the USA and, by extension, of the world.

As a foreigner, I believe Obama is a more than reasonable guy; I also believe he's caught amid the highly defective machine that is American Politics. He can have ideas and see which ones the Democrats and the GOP will let him make happen. IOW, bottom line: he cannot do much.

Whether this will benefit or be a hindrance to Mr. Paul, he did a good citizen work by touching these important matters. If I had voted for him (I'm not from the US), I'd be very satisfied. In the end, all we can do is try. If enough people try, together they may succeed against the crooks, the greedy, the powerthirsty and those who want a Thought Police.

If the world is to be a better and safer place, we should pay attention to our own defects (not just the USA), try to hear what others say about us and start a real negotiation to make the world work better than till now...

Re:why is that the question?

[chuckugly]

Mod parent up

Re: why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

totally agree, mod up!!!!!

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point is it is the entire institution of US government that is at fault for this state of affairs, and that any president even with the best intentions isnt going to stop that machine rolling.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a foreigner, I believe Obama is a more than reasonable guy; I also believe he's caught amid the highly defective machine that is American Politics. He can have ideas and see which ones the Democrats and the GOP will let him make happen. IOW, bottom line: he cannot do much.

Personal feelings for or against a politician does nothing. Big businesses don't care much about how they feel about Politician X or Y. The question is whether Politician X or Y will work with them or against them, and whether they can be bought.

Obama and most of the politician in WADC are bought and paid for. Excusing him as a good person or the tingles you get when he speaks doesn't change that fact.

Re:why is that the question?

[Jane Q. Public]

His father Ron Paul once ran third party and got less than 1% of the vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Even though according to independent polls he won every debate in which the news media and other organizations allowed him to participate.

Re:why is that the question?

[Curunir_wolf]

But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

That applies to about 99.9% of every effort to change things in Washington for the better. But 1000 of those actions just might.

Re:why is that the question?

[Curunir_wolf]

If he was serious about getting into the oval office and serious about his libertarian ideals, he'd run as an independent.

HAHAHAHA. Okay. I thought your post was serious until then, but you gave away the gag.

Re:why is that the question?

[meglon]

His father Ron Paul once ran third party and got less than 1% of the vote, if I'm not mistaken.

Even though according to independent polls he won every debate in which the news media and other organizations allowed him to participate.

....which obviously means jack shit when it comes to people voting, which is why we have votes, not debate team winners.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who were the subjects of the polls? The average American would not be able to articulate a single policy position of Ron Paul. Debates are just minor distractions in the dog days of elections to spice things up a bit.

Re:why is that the question?

[SchroedingersCat]

As if voting has anything to do with candidate's qualifications. People vote along party lines. If you are not voting republican or democrat - you are throwing your vote away.

Re:why is that the question?

[bondsbw]

The only thing obvious is that a third party has no chance of winning.

The most impact a third party has is to spoil the election for the closest of the two main parties.

I'd be ok if this were required learning material: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...

Re:why is that the question?

[grcumb]

But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the lack of action is your fault, not Rand Paul's. He's more than done his part. He's offered a rallying point for anyone who cares about the issue, and he's elucidated in the most detailed way possible just what the hazards are. He's actually stopped the machine for a moment, and all you can manage is to diss him for too little, too late?

Look, I don't even like the guy. He stands for a lot of things that I fundamentally oppose. But I respect him. At least he is willing to do politics using the machine the way it was designed, rather than breaking it further—which is what the rest of the right-wing establishment seems to want to do.

Rand Paul is someone I feel I could reason with on most matters. I can't say that of most other politicians. And the fact that you're damning him with faint praise is actually enabling the others and contributing to the sense of futility that pervades so much of modern political discourse today.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

He also ran twice more recently as a Republican, getting significant percentages, and winning a number of states. Despite lots of poor behaviour of the media, and tons of dirty tricks at the polls.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

If voting actually did any good. We wouldn't be allowed to do it.

Re:why is that the question?

[sound vision]

The debate team winners do so by gathering votes.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

no .. Mr Paul is not a conciencious citizen making a stand. He's a politician trying to muddy the waters and grandstand. What he did has no impact except silly PR fodder for his followers (a small minority of the conservative / independents). He will do nothing but take votes from his larger group like Nader did to the left.

It may be confusing watching US politics from outside with no historical background, but just watch where the money flows for a clue about motivations.

Re: why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed... The electoral college decides who's president. Not the voters.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

C'mon people.

Re:why is that the question?

[Kurrelgyre]

He's not his dad.

Re:why is that the question?

[davester666]

No. Obama could have had the NSA to do a right turn and stop their mass data collection 6 years ago. They DIRECTLY report to him. He tells them what to do.

Congress and the Senate can just question them, and limit the things they can do.

Given that he has actively expanded what the NSA are doing, and made a point of going after whistleblowers, he appears to be happy with the current setup.

Re:why is that the question?

[TapeCutter]

As a foreigner I believe that is the way it was intended, a president (any president) can veto a bill but they can't dictate what the bill contains.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what is the point of the debates?

Re:why is that the question?

[Darinbob]

Third parties have won in the past. Not often of course, but it should mean the odds are above "no chance".

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were doing so well until you pointed to only the right-wing as breaking the machine further...

Re: why is that the question?

[bondsbw]

Watch the videos I linked above, or at least the first one or two. Sure, third parties can and do win in a first-past-the-post system, but it gets more and more rare until it becomes practically impossible for them to have any chance of success.

When was the last time a third party had any real chance of winning the Presidency of the U.S.? Theodore Roosevelt took second place in the 1912 election running as the Progressive Party candidate. He was previously a very popular President of two terms, who decided not to run for a third immediately. Instead he tried to run for a third term later only to miss the Republican Party nomination. He formed his own party, and despite his popularity among Republicans, all he could do was spoil the election... he split the Republican vote, and Democrats walked away the victors with a relatively low plurality.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is what I'd like done...

1. Require congressional districts to be square-like and compact. Maybe require it to be randomly drawn either by machine or middle school students.
2. Automatic ballot placement of the top six vote getters for presidential elections. This is by party and independents. This would ease the burden of third party candidates from having to get ballot access on 50 states and D.C. Just for the presidential election, nothing else yet.
3. An expansion of vote-by-mail (absentee voting, without any excuse) so people can vote at their leisure. But while still allowing poll voting for those who choose to do so.

As much as I'd like to see STV or IRV, I feel those could infringe on the rights of states. Unless someone can give me a really good excuse why.

I feel the electoral college is a states' rights issue. If a state wanted to have it go toward the national vote or some other scheme, then that's their decision. I feel offended though by anyone who thinks it's a good idea to abolish the electoral college, not that you said anything about it. But this paragraph is aimed at those who might suggest that. Abolishing the E.C. would result in the candidates focusing on I think four high population areas in order to win. The E.C. makes sure the lesser population states get their time.

As for the person who said the point of debates, really? To educate the voters... provided they aren't lying.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

allowed is an important rule here. The two parties have had majority long enough that anyone else doesn't compete on the same playing field everything from debates to actually appearing on the ballot.

Re:why is that the question?

[Whorhay]

What it means is that the two dominant parties now refuse to have anything to do with debates that will include third parties if they can possibly help it. The last time a third party was allowed to seriously participate in big debates was when Ross Perot ran. The Republicans blamed him for their lose in the presidential election that year and since then no third party candidates get to be in the big debates.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'political machine', as you put it, isn't a faceless institution which absolves individuals of failure in action and character. Your argument is on par with the Nuremburg defense, where Nazis on trial attempted to delegate responsibility for their actions by claiming "I was just following orders".

Our system is most certainly imperfect, if not broken. But it will never be fixed as long as we allow leaders to sidestep accountability in the name of the system they promised to lead and improve. Particularly when those leaders are often warned by several courts that their programs are unconstitutional and illegal, and those leaders maintain the programs anyway.

Re:why is that the question?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Anonymous poster taking crack again... Rand Paul is a party insider? Really? He's running just at the behest of party bigwigs so they can pick someone else? Run as an independent like Ross Perot or Jon Anderson?

That post shows a complete lack of understanding of a) Rand Paul, b) his position within the elephant party and c) electoral politics.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's from the right wing (considering he's in the race for Republican candidate), are you completely incapable of actually understanding context?

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

His point was polluted by his praising a president who is fully intent on making things worse.

Re:why is that the question?

[Cyberax]

A wet tissue can win a debate amongst the Republican presidential candidates. It just needs to stay quiet.

When Rand is pitted against someone with real knowledge - he simply fails.

Re:why is that the question?

[TechnoJoe]

He got 7% of the vote. Presidential Nominees are chosen by party delegates, not public elections.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Re:why is that the question?

[khallow]

I think the previous poster was thinking of stuff like the "nuclear option", the blocking of filibustering (like what Paul did just now) on a variety of US Senate activities. That wasn't done by the "right wing" though admittedly they were blamed for it.

Re:why is that the question?

[Jane Q. Public]

Personally, I think the odds are getting higher every year. Approval rates for all aspects of the Federal government are at all-time lows. Something has to give.

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading material - where is the text? My internet is too slow for videos you insensitive clod! :-)

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, my bad. My brain originally read "required reading material"...

Re:why is that the question?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... America hasn't killed nearly that many people. If you're lumping "commies" together, then Stalin and Mao alone are much higher than the USA, and of course that leaves out Pol Pot.

America has more destructive capability, for sure, but so far it hasn't translated into as many deaths.

Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Freak]

While I applaud Paul, Wyden, and the other Senators who have pledged to do everything in their power to block the spying-allowed version of this renewal; Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[physicsphairy]

It was never feasible for him to block the bill, so I don't see why details of, e.g, when he did it would be important. The purpose was to raise awareness and I've seen quite a bit of coverage including major political sites like DrudgeReport so I would say whatever his notions were they worked out rather well. If it is a call to the masses then it makes sense to give them time to digest and react (hopefully with a call to their representatives) before the actual bill.

As is, are we under the impression that once in office Rand Paul will abandon the cause? Because if not, as the chief executive he would certain have the ability to direct these agencies differently. Personally, this convinces me he would be committed to doing so.

Re: Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[rsilvergun]

Um... Isn't that sorta what a filibuster does? He's a senator, not house of reps. He's got orders of magnitude more power. He wasn't trying very hard, that much is obvious. Make of that what you will

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[WaffleMonster]

It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

If you take Rand at his word the point of his speech was to have votes on amendments to "USA Freedom Act". Actually Filibustering the USA Freedom Act would seem to me to be counterproductive to those ends.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[funwithBSD]

Here is why:

One: He is forcing the cloture vote on this to be next week, there is not time (its complicated) for the cloture vote to happen before the NSA must shut down the program.
Other business, like the pending trade agreement will have to be dealt with to come back to the NSA.
So for at least one weekend, there will be no NSA spying, and they will have to get it back on line if and when it is reauthorized. Inertia is our friend, if it is down, there will be pressure to keep it down.

Two: He also prevented it from passing cloture by unanimous consent, which is really silence. The chair asks a variation of "Without objection, so ordered" and if everyone is silent, it passes. There are no up/down votes, so no up/down vote is recorded

Now people are going to vote yea or nay, and THAT will be on the record for the next election.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[PopeRatzo]

I've seen quite a bit of coverage including major political sites like DrudgeReport

"Drudge Report"? How about NewsMax and jbs.org? Did you see it on those major political sites, too? Maybe a major political site like bible-prophecy.com?

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Paradise Pete]

So for at least one weekend, there will be no NSA spying

A more cynical person would find that to be +5, Funny.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[tlambert]

Two: He also prevented it from passing cloture by unanimous consent, which is really silence. The chair asks a variation of "Without objection, so ordered" and if everyone is silent, it passes. There are no up/down votes, so no up/down vote is recorded

Now people are going to vote yea or nay, and THAT will be on the record for the next election.

Forcing the jackasses to go on the record as to whether or not they support the bill, rather than allowing them plausible deniability on whether or not they would have voted for it is actually a fantastic thing, particularly after the John Oliver interview of Edward Snowden, which basically makes it pretty obvious that the government gets to see you dick/boob picks if the bill is passed.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I applaud Paul, Wyden, and the other Senators who have pledged to do everything in their power to block the spying-allowed version of this renewal; Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

So what? Sometimes "doing the right thing" also nets you "good PR" - why is that wrong? In point of fact, "doing the right thing" should make people view you favorably.

If this was an effective PR stunt, why aren't all the other candidates lining up to also 'filibuster' for the easy PR?

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Curunir_wolf]

I've seen quite a bit of coverage including major political sites like DrudgeReport

"Drudge Report"? How about NewsMax and jbs.org? Did you see it on those major political sites, too? Maybe a major political site like bible-prophecy.com?

Every post you make surprises me by your further decent into abject ignorance. There are PODCASTS with larger audiences than MSNBC, dude. You should really look for other sources of news.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Bing Tsher E]

Or a just plain nutz sites like DailyKos, Lucianne, or the festering pit called DemocraticUnderground?

Do you shout at the radio if Rush comes on it? Good, that means Rush is good for at least something.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[PopeRatzo]

There are PODCASTS with larger audiences than MSNBC, dude.

Now that you mention it, Rand Paul's filibuster made it to MSNBC, too.

He got his facetime on the TV and that's all that matters.

[note: Rand Paul's filibuster is actually the lead story on bible-prophecy.com right now]

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pure BS on your part. Senator Rand has done this before and is likely to do so again. He does believe that people should be freer than the USA Federal Government permits just as his father, Representative Rand does. He tends not to back down on issues of freedom.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Curunir_wolf]

If you ever meet another person that is also a regular of MSNBC's audience and regular reader of bible-prophecy.com, MARRY them. Right away.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[PopeRatzo]

Or a just plain nutz sites like DailyKos, Lucianne, or the festering pit called DemocraticUnderground?

Here is the link to http://www.bible-prophecy.com/. Note the biggest headline.

You really want to go nutz for nutz with me?

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[PopeRatzo]

If you ever meet another person that is also a regular of MSNBC's audience and regular reader of bible-prophecy.com, MARRY them. Right away.

And if you meet such a person, I'll bet they're a Rand Paul supporter. Probably want a Rand Paul/Alex Jones ticket.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[SONETengagementRING]

I just watched that interview tonight after listening to most of last night's event at work. IMO, Rand got exactly what he wanted: the whole country talking about the NSA and realizing their tentacles go SO much deeper than most anyone realized. I stand with Rand.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's your point?
You would rather he wait until after the election is over in 2016 to speak out on this?

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It didn't stop everyone from promoting Hillary to godhood after she fucked the work by getting that uranium sold.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure your tongue is up the asses of Clinton and Warren. Support that treasonous bitch or support the liar that claims she's a minority (in private). Must be a tough choice for a POS like yourself.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

What would it look like if Sen. Paul's "filibuster" could indeed get high marks and gracious remarks from you? I submit it WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT a "pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign" and had no other merit other than to somehow boost Sen. Paul's presidential chances, and I can prove it by pointing to the brain in Sen. Paul's skull. Its better than yours. If he was doing as you say, then it couldn't be better than yours... because that's idiotic. The filibuster in no way helped his presidential chances, and only an FUCKING IDIOT would suggest that.

It was indeed a camera and publicity stunt... but you're still an idiot, modded up because /. is now 25 smart guys and a million fucking idiots.

Sen. Paul knew he couldn't stop the PATRIOT Act... so instead he did what he could and drew attention to it.

More proof you're ignorant: "wasn't even an official fillibuster" ---- Hey, you're not an official idiot, either, but that doesn't stop you. Please cite Senate rules for "official" fillibuster. What makes it official? Your "Idiots' Seal" ???

Also, did you miss that his socks didn't match, and he put on a few pounds? What kind of trolll are you, can't even pad your irrellivant opinion with more irrellicant non-constructive criticism?

You need to practice your handwaving by backing it up with cold, hard indifference, not using a pea brain to completely misinterpret what actually occured and why.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

So for at least one weekend, there will be no NSA spying

You mean: for at least one weekend, it is more explicitly illegal?

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[dywolf]

Besides, on every issue which has had made him darling to the libertarian crowd, he has flip flopped.

Less than a month after his famous filibuster against the President's ability to drone strike citizens, he reversed course and stated that drones could be used to kill someone stealing from a liquor store.

He is a serial flip flopper.
He will pander to whomever is in the room.
He is not the man of libertarian integrity his fanboys make him out to be.
Rather, he is just your usual politician willing to say anything to win the next race.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[danbert8]

That's why real libertarians will probably still continue to follow Gary Johnson. I left the Ron Paul ship when Gary came on the market. He is a far better libertarian than any Paul and leaves the religious stuff out of it.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Lawrence_Bird]

Perhaps if you read a bit more on Paul and the lead up to this mini-fillibuster you would know that he was trying to take advantage of Senate preocedural rules as they became available to him. And I might add, you claim to applaud Paul, Wyden and the others... but where exactly have the others been? Have they stuck their neck out and done something like this? Did they do the same with the drone issue? I'm not recalling any others who spoke more than their allotted handful of minutes on any of these issues.

And to those who say its simply pr for his campaign - explain how this helps him with the replubican "base" who are largely neo-cons and the largest contingent of primary voters. It might get him some dollars from his Dad's supporters but its a tough sell to say this clearly helps him in primaries where the game has been to see who can out neo-con who.

Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I applaud Paul, Wyden, and the other Senators who have pledged to do everything in their power to block the spying-allowed version of this renewal; Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

barring the unexpected, the phone dragnet will end June 1, when key provisions of the Patriot Act expire. And Senator Rand Paul seems to deserve extra credit for that outcome: “The measure failed in the Senate 57 to 42, with 12 Republicans voting for it, shortly after midnight because Mr. Paul, a candidate for the White House, dragged the procedure out as he promised to do in fund-raising tweets and emails.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-weird-end-of-the-nsas-phone-dragnet/394049/

Hmm... not so much "pure PR," but indeed an effective strategy to put the will of the People back into government.

STANDING OVATION.

[Anonymous Coward]

GO RAND :)

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[ColdWetDog]

GO RAND :)

Is this some dialect of BASIC?

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[FranTaylor]

he'll be gone soon enough

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the clown" is redundant for Bozo and implied for Rand.

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[ChunderDownunder]

Looks like Logo to me - instructs the turtle to move in the most recent direction of a length specified by a random natural number.

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[slew]

GO RAND :)

Is this some dialect of BASIC?

Since it has unbalance parenthesis it's probably not traditional BASIC, but it could be a VPA (visibly pushdown automaton language, not to be confused with visual basic for applications or VBA)

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a dialect called "basic teapartier".

Re: STANDING OVATION.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's generating a random number in a goroutine. Duh.

Re:STANDING OVATION.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pauls like your ilk and vice versa.

Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

The senior senators... both republicans and democrats want this legislation.

It is an issue generally in congress at this point. Most of the long term senators and congressman opportunistic career politicians that are more interested in playing the game than doing a good job.

So for pretty much everyone that has been there for a long time... It is all a game. A game they play with our money, our government, our lives... and the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.

Re:Sadly not much

[Anonymous Coward]

The senior senators have more to hide that the NSA already knows about.

And if anyone thinks that isn't at least a factor, I may have some shares in a bridge for sale.

Re:Sadly not much

[FranTaylor]

the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.

The people trust the press to give them information about who to vote for. When the press is owned and operated by criminals, the citizens get false information and they vote based on that.

We can see the same thing with what happened in Iraq. The congress trusted the CIA and the administration to give them accurate information. When presented with lies, people will vote according to the lie.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

Bullshit. Yes, the press is corrupt but everyone knows it.

People don't vote for their party because they trust the press. They vote for their party because they're are tribalistic.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

More likely they're just callus authoritarians.

Re:Sadly not much

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Yes, the press is corrupt but everyone knows it.

While you are to a certain extent correct about the tribalism in your following comment, I don't know that this particular statement is true. I pretty regularly run into people who'll spout some nonsense at me about something they saw on Fox or MSNBC, lathered-up about some terrible injustice (which 99% of the time is a bald-faced hoax). Many people place near absolute trust in their echo chamber news outlets.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

I can only speak to what I hear from other people and what reports and statistics I can gather.

My own information shows broad distrust of the media.

What is more, the decline of traditional media and growth of alternative media suggests that traditional media is not trusted.

This does not mean that alternative media is more trustworthy but it is easier to audit given that you can go through many sources on line very quickly where as trying to do the same thing with traditional media is impractical.

As to echo chamber news... can you give me some examples from multiple political factions so I can see what you're talking about?

Re:Sadly not much

[Anonymous Coward]

My own information shows broad distrust of the media.

Could you share your data with us so that we can evaluate it for ourselves?

What is more, the decline of traditional media and growth of alternative media suggests that traditional media is not trusted.

Alternatively, the decline of traditional media is because people don't want to pay for something (e.g., newspapers, cable news channels) that they perceive they can now get for free in other ways (e.g., news blogs and websites). I seriously doubt that the decline of "traditional media" is because people suddenly trust alternative news sources (read: the Web) more than they trust the New York Times.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

There are statistics that come out all the time:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157...

The media is generally not trusted. It is just that it is the primary source for nearly all information so they have the ability to start a discussion and frame it. even if they're not trusted, their ability to manipulate the national discussion is quite extensive if they can merely bring choose when they want to bring up a topic and frame it.

Take the whole issue with police brutality. Are the media reports of police brutality valid? Sometimes. But a bigger issue is that they're very selective about what they talk about. Often they are pushing an ideological agenda so they'll talk about a specific case because it supports their position.

In my city, there are about 400 murders a year. That is in a population of about 12 million or so. How many of those incidents get reported by the media? Almost none. How many criminals are fatally killed by police officers? I'm sure there are at least dozens a year... and again... how often do you hear about them? Almost never.

Yet every so often one of these will get reported on, then get picked up by the social activists, and then get spun by the media as being indicative of a pattern of abuse. Now there could be a pattern there but a SINGLE incident does not give you a pattern. You'd need to look at a broader selection of examples and rather than coming to it with preconceptions, you instead would need to form you opinion from the data.

The media almost never does this since they're very narrative driven.

It is sort of as if creationists ran the news because their methodology is identical. They first form an opinion and then they look for what they call an "emblematic" case to promote that opinion. The rolling stone rape story was an example of that. They already knew what they wanted to say but didn't feel comfortable just making an editorial to say that. So instead, they looked for an example that they could use to validate their opinion. They couldn't find one which was sort of funny because they were claiming an epidemic. So after not being able to find an example they just settled for the sketchiest least reliable source they could get and tried to pull off a hoax.

It went disturbingly far before backfiring. But that sort of thing is quite common and most people take media reports with a grain of salt.

Re: Sadly not much

[ZeroWaiteState]

As someone who subscribed to traditional media for years, I can tell you you're wrong. I pay a lot more than the average person for news sources. I have gravitated away from "traditionals" like the NY Times because they cannot be trusted to faithfully report when it really counts. They're fine for minor league stuff, but once you get to heavy hitters like multinational corporations, the USG, or certain powerful religious institutions, they run and hide, because they have to protect their ad revenue and special access. Basically, they just have too much to lose when reporting the whole story. These days it's not uncommon for employees of govt and corps to work in the same office as the news org thats supposed to be covering them. If you're reading a news article and 60% of the screen/page is ads, you aren't really a consumer; you're a product. There are a few orgs out there who still report the news, but it costs actual money and time to find them. Most of what the NYT does these days is typeset press releases and talking point memos. The web means that issuing a press release is just updating a web page. Why do I need a newspaper to be the middle man if they offer no value?

Re:Sadly not much

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Yes, the press is corrupt but everyone knows it.

People don't vote for their party because they trust the press. They vote for their party because they're are tribalistic.

People vote for their party because they think their party is less full of shit than the other party. And they're right.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

No they don't. They just tribalistically follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Sadly not much

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, but there have been _at least_ 41 murders by police officers of unarmed civilians in 2015. There were 103 in 2014. 97 2013 and 119 2012 isolated incidents, wtf?

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

Cite what you're talking about and tell me what you're trying to say with that plainly. I am very clear. Be clear.

Re:Sadly not much

[dywolf]

they get picked up because theyre clear cases of brutality and/or racism.
stop trying to excuse bad actors.

Baltimore just like ferguson has a history of this.
willfully turning a blind eye to that history and or saying its small percentage of cases DOES NOT EXCUSE ITS EXISTENCE.

Re:Sadly not much

[danbert8]

The media is distrusted, but people still watch and are influenced in the same way Congress has a horrible approval rating, but incumbents keep winning elections.

Re:Sadly not much

[Anonymous Coward]

In my city, there are about 400 murders a year. That is in a population of about 12 million or so

so you don't live in america, then, as there are no cities that large in the US. why then would rand paul's filibuster matter to you, if he is looking to impact the laws in a country you don't live in?

Re:Sadly not much

[david_thornley]

Sure, the people distrust the media. That doesn't really help.

Given one unreliable source for facts, and nothing conflicting, people drift into believing the unreliable source even while they note its unreliability. Read some ancient history if you like; the field is rife with accounts of events that have no conflicting accounts extant. Check on how many people repeat the story about the 1.7 million strong Persian army invading Greece because, although Herodotus was obviously wrong, there is no other figure from ancient sources.

Re:Sadly not much

[HornWumpus]

Callus authoritarians with _something_ to hide. Every single one.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

There is quite a bit of contradiction though which is AGAIN why people are blending alternative media into their mix. If you include the internet only media sources you tend to get that contradiction.

If you're only reading the online version of traditional media then you're in almost the same place you were before. But we've seen an explosion in interest in alternative media.

It is much harder to bury stories or manipulate the news.

That it works at all is mostly due to much of the baby boom generation still sticking with dead tree media.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

I'm including the population of the county... apparently only 10 million.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/q...

Doesn't matter. Though I underestimated the number of murders apparently over 500 in the last 12 months:
http://homicide.latimes.com/

Which is apparently low if anything. I see it has gone over 1000 in some years.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

Not at all... there are many issues like all the time and they cut both ways.

You have black people going out to kill white people. You have white people going out to kill black people. You have criminals of some random race going out to kill other criminals of some other random race. You have police killing criminals of a race. You have criminals of a race killing police.

If you actually covered this stuff except when you wanted to support a political agenda, you'd cover it more and you'd cover a more varied spectrum of cases.

The fact that you convienently only find these cases to piggyback on a national story AND only report stories that support that message proves it since any moron that looks at the statistics will see that you can find LOTS of examples of the story going all sorts of other ways.

For example, there was a convict that wall pulled over by a female police officer... he got out of the police car when asked and waited for the female police officer to frisk him. Where upon he turned around quickly and beat the woman to death.

Did you hear about that? Not brutal enough? Would you like me to mix in some rape on top of that because there are other incidents where it went that way. I can also cite incidents where street gangs attacked businesses in their "territory" based on the race of the people that either owned or worked at the business.

Did you hear about that?

So no. You're pushing an agenda.

Re:Sadly not much

[Karmashock]

incumbents win because incumbent parties don't run primaries.

Effect?

[elmer at web-axis]

Highlighting a broken system. If a member of government has to give an 11 hour speech to somehow throw a spanner in the works and cause a massive cost/delay to the government. Then the system he's gumming up is broken.

Re:Effect?

[FranTaylor]

somehow throw a spanner in the works and cause a massive cost/delay to the government.

Are you asserting that congress would have actually gotten anything done during that time?

Re:Effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow throw a spanner in the works and cause a massive cost/delay to the government.

Are you asserting that congress would have actually gotten anything done during that time?

They could have screwed up worse. There is no upper bound to congressional fuckups. Paul's FB stopped congress from making a bigger mess of things.

Re:Effect?

[BlueStrat]

somehow throw a spanner in the works and cause a massive cost/delay to the government.

Are you asserting that congress would have actually gotten anything done during that time?

Yes. Congress is typically quite industrious at violating the Constitution and destroying civil rights.

I wish the partisans would STFU and realize this is a civil rights issue, not a partisan issue, for *everyone* regardless of political party, ideology, and/or religion (or lack thereof).

For those kool-ade drinkers defending the administration regarding domestic spying, do you want your political enemies to have this power to wield when they inevitably gain office?

Strat

Re:Effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Highlighting a good system: 1 Person is able to hold the attention of the nation about an issue so important to Them (and Us), as if to say, "Hey, You are NOT listening!"

Re:Effect?

[RabidReindeer]

For those kool-ade drinkers defending the administration regarding domestic spying, do you want your political enemies to have this power to wield when they inevitably gain office?

And don't forget - a lot of this stuff was given to the current administration by THEIR political enemies (the previous administration).

I think that this makes a very good case for concluding that there is no intelligent life in Washington.

Re:Effect?

[FranTaylor]

Yes. Congress is typically quite industrious at violating the Constitution and destroying civil rights.

so you should be happy when congress is gridlocked or filibustered and unable to do any of those things

Re:Effect?

[BlueStrat]

Yes. Congress is typically quite industrious at violating the Constitution and destroying civil rights.

so you should be happy when congress is gridlocked or filibustered and unable to do any of those things

Yes, and...?

Was there a point here?

Strat

Re:Effect?

[FranTaylor]

the rather obvious point is that our legislative rules are specifically designed so that congress accomplishes nothing when there is no majority to push things forward

Re:Effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all the more reason to elect someone who openly takes bribes through her husband's magic speaking fees collection.

Re:Effect?

[BlueStrat]

the rather obvious point is that our legislative rules are specifically designed so that congress accomplishes nothing when there is no majority to push things forward

Yes, quite true.

The tone of your replies to me seems to suggest I am arguing against the things you've stated when I've made no such statements, and in fact agree that gridlock is not a bad thing, and is in fact an intentional feature meant to slow and in some cases curb legislative excesses.

Strat

Re:Effect?

[dbIII]

So that the NSA et al can just get on with business as usual without elected officials telling them what to do?
You'll love China. They've got all that without those expensive elections. Or how about the colonies when the King was in charge?

Re:Effect?

[BlueStrat]

So that the NSA et al can just get on with business as usual without elected officials telling them what to do?

Wait, I thought it was these same elected officials who authorized the "business as usual" you refer to? They were about to re-authorize the same "business as usual" when Sen. Paul filibustered, were they not? The US Freedom act which codified into law many of the provisions re: domestic surveillance, but which has been promoted as a "fix" despite that fact, was not up for a vote.

Gridlock was intentionally designed into the system as a safeguard against knee-jerk legislative responses in order that there was at least a chance that adults could rein-in such knee-jerk/runaway legislative actions.

You need to check your facts.

You'll love China. They've got all that without those expensive elections. Or how about the colonies when the King was in charge?

Again, rather than tossing accusations & insults you *really* need to check the facts and think before you embarrass yourself further.

As far as Kings and decrees go, the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has been doing a pretty good impression.

Strat

Re:Effect?

[dbIII]

"Check the facts" from some guy that thinks constipation is an effective form of government? I think you need to heed your own advice instead of blindly handing it out.

Re:Effect?

[dbIII]

Again, rather than tossing accusations & insults

Good point, it appears that instead you may be advocating something more like the Iranian model where there are elected officials but they have no actual say in running the country.
Is that more like it?
If not, then say what you mean instead of this childish shit of suggesting we are better of with something other than an elected government.

Re:Effect?

[BlueStrat]

If not, then say what you mean instead of this childish shit of suggesting we are better of with something other than an elected government.

Congratulations!

What a marvelous strawman you created and killed! Too bad I never said anything like that.

It was Congress who passed the Patriot Act in a rush in the first place to create this mess, and you want to give them even more ability to stampede things through without ample time for people to learn about, understand, and form opinions and advocate for or oppose legislation?

Please take the time to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers before criticizing a system you obviously do not understand.

A runaway/out-of-control Legislative branch is equally as dangerous to liberty as a runaway/out-of-control Executive or Judicial branch.

If you have a problem with the built-in safeguards against a runaway/out-of-control Congress included in the design of the US Congress by the authors of the Constitution, amend it.

Strat

Re:Effect?

[dbIII]

Then what exactly are you saying you want? Don't hide behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and tell me exactly what it is you are advocating that is in some way different to what George Washington delivered.

Re:Effect?

[BlueStrat]

Then what exactly are you saying you want? Don't hide behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and tell me exactly what it is you are advocating that is in some way different to what George Washington delivered.

"Hide behind the Fed/Anti-Fed Papers"? Seriously? Why do you think "what George Washington delivered" and what the *other* founders agreed on and included in the design of the nation based on the discussions carried out through those very Fed/Anti-Fed Papers is different? You *do* realize that the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers are as close to code-comments for the Constitution as we can get, right?

It sounds like you have not invested sufficient time in learning and understanding the history of the design and theory of governance behind the US Constitution.

Until you have, there is no possibility of having a rational discussion.

Good day, sir.

Strat

Re:Effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Committees are inefficient, true. But do we really want an efficient government? One that can efficiently rescind all of your rights? Because that's the only direction I see the federal government headed.

Re:Effect?

[dbIII]

Translation for the slow - name dropping tells me nothing especially since what you have referred to has nothing to do with paralysis of government.
So, instead of hiding behind name dropping that has nothing to do with the topic please let us know why you think a government that is unable to function, thus letting the unelected run things, is such a good thing?

Until you have, there is no possibility of having a rational discussion.

Pretending to take offence and be too stupid to get the point is cowardice.

Not much

[jwhitener]

While I'm proud of my Senator (Wyden) and Paul for attempting to shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act", they accomplished very little. A symbolic gesture for the Congressional records at most. They weren't even filibustering the actual Act. They basically just held up the Senate for 10 hours knowing full well that nothing concrete was being accomplished.

Re:Not much

[Rockoon]

While I'm proud of my Senator (Wyden) and Paul for attempting to shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act", they accomplished very little. A symbolic gesture for the Congressional records at most.

They accomplished: shine a spotlight on the "USA Freedom Act"

This has to do with knowledge.

Consider the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, but neither of us know that the other also thinks its bad. In this case we are effectively loners even though we are not really alone.

Now the case where I know that something is bad, and you know that something is bad, and I know that you know that something is bad, and you know that I know that something is bad. In this case we are not loners by any measure.

You can't change things when you are a loner.

Re:Not much

[Anonymous Coward]

They basically just held up the Senate for 10 hours knowing full well that nothing concrete was being accomplished.

Now those are public servants--regardless of what legislation they delayed!

Re:Not much

[aardvarkjoe]

They basically just held up the Senate for 10 hours knowing full well that nothing concrete was being accomplished.

Hey, they stopped the Senate from screwing anything up for 10 hours. That sounds like an accomplishment to me.

Re:Not much

[RabidReindeer]

They basically just held up the Senate for 10 hours knowing full well that nothing concrete was being accomplished.

Now those are public servants--regardless of what legislation they delayed!

A Pity. Encasing the whole lot of them in concrete would probably be one of the best things that ever happened to US Government.

Re:Not much

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Not good enough. There was a recent story about self healing concrete that when cracked the bacteria contained within would fill the crack with limestone. So just encasing them in concrete may not be enough to ensure that they are no longer able to function. I suggest nuking from orbit to be sure.

Re:Not much

[RabidReindeer]

They stopped functioning long ago. It's damage control I'm more worried about now.

Well, there was this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It gave Ted Cruz a chance to attention whore around for 10 minutes at the very end like literally after 10 hours from Paul, he jumps in with a "question" which consisted of, "My good friend the Senator from the great state of Kentucky and I disagree on this issue, but I can't watch anyone else standing in a spotlight without jumping in so I'm going to ramble about how bad Obama is and hopefully get my weird grandpa munster face on the news for a few seconds as if I put any real time into this issue. Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet! Okay, off to see if I can crash Letterman's last show somehow. Peace out. Cruz2016!"

It showed a lot

[erp_consultant]

Rand Paul, whether you agree with his politics or not, is the only one with the guts to stand up against the Patriot Act. I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be. But now that the Dems are running the show they kind of like having it. Makes life easier for the government if they can just collect data on everyone rather than having to go through the courts for warrants and other such inconveniences.

The fallacy, of course, is that the Patriot Act somehow makes us safer than we would be otherwise. It might be true if it were being administered by someone competent rather than these bureaucratic morons that can't get out of their own way. Every failure is met by cries for more money.

Obama, when he was a senator, was against the Patriot Act:

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  He warned of possible abuses of power. But now that he is president he has changed his tune. Abuse of powers indeed.

Re:It showed a lot

[ColdWetDog]

I believe you're forgetting about Mr. Wyden (D-OR).

However, they are both hopelessly outgunned in this quest.

Re:It showed a lot

[FranTaylor]

But now that he is president he has changed his tune. Abuse of powers indeed.

Thanks for this information, I will be sure to avoid voting for him, the next time he runs for president.

Re:It showed a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Rand Paul, whether you agree with his politics or not, is the only one with the guts to stand up against the Patriot Act.

It's easy to say just about anything you want when you already know how the vote is going to turn out. It's a common ploy by both parties to keep their demographic distracted from what's really going on. Both sides introduce all kinds of bills (abortion and gun control are two effective topics) that appeal to their voting block knowing the bills will never make it out of committee. The other side can stand up and vociferously rail against the "heinous" legislation being considered. But in the end, it's nothing more than a dog and pony show that they can sell to their district when it comes time to get out the vote. The bills that are going to pass will pass regardless of what the "representatives" actually stand up and say to the cameras.

Do they actually accomplish anything beyond keeping the mouth breathing party line voters lining up? Not really, no.

Re:It showed a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why don't They read the details of which They are aware (but are not yet public) into the congressional record? They cannot be legally touched for such actions. (Cf., Sen. Gravel and the Pentagon papers)

Re:It showed a lot

[JustNiz]

Yeah He and Wyden were basically tag-teaming during the whole fillibuster.
I guess he also included another as a way to be covered so he can take a bathroom break or whatever.

Re:It showed a lot

[bill_mcgonigle]

Right - but you know who didn't show up? Bernie Sanders (S-VT). He claims to be a civil libertarian but couldn't bother to join the other Democrats who came to support the issue.

I think we know where his masters are on this issue - he's deep into the F-35 fighter jet fiasco; MIC is where his bread is buttered.

Re: It showed a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

You remember JFK? Yeah. Being politically visible just makes it a bit trickier to pull off, when you piss off the wrong, powerful people; and the last ten years, we've enabled that demographic all the more. We all know it.

Re:It showed a lot

[King_TJ]

That's fine. I plan to show up to cancel out your vote.

Re:It showed a lot

[Enigma2175]

I remember lots of Democrat outrage when it first came to be.

Are you talking about the Patriot Act that passed the Senate 98-1? Sure, the one dissenting Senator was a Democrat (Feingold) but that is hardly "lots of Democrat outrage". The Democrats weren't outraged then and they aren't outraged now, they want to snoop on you and control you JUST as much as "the party of small government" does. The US party duopoly is two sides of the same shitty coin.

Re:It showed a lot

[FranTaylor]

well I'm canceling out your vote, too

Re:It showed a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

I also remember the PA being co-sponsored by Patrick Leahey.
It was a bi-partisan atrocity.

Re:It showed a lot

[dbIII]

The main lesson of the "Patriot" act is that putting such names on bills and forcing them through without allowing them to be read before voting is an abuse of the system. One guy was willing to commit what looked like political suicide (possibly close to real suicide if the press had crucified him and a loony with a gun decided he would be a good target) by voting against a thing designed to make anyone voting against it look as if they were voting against Patriotism. What made things worse is for all they knew the bill they didn't have time to read may have actually been as good as was promised.
I'll bet Bin Laden used that event to show his followers that he had "won" and changed the USA from a Democratic Republic into something where the votes of the citizens no longer mattered. I like to think it was only temporary, so not a real win for Bin Laden.

Re:It showed a lot

[Overzeetop]

I'm a democrat, I intend to vote several times in several different jurisdictions. I plan on cancelling out quite a few votes for whomever beats Rand Paul in the primaries.

Re:It showed a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie Sanders has often publicly spoken out against the Patriot Act, and he voted against it (both times).

Re:It showed a lot

[dywolf]

well, if Rand remains true to form, he'll flip flop on the issue in about a month.
After all, he did last time he pretended he was Jimmy Stewart and spoke against the drone program.

( http://www.salon.com/2015/05/2... )

Re:It showed a lot

[erp_consultant]

He is a politician after all. They all flip flop.

Re:It showed a lot

[dywolf]

modded as flamebait for pointing out the facts.

good job mods.

This.

[hirundo]

We're talking about it. And a politician in favor of a little more freedom has a little more visibility. That's enough.

More than PR

[SuperKendall]

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?

The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.

So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.

Re:More than PR

[FranTaylor]

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?

The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.

So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.

The past precedent is that Rand Paul will say inflammatory things that may or may not be true, in order to attract attention to himself.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he would have done this if he wasn't running for president. He has to have something to sell to his voters when his senate seat comes up next time.

All politicians are always campaigning all the time.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?

What a silly question, he's a Senator, every day a Senator is alive they weigh the option of running for President!

Re:More than PR

[phantomfive]

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president? The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior.

How can you tell? It seemed like he was running for president even before being elected Senator.

Re:More than PR

[epyT-R]

Inflammatory by whose definition? The left wing will call anyone who questions its doctrine as 'controversial', 'problematic', and 'inflammatory.' This behavior is no different than from other dogmatic groups, such as the christian right.

Re:More than PR

[bouldin]

While I'm sure this message will be lost on the slashdot forums, I submit that liberals and libertarians actually agree on a whole range of issues. Paul was able to work with a Democrat from Oregon on this, after all.

Now, if only they could take care of the things they have in common before tackling the things they don't, we could see change that most slashdotters would applaud.

Re:More than PR

[FranTaylor]

"inflammatory" as defined by the ratings-based news outlets that rely on him for something to put on the air

Re:More than PR

[PopeRatzo]

So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.

And you know this how?

You can recognize a public figure's cult status when their followers start to claim they know what's in his heart and mind.

Rand Paul is a grandstander in the Barack Obama mold. He is sound and fury signifies fuck-all but lip-service to a dimwitted ideology that I wonder if he even believes. It's almost as if some consultant told him that the only demographic where he has a chance is bitcoin dudebros and so he has these little events to check off the box.

Re:More than PR

[Jane Q. Public]

While I'm sure this message will be lost on the slashdot forums, I submit that liberals and libertarians actually agree on a whole range of issues. Paul was able to work with a Democrat from Oregon on this, after all.

And while that may be true, the reason so many Democrats are rabid Libertarian-haters is that no matter how many other issues they may agree about, Libertarians simply do not support the big-government model Democrats insist upon. It's a fundamental philosophical difference.

Democrats, by and large, are unwilling to look past this difference, and see the things they DO agree on. Which is too bad, because it leads to the typical Leftist Libertarian-bashing that we see so much: conflating them with anarchists, etc.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice ad hominem, faggot.

You should look up the definition of ad hominem. Twice.

Re:More than PR

[shutdown -p now]

Rand Paul is a grandstander in the Barack Obama mold. He is sound and fury signifies fuck-all but lip-service to a dimwitted ideology that I wonder if he even believes. It's almost as if some consultant told him that the only demographic where he has a chance is bitcoin dudebros and so he has these little events to check off the box.

The only problem with this story is that pandering to "bitcoin dudebros" is widely known to not be a way to electoral success, and if Paul is really just a shrewd grifter that you paint him, he knows that, as well. So what exactly does he stand to gain from participating in the electoral campaign on a platform that practically guarantees a loss?

Re:More than PR

[detritus.]

As a person adherent to the "dimwitted ideology", I concur and I don't think he believes what he preaches. He's not his father. He can scream civil liberties but refuses to answer why he voted for Feinstein's version of NDAA 2013 which had a huge gaping loophole that was on its face supposed to fix the provision that allowed the indefinite detention of Americans without trial. Even his buddy Congressman Amash publicly criticized the amendment and voted against it, but Rand went and voted for it anyway.

Re:More than PR

[bouldin]

and yet, many Democrats and many Libertarians agree on rolling back the Patriot Act and massively scaling back the War-on-Drugs police state.

Re:More than PR

[PopeRatzo]

The only problem with this story is that pandering to "bitcoin dudebros" is widely known to not be a way to electoral success, and if Paul is really just a shrewd grifter that you paint him, he knows that, as well.

Paul doesn't expect electoral success at the Presidential level. He expects fund-raising success.

Think for a minute of all the presidential candidates who know they're not going to win the nomination, but realize that a lucrative donor list is the next best thing. Rand Paul is one of those. He's building a nice packet for the future.

Re:More than PR

[bouldin]

Hey APK, I heard you can totally bypass hosts files with just 4 lines of Python, is that true?

import dns.resolver

resolver = dns.resolver.Resolver(configure=False)
resolver.nameservers = ['8.8.8.8']
ans = resolver.query('example.com', 'A')

Re:More than PR

[Bing Tsher E]

Check the Buckley-flavor Conservatives at places like National Review. They favor scaling back the War on Drugs too.

Who doesn't favor a scale back of the WoD? People in the pockets of 'Big Prison' among others. People who are beholden to the 'Treatment Industry'. Some of the religious zealots. The Big Businesses (tobacco and alcohol) who have perfectly good legal drugs for you to buy. The people who want to spend all the tax dollars that the legal drug businesses pay. And of course, lots of big government types in general.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone, look at this little astroturfing COINTELPRO operative trying to steer the discussion. This is what they have to resort to.

Re:More than PR

[shutdown -p now]

How exactly would raising funds for his political campaign help him personally? He has to report on the use of those funds - he can't exactly just grab them and use them to buy himself a new Lamborghini.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin says no ware uses hosts for security? Wrong http://it.slashdot.org/comment... Spybot S and D does you dumbass.

Re:More than PR

[PopeRatzo]

How exactly would raising funds for his political campaign help him personally?

He can donate the money to his Rand PAC (http://www.randpac.com/) or just let it sit there for future elections. He becomes more influential by virtue of that money. He can use it to generate support for a bid for certain Senate committee positions. When you have money to distribute to other political purposes, you have the juice that creates power. Most important, he can do what his father did and just make personal money by selling his campaign donor mailing list.

Did you know even retired politicians can keep their campaign fundraising going? They can keep fundraising even after retired and can use that money for other politicians political purposes.

Re:More than PR

[meglon]

I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.

As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.

The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states: http://247wallst.com/special-r...

.... red states that siphon more money from the federal coffers (takers) than blue states (makers) who have to subsidize them so they're not even worse shitholes than they already are: http://wallethub.com/edu/state...

... perhaps following the path republicans in the white house that have increased government jobs more than democrats in the white house have, while failing to come close to the private sector jobs that are created under democrats: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://politicsthatwork.com/de...

http://www.politicususa.com/20...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.

Re:More than PR

[bondsbw]

The main reason I'm neither Democrat nor Libertarian: I don't believe in either a big government or a small government.

I believe in multiple small governments, who together provide the necessary defense from external forces but which do not have the ability to concentrate (and thus corrupt) power absolutely.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

... the reason so many Democrats are rabid Libertarian-haters is...

... totally unrelated to some Libertarians calling so many Democrats rabid haters.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap you're getting the crap knocked out of you bouldin http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Your war you lost vs apk got your ass kicked bouldin http://it.slashdot.org/comment... seeing you pull that much crap like denying valid cititations really did the job on you, Mr. Citation himself. Serves you right you creep.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin you say nobody uses hosts for security? Wrong http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin if hosts are bad why's ESET/NOD32 say different http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ?

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

or, smart people who are ok with thinking for themselves.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin plays illiterate vs apk (OliverDay/Symantec)? http://it.slashdot.org/comment... Hahahaha what a total loser you are Bouldin.

Re:More than PR

[Sarius64]

Hmm, libertarians believe in liberty and liberals believe in stealing other peoples' money. You appear to be completely wrong.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah... Democrats steal money from the middle class while embezzling legal bribes for their retirement funds. Go fuck yourself.

Re:More than PR

[Sarius64]

Not everyone is a crook like Hillary.

Re:More than PR

[Sarten-X]

The main difference between libertarians and liberals is in their preferred solutions.

Ultimately, the liberal philosophy is that society can and should take care of everyone. The libertarian philosophy is that everyone should only be required to take care of themselves. From an antagonist perspective, liberals have their heads in the clouds, and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.

Both are able to see problems in the government programs that Sen. Paul spoke against. When it comes time for a solution, however, the libertarians would fight to abolish the programs entirely, reducing the size of government and ultimately the burden on citizens to support what little benefit the programs may bring. On the other hand, the liberals would usually rather fix the flawed programs, to preserve that benefit while removing the harmful details.

For completeness, we should discuss the conservative position as well: Government should only be involved when someone can't take care of themselves. If someone is able to manage their life without dealing with the government, then the government shouldn't interfere with that. The offending programs should be fixed so that their flaws are covered or resolved, but ultimately don't interfere with society's operation.

The libertarians are mocked because they throw the baby out with the bathwater. The liberals are mocked because they just keep making the system bigger. The conservatives are mocked because they rarely actually fix the problems. Welcome to America, where the most common use of free speech is to complain about someone else.

Re:More than PR

[FranTaylor]

How exactly would raising funds for his political campaign help him personally?

are you serious? "fund raising" means you work the network of donors, meeting people, making connections, increasing your political cred. it increases your exposure. It means you can charge more money for speaking fees. Just ask the Clintons how they made so much money. They worked the system and they made reputations for themselves and now they can make more money in one speech than we will make in our lifetimes. Who would not want in on the action?

Re:More than PR

[FranTaylor]

What a silly question, he's a Senator, every day a Senator is alive they weigh the option of running for President!

Yeah there's no doubt that when Strom Thurmond was 100 years old he was weighing the option of running for President.

Re:More than PR

[Sarten-X]

I'll point out that even reporting the money's use doesn't really mean anything. They just report that they entertained potential donors, and their big party is a perfectly cromulent expense. Of course, they have to show that the fundraising was somewhat successful, so they'll be sure to invite a few retired politicians who kept their own PACs and run their own parties. It's all a big cycle, where the money and champagne keep flowing.

Re:More than PR

[riverat1]

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?

As far as I can see he's always had a run for the presidency in mind, at least since I first heard about him.

Re:More than PR

[FranTaylor]

the straw man doesn't stand a chance with this crowd

Re:More than PR

[FranTaylor]

I believe in multiple small governments, who together provide the necessary defense from external forces but which do not have the ability to concentrate (and thus corrupt) power absolutely.

none of them will be able to stop each other from pouring poisons into each other's rivers

Re: More than PR

[bondsbw]

I wasn't thinking multiple governments that are sovereign over a small price of land, but rather multiple layers of government consisting of local representation and proper checks and balances.

The U.S. federal/state/local and executive/legislative/judicial partitioning is actually a pretty decent form of what I'm talking about (except that the state governments have de jure capability to place Constitutional restrictions over the federal government, but de facto the federal government always has the final say).

Re: More than PR

[bondsbw]

"small price of land" = "small piece of land"

I just love how /. mobile provides neither preview nor edit...

Re:More than PR

[TapeCutter]

Now, if only they could take care of the things they have in common before tackling the things they don't

Politics is all about points of difference, no matter how trivial, without those points of differences there would be no need for politics.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

And while that may be true, the reason so many Democrats are rabid Libertarian-haters is that no matter how many other issues they may agree about, Libertarians simply do not support the big-government model Democrats insist upon

And while that may be true, the reason so many Libertarians are rabid Democrat-haters is that no matter how many other issues they may agree about, Democrats simply do not support the deregulation model Libertarians insist upon.

Democrats, by and large, are unwilling to look past this difference, and see the things they DO agree on. Which is too bad, [et seq.]

Libertarians, by and large, are unwilling to look past this difference, and see the things they DO agree on. Which is too bad, etc.

So it goes.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

libertarians believe in liberty and liberals believe in stealing other peoples' money

Liberalism is just a watered-down version of libertarianism. Stealing other people's money is mostly the objective of socialists and social democrats. Liberals and most conservatives generally want to limit stealing other people's money as much as possible.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.

Or, like Koch and some others that have run under that label, they have heard of it and wish to exploit it as much as possible.

I feel sorry for Rand though. Named after a writer who saw America as a Capitalist dystopia with the riff-raff having a say in who got to run the place, so she wrote a manifesto about how everything would be better with Tsar-era nobility running the place qualified by their bloodline (eg. her jailbait princess screwing her way to the top is an ideal leader, because her Grandad ran something large). Anyone sucked in enough by such anti-American trash as to name their child after the author is really going to give the child some fucked up ideas.

Re:More than PR

[dave420]

That's all you have? Are you 9 years old perchance?

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a muslim/islamic faith follower? Tell the truth now. No al-tiquyya lying!

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

For completeness, we should discuss the conservative position as well: Government should only be involved when someone can't take care of themselves. If someone is able to manage their life without dealing with the government, then the government shouldn't interfere with that. The offending programs should be fixed so that their flaws are covered or resolved, but ultimately don't interfere with society's operation.

.

Unless one consenting adult wants to wants to sleep with another consenting adult that the Conservative doesn't think should be with consenting adult #1 in sexual position #1...

Re:More than PR

[PopeRatzo]

Not everyone is a crook like Hillary.

No, but Rand certainly is a crook like Hillary. Just not quite as successful a crook yet. But he's young.

Re:More than PR

[dywolf]

The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?

The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.

So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.

Sorry that is wrong.
Rand is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is.
He makes Mitt Romney look like a man of unimpeachable and stalwart integrity.

Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience.
He is a serial panderer. He has no convictions.
In other words: He is just like every other politician

Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:

Should predator drones be used against American citizens?

During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:

“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”

One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”

Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:

“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”

He absolutely did it for PR reasons, and nothing more.

Re:More than PR

[dywolf]

No, I just hate stupid people, which includes most "libertarians".
Actual libertarians, who don't rate the quotes, are a mixed bag.

Some are like Rand Paul, and shouldn't be anywhere near public office.
And frankly, at this point, Rand also deserves to wear the quotes when he calls himself a "Libertarian".
(and no, btw, not all democrats believe in solely big government; but as usual you are dismissive of one side while insisting the other can have varying views. but then youre also the guy who doesn't believe left libertarians can exist)

As for why Rand specifically isn't liked much on the left, this:list is a good starting point:

1) Rand Paul opposes gun control measures and voted with his party to filibuster the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would’ve merely expended background checks to include internet sales and gun shows.

2) Rand Paul, like Ron Paul before him, has repeatedly objected to key provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

3) Rand Paul is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Just because he’s expressed an openness to a life-of-the-mother exception doesn’t make him a hero.

4) Rand Paul, as mentioned earlier, believes that redefining traditional marriage is the leading cause of poverty, rather than a long list of other poverty-creating economic factors.

5) Rand Paul voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

6) Rand Paul wants to cut the corporate tax rate in half and attacked Obama’s “you didn’t build that” quote, which was widely taken out of context.

7) Rand Paul is a fan of paleoconservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and has appeared on Jones’ show numerous times. He’s also endorsed his share of wild conspiracy theories.

8) Rand Paul proclaimed that the scientific consensus behind climate change isn’t “conclusive.”

9) Rand Paul has repeatedly voted to de-fund and repeal the Affordable Care Act, and would very likely do so as president. He’s also spread “horror stories” about the law in Kentucky even though his state’s exchange is one of the best in the nation.

10) Rand Paul famously filibustered the president’s drone policies, but later suggested that the government could use a drone to gun down a criminal who just robbed a liquor store. He suggested we should use drones against the Taliban.

11) Rand Paul supports the partial privatization of Social Security and once called the program a “Ponzi scheme.” He also referred to Medicare as “socialism.”

12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.

13) Rand Paul marketed in the widely debunked “Obamaphone” myth, stating: “For those who are struggling, we want you to have something infinitely more valuable than a free phone, we want you to have a job and a pathway to success.”

14) Rand Paul supports Voter ID laws, saying there’s “nothing wrong” with them.

15) Rand Paul, in addition to a series of racially-questionable associates, is a supporter of both states’ rights and nullification, archaic tent-post beliefs held by neo-Confederates.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a loud minority in the party. Republicans think pot should remain illegal ~65-35.

Re: More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound like you haven't had to work with those multiple layers of government. People always wonder why public projects are so expensive.. one reason is because you have to work with the municipality/county/state/federal governments, often with multiple agencies at each level (and sometimes they don't get along). It sounds great in theory but you end up with a system where 1 of 50 bodies can throw a wrench in the process, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes just because they can.

Re:More than PR

[danbert8]

Don't forget pharmaceutical companies... How screwed would they be if their $500/mo drugs could be replaced by inexpensive pot?

Re:More than PR

[danbert8]

Except Randal Paul isn't named after Ayn Rand. It's just his shortened nickname given to him by his wife and became popular.

Re:More than PR

[brianerst]

Actually, the religious zealots tend to be for sentencing and prison reform too (prison ministries like Chuck Colson's have had a big effect on evangelicals). So, while you may not be able to count on them for total WoD reform, there's a subset of issues where you have a massive majority - liberals, libertarians, Buckleyite conservatives and evangelicals.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7448173&cid=49748471
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7448173&cid=49748475
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7448173&cid=49748485
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7448173&cid=49748503

Oh hai APK, I did naught see you there.

Re:More than PR

[brianerst]

The first and third cases involve policy (should the government kill Americans without benefit of trial while not actively involved in an imminent threat to life and should the government sell and encourage the use of surplus military equipment to local police forces) while the second is about technique (if you have to shoot someone because they are an active, imminent threat to life, he doesn't care if you use a gun, a drone or a lightsaber).

There's nothing particularly flip-floppy about those three statements. You have to actively spin them to make them conflict.

Re:More than PR

[smaddox]

That's a pretty distorted reading of Atlas Shrugged. The entire theme was anti-cronyism. Not sure how you got pro-oligarchy out of it. Ayn Rand certainly had a naive understanding of macroeconomics, but in my opinion, her critique of cronyism, both capitalist and government, was spot on.

Re:More than PR

[Scotsman, True]

I heard even apk doesn't use hostfiles anymore.

Re:More than PR

[whistlingtony]

As a Liberal, I find your post controversial, problematic, and inflammatory!

:D

But really, I see it as one side wanting to help people, create basic infrastructure, and get on with the business of governing... and the other side is infested with religious zealots who hate basic science and education. Ted Cruz is on the committee that decides funding for NASA. I mean... Come On!

Re:More than PR

[whistlingtony]

Naaahhh... It's because we think getting rid of the EPA is bat shit crazy STUPID. It does a valuable job. There's a reason the EPA exists... We Americans set a river on fire for fuck's sake. A River! On Fire! Getting lead out of gasoline is a good idea. Our natural resources need to be protected, and not because of hippy dippy feelings, but because a lot of us happen to make our living from them!

Liberals would be a lot happier with Libertarians if they'd stop trying to kill basic protections so the magic free market could make all the decisions. We've done that before in US history. It did not go well......

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.

Are you not sure that it is liberals who have never heard of the tragedy of the commons? The definition from Wikipedia:

"'[..] to denote a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource."

What do you think you get when you have the entire electorate able to vote in politicians or policies that run roughshod over the economy and our liberties?

Giving government (and by proxy the electorate) such large control of the economy is the ultimate example of tragedy of the commons and something libertarians are more interested in fixing than either party. Social programs and pork barrel spending are going to continue to grow until the resource is depleted (economic collapse). Do you care to explain how libertarian policies do not fix more "tragedy of the commons" dilemmas than they fix? Is not giving the public ever increasing access to siphon money from the economy the ultimate tragedy of the commons?

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could tell if you are joking. But my opinion of national politics is so low that it seems plausible.

Re:More than PR

[TechnoJoe]

I have some questions for Senator Rand Paul about his recent filibuster on the Patriot Act.

Senator, do you realize that you probably would not have needed this fight if you hadn't endorsed Mitch McConnell in 2014? Do you still support Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader in light of how he is supporting a bill that you says violates the Constitution?

Senator Rand Paul appears to believe the Patriot Act is such a threat to the Constitution that he filibustered the Senate in front of all the cameras. However, he believes this threat to the Constitution is not quite important enough to withdraw his support of McConnell -- the Senator promoting the threat.

I want to know what's more important to Senator Rand Paul: his defense of the Constitution, or his allegiance to Mitch McConnell.

Re:More than PR

[david_thornley]

You left out the people currently selling illegal drugs, the kingpins anyway, who stand to make considerably less if the War on Drugs winds down. They have money, and like the way the US government suppresses competition for them. They'd be very hard hit by legalization of popular currently illegal drugs.

Re:More than PR

[david_thornley]

Ultimately, the liberal philosophy is that everybody gets the chance to be what they can be, without regard for sex, race, parents, whatever, and that government, however flawed, is very important in this. This probably involves taking care of pretty much everybody at some time or other, since very few people are consistently strong and empowered throughout their lives. This is pretty much your definition of conservative, much as approximately everyone is in favor of keeping government as small as possible, not just libertarians.

The difference between conservatives and liberals in philosophy is that conservatives are much more tolerant of inequality, particularly of opportunity. They also seem to want to regulate individual behavior. Liberals want the government to assure good medical care, and don't care who marries whom. Conservatives want to leave medical care up to individuals, not making it a government responsibility, and want to ban same-sex marriage by law. (These are sample issues for illustration only, and I know there's lots of individual exceptions.)

Obviously there are a lot of people who don't fit any of the camps, or talk a much better line than they walk, and so forth.

Re:More than PR

[HornWumpus]

/. is an American site.

We use the American definition of 'Liberal'. Socialists and social democrats. Opposed to liberty.

Re:More than PR

[HornWumpus]

He was a deluded old clansman. So no doubt.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do

Sure, they do. But over the lifespan of the US the "moderation" usually favors the wealthy and connected. It's only when the public gets particularly outraged that the moderation has anything to do with creating a better society.

Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK, and actually harm this country, all the while lying through their teeth about the disasters they've created. Clinton had to work to clean up after Reagan (Bush Sr. started that cleanup, and the GOP threw him out), and Obama has had to work to clean up from Bush Jr. Red states are leeches off the federal coffers, while blue states have to dole out money to help the sad sack red states who apparently don't have bootstraps of their own. All the while republican politicians lie like bitches so they can HAVE POWER.... instead of actually govern the country for the betterment of everyone.

The obvious rebuttal is twofold. First, one would expect in a democracy for those who don't desire government action in their lives to require a larger bribe than those who do. It's standard supply and demand in a democracy.

Second, where is the money going? Just because, say, West Virginia gets money for a high tech emergency command center or money to back bonds for an interstate (hypothetical examples) doesn't mean that the money goes to West Virginia networking equipment manufacturers or the fees for managing the sale of said bonds go to West Virginia brokers. There's a lot of blue state participation in red state spending.

I call your bluff here. By all means, cut funding to those disrespectful, slothful red states. Of course, your "moderation of society" will be cut in retaliation. That's win-win for me.

Re:More than PR

[Jane Q. Public]

I think your analysis is off. I believe democrats see government is a moderation of society, where people come together to create a better society and life for EVERYONE, not just the few wealthiest fucktards that will buy them into office (as the republicans believe), or that only-the-strongest-and fuck-everyone-else as conservative libertarians do.

The first thing to note is that you are confirming my own comment, to a rather laughable degree.

The second thing is: you prove your ignorance by speaking of "conservative libertarians". There is no such animal. There are libertarian-leaning conservatives, but it does not work the other way around.

As for the big government democrats, maybe you need to do just a little smattering of research before continuing to use a stupid talking point that is basically propagandized projectionism utilized by con men preying on the willfully ignorant conservative base.

And maybe you should learn something about people you are speaking to before assuming they are just repeating media talking points. In fact I was speaking strictly from personal experience, much of it gleaned from right here on Slashdot. From comments like yours.

The largest state governments by percentage of population are red states:

Yep. Because people are sick and tired of "Progressive" liberals and their provably failed policies. I mean not just failing now, but that have historically failed, for many decades.

But on the other hand, the largest single voting bloc (>40%) are people who identify themselves as "independent" or "libertarian". In other words, not members or followers of either of the "Big 2" parties.

Maybe the biggest reason for the hatred is, libertarians and republicans continue to push policies that simply DO NOT WORK,

How do you know? Again you confirm my original comment by conflating libertarians with conservatives (a false notion), and then go further to suggest that YOU HAVE EVER SEEN A LIBERTARIAN POLICY. That's a hoot.

Re:More than PR

[Jane Q. Public]

Ultimately, the liberal philosophy is that society can and should take care of everyone. The libertarian philosophy is that everyone should only be required to take care of themselves. From an antagonist perspective, liberals have their heads in the clouds, and libertarians have never heard of the tragedy of the commons.

No, like so many others you mischaracterize what Libertarians are all about.

Regardless, the Tragedy of the Commons stemmed from a socialist "commons" policy... nothing even remotely Libertarian. In a Libertarian society such commons would scarcely if ever exist, and if any did, no party would be allowed to exploit them at the expense of others.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

It doesn't help that so many of Rand Paul's opposition are twirling their well-oiled mustaches like a Ayn Rand cartoonish villain.If you're a plug in replacement for a "looter" in Atlas Shrugged, then Ayn Rand's stilted writing and logic is the least of your troubles.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

The entire theme was anti-cronyism

How do you explain Dagny if that was the case? The theme was about how nice it would be to have the nobility, such as Dagny, back in charge

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

I just can't see why so many people think of her in an American context when she knew fuck-all about the west. If Stalin had parachuted a writer into the USA with instructions on writing something to undermine democracy it wouldn't have been as effective as the damage that Rand did with her rants about anything that wasn't aristocracy.
It's "twilight" for people who think they were born to rule.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

That makes far more sense than the article I read some years ago about his father being so batshit insane as to give his child the name "Rand".

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

I just can't see why so many people think of her in an American context when she knew fuck-all about the west.

America is not just the West. After all, there's a lot of people in America who know a lot about America, but very little about the rest of the West. If you look at Atlas Shrugged, it's quite clear that everything is deliberately vague beyond the borders of the US, which might be her ignorance of Europe and South America or that she was writing for a mostly US audience (who would not be familiar with those places either).

But even granting that, she had lived in the US for over a decade before the publication of Anthem, her first libertarian-style fiction and over three decades by the time of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.

If Stalin had parachuted a writer into the USA with instructions on writing something to undermine democracy it wouldn't have been as effective as the damage that Rand did with her rants about anything that wasn't aristocracy.

And I'm sure, if I had parachuted into Mother Russia with instructions to undermine the regime with my knowledge of orgami, that would have been super-effective too.

It's "twilight" for people who think they were born to rule.

You might find this hard to believe, but people who think they're born to rule, don't need a book to justify their world view. Rand was a bit crazy, particularly in her later years, but it's ridiculous to assert she was undermining democracy with words (actually it would be ridiculous to assert that she was even trying to - she does have a long pro-democracy history, let us note). It is impossible to do that just as it would be impossible to overwhelmhe USSR with a few small bits of folded paper.

What I believe happened here and why Rand was so influential was because she was a voice for groups and ideas which had long been neglected and derided. I speak not just of the imaginary people who supposedly thought they were born to rule, but somehow couldn't avail themselves of the multitude of utopian, authoritarian belief systems tailored to them, but also the people who grew tired of the ever increasing dysfunctionality, demands, and hypocrisy placed on them by society and authority.

And seriously, how is Rand supposed to have undermined democracy anyway? I note that we in the US currently have a president who is the antithesis of anything Rand believed in, who is casually slipping the US into another Vietnam-style war in Iraq, created the most destructive social program (the Obamacare thing) in forty years, has a variety of 0-9 losses at the Supreme Court from breathtakingly irrational, unconstitutional actions and arguments (typical looter logic in Atlas Shrug but without the compliant judicial branch to make it work), and a variety of creeping acts of tyranny.

Meanwhile we have a senator, named after Ayn Rand herself, who just opposed renewal of the Patriot Act, which is probably the single biggest step toward US tyranny in the last half century, by filibustering it at a crucial period prior to its renewal.

I suspect you might not have a clue what undermining a democracy entails. It's not words that undermine a democracy, but the crushing of freedom to act, to speak, to think, which undermines democracy.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

it's quite clear that everything is deliberately vague beyond the borders of the US

It's her ignorance of the USA, especially functioning capitalism and a functioning state with elected officials where she has such breathtaking ignorance. Atlas Shrugged could be renamed "Bring back the Tsar and his petty nobles to run the place", so much of it is about the horror of dirty little serfs like the science guy having positions of power.

And seriously, how is Rand supposed to have undermined democracy anyway?

Her aristocratic manifesto was taken seriously be far too many people who take it far more seriously than a shallow SF book should be.

I note that we in the US currently have a president who is the antithesis of anything Rand believed in,

If you pay attention you'll notice that they have ALL been that from George Washington onwards. IMHO that shows more about Rand's lack of understanding of the USA in the years when she wrote the novel than anything wrong with the United States.
It's a European novel about aristocracy (screwing their way to the top as jailbait no less), highly critical about egalitarian colonials like the people who built the United States and those who carry on inspired by them. It's had a LOT of influence on people who didn't know better and it's distorted their view of reality.
If you want to read something to defuse such shit try some Joseph Conrad - well written, lots of it is short, and he made sure he had a very deep understanding of the topics he wrote about. "Under Western Eyes" shows what Rand had to be afraid of in her earlier years and it's a pity she never wrote something like that instead of her big insult to the west "Atlas Shrugged".

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

who just opposed renewal of the Patriot Act ... by filibustering it at a crucial period prior to its renewal.

Not critical enough that such a delay achieved anything other than sending a message.
BTW, I completely agree with your text I cut out, but my point is that it's the actual votes against it that matter and various proceedural games are mostly pointless unless they influence that in some way.

I see the filibuster as a flaw in democracy (like the shutdown trick Cruz pulled) and not the person, despite my rants about an author that it turns out he wasn't named after, and disagreeing with some (but in no way all) of his policies. It's sad that he can't just vote against it and get media attention for that, but instead has to be a roadblock for ten hours to get the message out.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

Not critical enough that such a delay achieved anything other than sending a message.

Better than anything you or I have done.

I see the filibuster as a flaw in democracy

Why a flaw? Just because it was used some years back to block stuff you like? I consider that sort of thing a feature not a flaw. Legislative bodies aren't supposed to be a instantly responsive control system. They don't nor should be instantly reacting to any mood we happen to be in.

Look at all the silly media frenzies that happen each day in the US. Do you really want many of those to end up in law just because someone could get bills passed during the peak of the hysteria? Filibusters are one of the many tools out there to make sure crazy stuff of the moment doesn't turn into laws that last decades or centuries.

That's exactly how the Patriot Act passed in the first place. Do we really want more law like it? Somehow I doubt it.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

It's her ignorance of the USA, especially functioning capitalism and a functioning state with elected officials where she has such breathtaking ignorance.

I glanced at her biography and saw that not only had she lived in the US for many decades, but she had also worked for a campaign. It appears to me that part of her wit and rhetorical ability was sharpened in the very sort of functioning democracy that you claim she was ignorant of.

Her aristocratic manifesto was taken seriously be far too many people who take it far more seriously than a shallow SF book should be.

So what? I hope you have actual arrows in that rhetorical quiver.

If you pay attention you'll notice that they have ALL been that from George Washington onwards.

No, I don't see that at all and really that is an absurd claim to make about such an ideologically varied group. For example, we have US Presidents, Coolidge, Eisenhower and Reagan. None of them share the radical viewpoint of Ayn Rand, but they do have share some common ground such as a philosophical emphasis on individuality and independence over collective action.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

None of them share the radical viewpoint of Ayn Rand

That's my point, they are all heirs to George Washington instead of King George or the Tsar.
If you read stuff about or set in 19th century Russia before reading Rand it all stands out like dogs balls - especially little Princess Dagny.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

I glanced at her biography and saw that not only had she lived in the US for many decades

FFS she was immersed in the bullshit factory of Hollywood and wouldn't have known a normal US workplace if it fell on her.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

Sorry to post so much but the massive clue is about people of ability going away to come back after society has collapsed under the weight of socialism. That should remind you of something. Something from around 1917, and then wishful thinking about it collapsing soon after, which didn't happen in Rand's lifetime. The bit that gets me is all those Rand people of ability can be born to it without having to actually demonstrate it. It's a toxic message that is the antithesis of what modern society in the west is about.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

which didn't happen in Rand's lifetime

But did happen seven years after Rand's death.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

Bit of a long time for the "great men" to be "on strike" isn't it?
Since it's set in the USA, IMHO, that book is a kick in the face for both democracy and capitalism. Somehow American society is so useless in Rand's eyes that only a small nobility can keep it going. That is the exact opposite of the reality of the wide road to prosperity in the 1940s and 50s when she wrote the book.
That book is not for you or me, it's for someone with a rich daddy that has brought them up to be ruthless and amoral.

Anyway, I think it's poison preying on the young and naive for a wide range of reasons and I've probably vented enough on that. I accept that you have a different view and that you probably do not see it as a deliberate kick in the face to a society that was built by people that actually did something instead of sitting on a throne issuing orders.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

Bit of a long time for the "great men" to be "on strike" isn't it?

Too long, but it did happen in the end.

Since it's set in the USA, IMHO, that book is a kick in the face for both democracy and capitalism. Somehow American society is so useless in Rand's eyes that only a small nobility can keep it going. That is the exact opposite of the reality of the wide road to prosperity in the 1940s and 50s when she wrote the book.

Or you could choose not to perceive it that way. Then it's not. It's quite clear that her "nobility" were merely people who were good at making or trading things, and who took the initiative to do so. And unlike actual nobility, ties of blood or marriage did not make someone a member of this supposed elite (for example, in Atlas Shrugged two of the significant antagonists of the book were a wife and a brother of the two main protagonists).

Anyway, I think it's poison preying on the young and naive for a wide range of reasons and I've probably vented enough on that. I accept that you have a different view and that you probably do not see it as a deliberate kick in the face to a society that was built by people that actually did something instead of sitting on a throne issuing orders.

Well, you are right in that I don't see it as a deliberate kick in the face to the said society. Instead, I see it as an homage to those very people and a pertinent warning to the present.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

And unlike actual nobility, ties of blood or marriage

With respect didn't you notice THE MAIN CHARACTER.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

Too long, but it did happen in the end.

Since they were long dead, most definitely not.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

With respect didn't you notice THE MAIN CHARACTER.

Whose BROTHER by birth was on the other side.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

Since they were long dead, most definitely not.

Except, of course, for the ones who were still alive. The US had quite an interesting mix of immigrants from Russia when the Wall came down. I recall that meeting some of the brilliant mathematician immigrants of that time from Russia and the Eastern Bloc helped solidify my resolve to get an advanced degree in math, but not to become an academician.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

You are just being obtuse. Fine, you like the book, but don't let it make you look like a complete idiot just to pretend it's perfect.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

What does it matter? When a minor is thrust into a position of power due to their ancestry and not their own efforts what else do you call it? Little Jailbait Princess Dagney is nothing but a symbol of how wonderful the aristocracy is and how common losers like Franklin, Washington and Jefferson got it all wrong.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

I'm more concerned about the people who use Atlas Shrugged as an instruction manual.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

When a minor is thrust into a position of power due to their ancestry and not their own efforts what else do you call it?

Inheritance.

Little Jailbait Princess Dagney is nothing but a symbol of how wonderful the aristocracy is and how common losers like Franklin, Washington and Jefferson got it all wrong.

Dagney's brother was pretty big on class warfare too and how elites like him were necessary to fight for the common man. I find it interesting how quickly you descend into the language of the antagonists of the story.

And as it turned out, Little Jailbait Princess Dagney was really good at running trains which is a thing Ayn Rand cared about more than her supposed nobility.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it interesting how quickly you descend into the language of the antagonists of the story.

I think it's the other way around. Rand probably based her antagonists on people against her or she is against philosophically (i.e people like GP). So it's not that GP sounds like a Rand antagonist, but Rand antagonists sound like people like GP.

Dagney meanwhile is Rand's author insert. Atlas Shrugged is basically Rand's fantasy of defeating her ideological opponents.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

His daddy is a politician. That isn't a coincidence. It is obvious he is gunning for president.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

I think it's the other way around. Rand probably based her antagonists on people against her or she is against philosophically (i.e people like GP). So it's not that GP sounds like a Rand antagonist, but Rand antagonists sound like people like GP.

If A is like B, then B is like A.

Dagney meanwhile is Rand's author insert. Atlas Shrugged is basically Rand's fantasy of defeating her ideological opponents.

I quite agree. But I think the book serves a purpose past just expressing Ayn Rand's fantasies. For example, notice dbiii's obsessive focus on nobility despite obvious problems with the assertion. Ayn Rand caricatures such beliefs intentionally and unintentionally in Atlas Shrugged.

It's not the French Revolution any more. If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago, then maybe you need to up your game.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

obsessive focus on nobility despite obvious problems with the assertion.

Since I had read about Russian nobility decades before I had the misfortune of reading "I'll just avoid responsibility AKA Atlas Shrugged" I have picked up a wide enough worldview to see where Rand was coming from so those "obvious problems" vanished. The "obvious problems" only occur if you consider it in only a very narrow American contest and completely ignore her background and her view of the anti-fascist backlash of the 40's and 50's as "socialism", instead of it being the USA as usual.

If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago

My entire point is Rand is pushing a view that the USA finally rejected in 1777 - so both ancient and silly.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

I find it interesting how quickly you descend into the language of the antagonists of the story.

Considering it was about how much she hated Democracy and Capitalism and the way mere serfs in the west had a say in running the State why is that "interesting"?
We are all either equivalent to her antagonists or just useless sheep waiting for the "great men" to stop being on strike and then come back to rule us.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

I'm more concerned about the people who use Atlas Shrugged as an instruction manual.

That is what I've been ranting about all this time.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

If A is like B, then B is like A.

My point is about which is the caricature and which is the object being caricatured.

notice dbiii's obsessive focus

I don't see obsession. I see passion. Everybody has different things they're passionate about. I wouldn't call him obsessive anymore than I would you on the things that rile you up.

If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago, then maybe you need to up your game.

Except, of course, when it isn't accurate.

Rand's characters are caricatures. They're about as accurate to real people as caricatures of libertarians that you may found around stories like these.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, most of them couldn't be. Cholesterol medication couldn't, most cancer medicines couldn't (sometimes pot works against cancer, but not nearly as strongly as targeted therapies, and a combinatorial approach is probably better anyways), plenty of others as well. Pot isn't some miracle plant.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

The real question is did you learn anything from it? I read about Russian nobility decades before I read Atlas Shrugged too.

Just because she lauded a certain, relatively elitist view, a view which is echoed to some degree in actual human endeavor, doesn't mean that she advocated some sort of nobility. Her heroes weren't people who were noble by birth or because they belonged to the right families. They were people who made things or ran enterprises (which incidentally is not a thing the Russian nobility was notable for!). In the end, the protagonists of her book had largely abandoned society and lost the fruits of the labors they had in greater society (gone on "strike").

Further, I find it odd that all you can seem to find in the book is some lame argument for Russian nobility. The most important takeaway is that this novel is about a dystopian future created by people who take from others and society supposedly for the purpose of saving society. The language she uses to describe them, particularly, "looter" indicates why she abhors the foes of the book. It's not because they aren't nobility.

She actually has some good writing in there particularly the story of the end of "20th Century Motors", a business which happened to employ John Galt as an inventor. The only people who could be considered nobility were the ones who inherited and then destroyed the company, causing a great deal of suffering in the process.

My entire point is Rand is pushing a view that the USA finally rejected in 1777 - so both ancient and silly.

Do you really think she would be so popular today, if you were even remotely right? The US is going through the early stages of the Atlas Shrugged nightmare right now. It's a country where higher education costs have tripled over a few short decades (adjusted for inflation) and this increase in cost is due solely to attempts to make college allegedly more affordable (subsidized and government guaranteed student loans). The same has happened for health care and home ownership.

It's a place where one can justify government spending by claiming that they will create one temporary job per few hundred thousand dollars spent. Where economic activity (GDP) is more important than future wealth. Where people can bitterly complain about the lack of jobs while simultaneously advocate for various policies that make it harder and more costly to employ people. Where moving enterprises to the more productive and vigorous societies of the world becomes synonymous with derogatory terms like "race to the bottom".

It's a place where various robin hood and social improvement policies have been in place for generations, yet things are getting worse and more corrupt with chilling signs of tyranny on the horizon. Where governments get creative with interpretation of laws in ways that suit them or their cronies.

Here's the thing. Rand nailed that 50 years ago: the language, the actions, the outcomes. I simply don't care if she actually had unpopular opinions on nobility or whatever. I think she should get considerable credit for calling our present society.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

Do you really think she would be so popular today, if you were even remotely right?

Yes - because the idiots pushing her view of selfishness as an ideology haven't considered the implications of it.

Re:More than PR

[dbIII]

Rand nailed that 50 years ago

Sorry to reply again, but it's such a brittle and unrealistic parody of western democracy where people stand around and just let things happen that it doesn't nail anything likely to happen if real human beings are around. I got dragged in to reading that poorly written manifesto of greed and 19th C. aristocrat worship after students kept going on about Rear-done metal and even that shit about a brilliant invention from a dabbler being rejected by all experts is a fucking huge insult to western capitalism and democracy. I can't see it coming close on even a very superficial level.
Seriously - is there anything like the steel quota in the book or that other brittle plot devices? They wouldn't last ten seconds without getting broken in the USA that existed when she wrote the book or exists now.

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Freak]

Would he have done it? Yes. And I am thankful to him for that.

But he would have done it when the actual bill were being debated, not at a random time that was convenient for press coverage...

Re:More than PR

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think she would be so popular today, if you were even remotely right?

Dude, by that logic, the very opposite of Rand's ideas (socialism, statism, big government, etc) is also right at least partially, since they too are popular ...and you know, if Rand is popular, it's inaccurate to say the US is going through early Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagney's group are not the popular ones.

Re:More than PR

[khallow]

In Horne, the eponymous family, which markets raisins, sued the USDA to force the agency to compensate them if the USDA forced them (along with raisin handlers around the country) to turn over cash or almost half their raisin crop to the agency in return for the purported privilege of handling raisins.

Why didn't the EU stop the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the real estate crisis of 2007-2008? Why is the War on Drugs still happening in the US? Why is the "lost decade" following the Japanese recession of 1990-1991 still happening more than another decade later? When will someone cut back on the loss of industry to the developing world or the increasing bulk spying of the various developed world governments?

One obvious counterexample is the diffusion of responsibility and short term thinking. Much has been said here of the short-sighted nature of human society, particularly, its businesses. Far less attention has been played to why this happened. After all, industry hasn't always been so short-sighted. So what changed?

Rand's viewpoint explains this better than you do.

Disk space

[Anonymous Coward]

It filled up 11 hours of disk space somewhere on an NSA hard drive

Well...

[Black Parrot]

It got him an off-hour story on Slashdot.

It's a fake!!

[satsuke]

This was a fake filibuster ..

If he had been serious, he could have lodged a nominal filibuster (e.g say "I am speaking" that could only be overridden with a majority vote of the senate.

Since his party controls the senate, and he basically just did a political stunt, I question if he is actually against the Patriot Act, or if he was just playing political theater for his doomed presidential campaign.

Re:It's a fake!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the party's platform. He's wandering off the beaten path and couldn't get the votes necessary.

Re:It's a fake!!

[lgw]

You need the backing of your party to do the fake-filibuster thing. Obviously, most senators in both parties love the NSA, the Patriot act, the who deal, and wouldn't support him. So a real filibuster was his only option. At least he's doing what he can - good for him!

Re:It's a fake!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention he constantly stands up for this. Maybe his whole carreer is a fake ? I guess you could surmise that.

Re:It's a fake!!

[BitZtream]

Theres not really much wonder to it.

Rand Paul makes his opinion well known and stands by it. Agree or disagree, if you don't know his stance, its only because you've not bothered to pay attention.

Other senators abstain rather than vote against the party, Rand Paul votes. When he doesn't like something, he states it loudly and votes against it. This is unlike people like Changemaster Obama ... who no one bothered to look at his voting record while ranting and raving about him ... at which point they would have noticed, clearly, that Obama made John McCain look angelic. I suspect based on your comment, you don't really look at who you're voting for either, as Rand Paul is rather well known and has stood on his own for years.

Note: I do no vote for Rand Paul, but he is one of the few people that clearly votes based on his own personal agenda, and he does so publicly. I appreciate that. I do not appreciate politicians who claim they support my agenda, when in reality all they care about is more money and power.

Re:It's a fake!!

[dywolf]

No he doesn't.
He is no different from every other politician.
He panders to the audience and flipflops regularly.
And hates to be called on it.

Rand Paul’s Incoherent Foreign Policy Mess :

To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.

Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:

Should predator drones be used against American citizens?

During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:

“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”

One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”

Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:

“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”

Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?

In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:

“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”

Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:

“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”

Should birth control be banned?

Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.

In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have given employers an excuse to deny contraceptive health care coverage based on their conscience.

The following year, Paul denied he s

Patriot? what about TPP?

[Anonymous Coward]

He did this during the debate on fast tracking the TPP. Honestly everyone should be targeting stopping fast track status. TPP is a secret trade treaty and fast track only allows the senate to do an up/down vote with 51% majority, but requires 2/3 to vote to pick it apart. Worst deal ever. IDS will ruin the world, our laws will be stuck against a treaty and we won't be able to reduce or roll back any laws that are mandated by the treaty. Screw our privacy, save our nation and economy.

Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

The right question is, "What would have happened if the Senator had /not/ done this?" Individuals in certain portions of the country might have come the (erroneous) conclusion the would-have-been silence was a sign of acceptance, potentially setting in motion a chain of events which would have result in worse abuses.

As for the notion of "This is just PR for the campaign," presume for a moment Rand Paul, if elected, would prove to be a President of integrity and principles (regardless of the degree of agreement or disagreement with the Senator's policy positions); in such a scenario, the Senator would act yesterday exactly as was done: working to curb the worst abuses and deliberately gumming up the legislative machinery if needed to do it.

Re:Wrong question

[FranTaylor]

presume for a moment Rand Paul, if elected, would prove to be a President of integrity and principles

Rand Paul:

”Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”

Rand Paul:

"It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression. Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation."

where is this "integrity" you are talking about? he has held both positions on a most important and significant issue

Re:Wrong question

[King_TJ]

Well, first of all, I don't really happen to think Rand has the most well thought out stances on some of the issues. Certainly, he's not a cookie-cutter of his father's political beliefs -- and IMO, where he differs from Ron is typically where I least like what he's saying.

Specifically, I think Rand is much more of a believer in the U.S. using its military might to try to shape politics in other parts of the world, where Ron was much more clear that our forces had no business acting as the aggressor in ANY circumstance. (That means no business occupying foreign soil with military bases for "strategic" reasons when we're not actively at war with those nations.)

But that said, I'm not sure those two quotes about Russia are completely incompatible or opposites? It's one thing to believe the Cold War never ended, and another to interpret Russia's latest aggression as a recent happening that really isn't tied to a perceived constant goal of theirs. Russia has been through a lot of changes in leadership over the years.

For example, from the mid 60's through mid 70's, they didn't even have a single leader. Rather, it was a group of 3 individuals; Leonid Brezhnev, Alexei Kosygin and Nikolai Podgorny essentially ruling as a collective.

Many people say Russia's current actions are just a desperate attempt to reclaim some of its former glory .... steps it wasn't really taking in earnest for at least the last couple decades or so.

Re:Wrong question

[Curunir_wolf]

he has held both positions on a most important and significant issue

False. Rather, you cannot see past sound bites fed to you and fail to distinguish between subtle positions. "Non-interventionism" is not the same as "isolationism".

Re:Wrong question

[FranTaylor]

It's one thing to believe the Cold War never ended, and another to interpret Russia's latest aggression as a recent happening that really isn't tied to a perceived constant goal of theirs.

The cold war was ALL ABOUT pushing back against Soviet expansion.

The current condition in the Ukraine is ALL ABOUT Russian expansion.

So what is happening in the Ukraine is PRECISELY the very same "cold war" that has been going on the whole time.

Many people say Russia's current actions are just a desperate attempt to reclaim some of its former glory .... steps it wasn't really taking in earnest for at least the last couple decades or so.

So you weren't paying attention when Russia was fighting a full-on war in Afghanistan "to regain their former glory"?

You apparently haven't paying attention to the Russian space program, operating "in full glory" for decades to the point where we are using their rockets to boost our astronauts into space? This capability does not happen overnight, it is the result of decades of EARNEST work in the field.

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps those quotes (which you've somewhat desperately posted multiple times) aren't contradictory? Show a little depth of thought.

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Those two aren't contradictory. One can easily believe in standing against Putin and his childish "I learned from watching you!" Ukraine antics while still thinking it is stupid to antagonize Russia for no good reason. Changing stances in the face of changing circumstances is a mark of not being an idiot. No shame in betting on beta-max and then acknowledging VHS won and switching then.

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

You apparently haven't paying attention to the Russian space program, operating "in full glory" for decades to the point where we are using their rockets to boost our astronauts into space? This capability does not happen overnight, it is the result of decades of EARNEST work in the field.

Just because it makes you feel inadequate doesn't mean it is an act of expansionism. Their rocket program made them money. Or do you demand that other countries stop releasing popular music singles because you fear anyone else improving?

Re:Wrong question

[FranTaylor]

"Putin must be punished" is neither "non-interventionism" nor "isolationism"

Re:Wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

The current condition in the Ukraine is ALL ABOUT Russian expansion.

So what is happening in the Ukraine is PRECISELY the very same "cold war" that has been going on the whole time.

Agreed, it's horrible how Russia has those 700+ military bases around the world... oh, wait, that's us.
Well, maybe this map could be of use:

Russia Wants War

How *dare* they put their country so close to our military bases!

PR Stunt

[Etherwalk]

While I applaud Paul, Wyden, and the other Senators who have pledged to do everything in their power to block the spying-allowed version of this renewal; Sen. Paul's "filibuster" was pure PR stunt for his presidential campaign. It was during the discussion of a completely unrelated bill, and wasn't even an official filibuster.

Populism works by incentivizing politicians to do PR stunts drawing attention to issues people care about. This PR Stunt is much more important than 90% of Senate Business anyway.

It wakes up the ...

[CaptainDork]

... public.

It wasn't a filibuster

[rsilvergun]

Read the article on arstechnica. He stopped 11 minutes short of midnight. If he'd actually had the balls to filibuster the bill it wouldn't have passed in the first place.

Re:It wasn't a filibuster

[brianerst]

It didn't pass. Paul stopped 11 minutes before midnight to allow the possibility of a compromise whipping of the USA Freedom Act (which didn't happen).

Paul is against the USA Freedom Act (which he considers weak sauce compared to an outright repeal/sunsetting of the Patriot Act), but all the other anti-Patriot Act Senators are for the UFA. This was his compromise with them, not with the pro-Patriot Act Senators. As the "filibuster" technically took place during the discussion of a separate bill, the Patriot Act extension couldn't be brought up until that other bill was tabled or voted on. Paul didn't leave enough time to do that.

Only lawsuits by EU will crush this

[Anonymous Coward]

Only EU citizens can restore America's rights.

Sad, but that's the truth.

Re:Only lawsuits by EU will crush this

[Anonymous Coward]

Only EU citizens can restore America's rights.

Sad, but that's the truth.

At the present rate, only Vladimir Putin could restore America's rights.

Has my vote

[WaffleMonster]

Listened to the entire thing in the background yesterday. More than anything I really think he just wants a vote on his amendments. A real filibuster would kind of be too late in this case if the actual goal is to have votes on amendments to fix USA Freedom act.

It could just be self-promotion and all but lets not forget he did the same thing over drones a couple years ago and in my view he seems to actually care about his cause.

The effect was

[Anonymous Coward]

the NWO owned media didnt say a word about it

I feel dirty.

[Chalnoth]

Rand Paul did something I agree with?

Ugh. What is this unclean feeling? Can't we have better allies than the mendaciously dishonest Rand Paul?

Re:I feel dirty.

[FranTaylor]

george w bush signed a pretty significant environmental protection bill that significantly reduces the amount of pollution from diesel locomotives

he did it because it generated windfall profits for GE who was the only company poised to sell the new locomotives

sometimes good things happen for bad reasons

Re:I feel dirty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters were all over complaining about the Patriot Act when a republican was president. Now, with a Democrat in office, very few say anything. Come on! Any kind of talk in Congress against Patriot Act should be encouraged!

Re:I feel dirty.

[Bing Tsher E]

General Electric was a big contributor to Obama's campaign.

They also essentially bankrolled Ronald Reagan's early political career.

And Warren Buffet makes a ton of money from the fact that the pipeline is blocked so the Oil Cars have to run on his railroad track.

Re:I feel dirty.

[Anonymous Coward]

he did it because it generated windfall profits for GE who was the only company poised to sell the new locomotives

Sorry, I'm confused - are you really saying it's better that the environmental act shouldn't have been signed?

Your assertion is that "major benefits to the environment" are somehow undesirable simply because GE happened to be the best positioned to meet the demand triggered by new regulations.

Would you prefer that the regulations not have been put into place? You seem SO invested in bashing anybody and anything that's not "liberal" that you're willing to burn the world down just to avoid having to give a compliment, or acknowledge that one of "those people" did something good.

You're Doing It Wrong (Again)

[Anonymous Coward]

On a TECH news site about a political issue with huge TECH implications, you somehow managed to spin it into a story espousing a biased political viewpoint on a an obscure political procedure. Why wasn't the headline: "10 Hour Filibuster on Domestic Spy Programs and the Engineering Arguments Raised Therein"

11 hour delay?

[Robert.Eachus]

Really? How far behind would it put you, at work, if someone talked for 11 hours, in the conference room, to video cameras, at your office? Sounds like a very productive day to me. I'm sure it bothered them just as much and got a lot of real work done.

I know

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go with "unpaid political ad on slashdot"

Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[DavidinAla]

Whether you like Rand Paul or not, it was a filibuster. Putting quotes around it like that is a cheap shot designed to attack someone you don't like. It's factually inaccurate and it makes the item nothing but a hit piece on Paul.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[DavidinAla]

Look, moron. I'm an anarchist. I don't support any candidate. But I have this odd belief in accuracy and fairness, which people like you clearly don't care about.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[FranTaylor]

rand paul says that the civil rights act of 1965 should be revoked

he says that people should be forced to sit in the back of the bus because somehow this is "good" for them

one day he says "It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression. "

another day he says ”Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”
(Fortune magazine 3/11/2014)

you want accuracy and fairness? I copied and pasted those quotes directly.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[DavidinAla]

You truly ARE a moron. This conversation has NOTHING to do with any of his views on anything else. Are you too stupid to understand that? I'm objecting to this site posting a political attack and trying to somehow, someway make it appear what he did wasn't a filibuster. I don't care how stupid you are. I don't care how much you hate Paul. I commented on one narrow issue, but you're too filled with hatred to care about accuracy or fairness on the one issue on the table. You're disgusting.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[FranTaylor]

in case you aren't paying attention, he's running for president

in case you aren't paying attention, he stood up and did this because he is running for president

he was there for several other occasions when the patriot act was being debated, he did not filibuster any of those times

but now that he is running for president...

when people run for president, we care about ALL of their political positions, not just one

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[Curunir_wolf]

in case you aren't paying attention, he stood up and did this because he is running for president

That's pretty disingenuous, without merit, and without relevance. Paul has opposed these types of government intrusion and civil rights violations for a long time, long before he even entered politics. A passionate dislike for excessive government surveillance is just as likely a motivation for this as your biased viewpoint of him.

he was there for several other occasions when the patriot act was being debated, he did not filibuster any of those times

You are a victim of media manipulation. Here's your sign.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[FranTaylor]

You are a victim of media manipulation. Here's your sign.

the word "filibuster" does not appear in the article you have linked to

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either:
1) Rand Paul is doing the right thing, in which case he's the only presidential candidate smart enough to seize the opportunity to do the right thing and score political points for it;
2) Rand Paul is doing the wrong thing, in which case he's the only presidential candidate dumb enough to do something like argue for protection of our civil rights;

I wonder which side of the fence you fall on. If this were Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders standing up on the floor of the Senate to denounce these things, I'd congratulate and salute them, too -- I'd hope that my presidential hopefuls of all parties share a fundamental belief in the sanctity of the rights of their constituency.

Apparently, you're okay with people not contesting the Patriot Act, since questioning the wisdom of our dear leaders is apparently ONLY possible if you're a contemptible opponent of the dear leaders.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[Anonymous Coward]

rand paul says that the civil rights act of 1965 should be revoked

he says that people should be forced to sit in the back of the bus because somehow this is "good" for them)

you want accuracy and fairness? I copied and pasted those quotes directly.

When I did a google search for the copy/paste quotes, google only found your post
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7448173&cid=49748029

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, since all politicians are shitty and rand paul a politician, rand paul is shitty too. he has also demonstrated significant ideological inconsistency as he navigates the mine field created by his libertarian leanings (they themselves inconsistent) and the GOP party that he colludes with. Ergo, its an easier position to defend that he is just a narcissistic asshole. Thus, it seems more likely that, rather than a victim of media manipulation, as you posit, it is more likely you're just caught in a politicians' love bubble.

Re:Why the quote marks around "filibuster"?

[Curunir_wolf]

he has also demonstrated significant ideological inconsistency as he navigates the mine field created by his libertarian leanings (they themselves inconsistent)

Clearly if you try to compare one libertarian's ideas with another, you may view them as inconsistent - but you can say the same about "progressive" or "liberal" or "conservative" or any other. However, the core principles of libertarianism itself is the most consistent of any other philosophy I know of. It's really simple too. You seem ignorant of what it's about.

Yes, Rand Paul is a politician. And "pure" libertarians have grown to distrust him, too, since he tries to express his views in a way that doesn't scare people. Even if he believes there should be no laws against possession of heroin, cocaine, and that the state should repeal any law that defines a "marriage", expressing such an idea would marginalize him to such an extent that he'd be unable to influence ANYTHING in Washington.

civil rights? what civil rights?

[FranTaylor]

Rand Paul says that you have to sit in the back of the bus, because it's good for you

Re:civil rights? what civil rights?

[freeze128]

Screw that! I sit in the back of the bus because that's where all the cool kids are!

And I wish

[rsilvergun]

that folks would STFU about the constitution. It was not written for you. It was written for wealthy landowners. That's why we have a Senate (of which Mr Rand is part). It's to balance out all that popularism and keep the poors from voting themselves land and food. Don't believe me? Google it, and then go read "A People's History of the United States". Pretty much everything you were taught in grade school was bull shit.

And your sig annoys me. Denmark, Germany, France. All of them seem to be getting along just fine without a police state. Meanwhile illustrious libertarians Like Rand Paul can't even pull off an effective (or real) filibuster to stop a law they're ideology says they should be violently opposed to. Christ, the things that get modded up on /. these days...

Re:And I wish

[Bing Tsher E]

go read "A People's History of the United States". Pretty much everything you were taught in grade school was bull shit.

Likewise, a bunch of what you read in that book was bullshit. The use of "A People's... " in the title should have been a dead giveaway. History the way China would have us interpret it.

The fact that you say such ignorant shit about The Constitution clenches it.

Re:And I wish

[FranTaylor]

Denmark, Germany, France. All of them seem to be getting along just fine without a police state.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-state-france-new-anti-terrorism-legislation-threat-to-civil-liberties/5423798

"France’s police state apparatus is one of the continent’s toughest. Article 13 of its 2014-19 defense appropriation legislation permits monitoring, collecting and maintaining Internet user data."

"Without judicial oversight. Requiring ISPs and web sites to provide government with information on users’ activities."

"Authorizes government surveillance over any conduct deemed potentially harmful to French “scientific or economic potential.”

Re:And I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

France not a police state?
Seriously? Have you ever been there?

why the quotes

[Curunir_wolf]

What is the reason for the scare quotes on "filibuster"? Rand Paul's filibuster was, in fact, a filibuster, unlike the fake filibusters we have been subjected to over the last 40-odd years when the threat of a filibuster became a de-facto one, but without anyone actually having to stand in the chamber and talk for as long as they could stand to be there - ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

Are we so desensitized now by phony parliamentary maneuvers that don't actually require any effort on the part of our representatives that when someone actually follows the traditional route of discussion and debate and puts up a rhetorical fight we have to use scare quotes to distinguish it from the backroom posturing that normally goes on?

Re:why the quotes

[FranTaylor]

it's in quotes because he's the little boy who cries wolf and everybody has stopped paying attention to him

Re:why the quotes

[Curunir_wolf]

it's in quotes because he's the little boy who cries wolf and everybody has stopped paying attention to him

Yea, because nobody gives a crap if the government is collecting all your information, reading your email, and listening to your phone calls. If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about, right? Who cares about the 4th Amendment, it's all antiquated and stuff. We just want our Facebook and our smart phones and the GPS on our cars so Big Brother knows where we are. Silly, to make an issue of NSA's actions.

Re:why the quotes

[FranTaylor]

we do care about those things

but when they come out of the mouth of a guy who says:

  "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

then you really have to come to the conclusion that he says what he says in order to get press exposure, because clearly his remarks have no ground in "integrity" or "honesty" or anything like that

Re:why the quotes

[Curunir_wolf]

we do care about those things

but when they come out of the mouth of a guy who says:

"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

then you really have to come to the conclusion that he says what he says in order to get press exposure, because clearly his remarks have no ground in "integrity" or "honesty" or anything like that

Why? Do you think he lied? Because I have heard of them, too. I've even heard of ones that didn't even survive. Why do you focus on that out-of-context quote instead of his entire point? Are there no issues with vaccines? Should the government be mandating 200 vaccine shots for every citizen, regardless of outcome, and regardless of the pharmaceutical company immunity from any liability, but retaining all the profits from government-supported funding? Do you distrust Rand Paul more than pharmaceutical companies? Because that's an easy choice for me.

“There’s 400 headlines now that say ‘Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders,'” he continued. “That’s not what I said. I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”

Re:why the quotes

[FranTaylor]

Should the government be mandating 200 vaccine shots for every citizen, regardless of outcome

really? do you have any actual data beyond "I have heard of them too" to corroborate your claim? I'm guessing not because you would be more than gleeful to post any link .

"regardless of outcome" Well let's look at how many people died from these diseases before we had vaccines and look at how many people have a negative reaction to vaccines. What is the outcome? Far far fewer deaths.

Re:why the quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Explain how Paul's strong, principled criticism of the Patriot Act is misguided, without resorting to "he has crazy opinions on vaccines!"

That he might have bizarre or erroneous beliefs on vaccination has absolutely no bearing on whether or not his opposition to the Patriot Act is a good thing.

Re:why the quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, on the list "messed up things about society and government," looking at my text messages and facebook photos doesn't even make the top 10.

Re:why the quotes

[Curunir_wolf]

really? do you have any actual data beyond "I have heard of them too" to corroborate your claim? I'm guessing not because you would be more than gleeful to post any link .

I can't be "gleeful" about people that are harmed by pharmaceutical companies. But for your information, it happens often enough (and since these multinational corporations are IMMUNE from liability for ANY harm, the government has a compensation program to assist people injured by them.

There are vaccines and there are vaccines. I see no problem with the proven ones for really tragic illnesses, such as polio, for instance. But when states start mandating things like Gardisil, which has caused some neurological problems in some patients and with very questionable benefits, it goes too far.

Re:why the quotes

[dywolf]

oh look, its the garbage rag the Washington Examiner, dedicated to excusing and covering up the right's mistakes.

and yes youre still a crackpot who doesn't know what hes talking about concerning vaccines or pretty much any other topic.

Re:why the quotes

[dywolf]

and btw, he wasn't misquoted, though he has tried to cover up what he said (and this is the story that resulting him in telling a female reporter to "shush").

He said, verbatim:

I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

You cant explain that away.

and yes, he IS a known crackpot himself, frequently airing on Alex Jones' crackpot radio show, and repeating some of the crazy conspiracy theories to come from there.

Re:why the quotes

[Curunir_wolf]

oh look, its the garbage rag the Washington Examiner, dedicated to excusing and covering up the right's mistakes.

Oh, sorry, should I have found some garbage rag dedicated to excusing and covering up the left's mistakes? There are certainly a LOT more of those to choose from.

and yes youre still a crackpot who doesn't know what hes talking about concerning vaccines or pretty much any other topic.

Actually, you are an ignorant douchebag with no clue about anything, and a shill for the vastly harmful pharmaceutical industry.

Re:why the quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Can a man not be right on one subject and wrong on another. So he has a messed up view on vaccines, what does that make his view on government surveillance any less valid. try attacking his arguments regarding the subject at hand.

Re:why the quotes

[dywolf]

A) No, what you should do is find a reputable scientifically backed source. Which way it leans makes no difference, as facts are facts and care not about biases.

B) Oh please. The only one with any ignorance here is you. Because meanwhile back here in the real world, and multiple scientific research programs and studies later, there is still no connection between autism and vaccines. NONE.

ps: linking to the table that deals mostly with allergic reactions as a result vaccines doesn't prove your point. there's a reason they ask "are you allergic to eggs" before giving you the shot. the other category there is people who developed the disease in question, which is always a (very minor) risk with vaccines, simply due to what they frigging are.

But you keep on keeping on Mr Crackpot.

Re:why the quotes

[david_thornley]

The compensation program has a couple of purposes. First, pharma companies make very little on vaccines, so any legal trouble would likely drive them out of the business, and we'd have no vaccines. Second, in the rare case that somebody has a problem with a vaccine, it is possible to compensate them without going through the ordeal and delay of a lawsuit. Since any medical procedure has dangers, the government should be ready to help out people who were hurt by a mandatory procedure.

Re:why the quotes

[Curunir_wolf]

First, pharma companies make very little on vaccines

Bullshit, bullshit

"Resistance"

[Zhe Mappel]

I don't carry a torch for Rand Paul, but I am grateful for his act of resistance.

You ask what effect is achieved by his resisting. I will reply, unromantically, almost none.

We could argue about public education (did he really reach anyone new who doesn't already know the Patriot Act is evil?) and about self-aggrandizement (was he merely campaigning?).

To my way of thinking, we are living in a time when our votes count for little, our representatives do little for us, and against this condition of a democratic people isolated from control of the state, a sickening reversal of control is instead true: the security state is ascendant and it is our freedom that is waning.

If my apprehension of our position vis-a-vis the state is correct, this means that most protest will be reduced to a minor symbolic key. Its value, then, is in what it symbolizes, and I would say a filibuster on this point of authoritarian government power symbolizes a refusal to surrender casually. A refusal to be cheapened to the point of not caring; a defiance.

Quantifying such things is easy. What is the net benefit? Again, almost zero. But not entirely. A spark is kindled, or if you prefer, a flicker is kept going in a small and dull flame, with the hope that later we may fan it into something bolder and more valuable.

The value of this filibuster is sustaining hope.

Re:"Resistance"

[FranTaylor]

The value of this filibuster is sustaining hope.

the value of this filibuster is sustaining media coverage

"Read 'em & WEEP", Bouldin... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I do it on the /etc/hosts level on my dns server. You can find large lists of ad domains that can be added to your hosts file with 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 to cause them to fail. This covers all machines on your network that use your dns server. The one I use is http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho [mvps.org]... [mvps.org] however they have become slow with updating it. You might want to invest some time in looking for one that is updated more frequently." - by qwertyatwork (668720) on Sunday March 17, @10:39AM (#43196749)

Guess what? Since DNS rides on the IP stack, then that would work on THEIR END @ OPENDNS TOO overriding the DNS server program itself, since it uses the IP stack, which uses hosts as a filter!

(most likely, but ask them)

ANY DNS SERVER (blocked in hosts would block that DNS server too for bad entries)

After all... it all rides on IP, & hosts are queried FIRST, before anything else BY DEFAULT, dumbass...

APK

P.S.=> However, I've *ALWAYS* been rather curious about that... you said they work 'server-side' over @ OpenDNS?

That DNS server program?

Guess what??

It TOO, RIDES on an OS, that queries HOSTS first, which queries IP too (like all else does) which uses means a DNS server program uses hosts as PRIMARY RESOLVER by default too, since it rides on the OS using IP, which uses HOSTS first!

THIS one I'd like to know the answer too, & if it's how I think it is in theory alone? It shuts your ass DOWN, yet again, fool... lol! apk

Re:"Read 'em & WEEP", Bouldin... apk

[3.5 stripes]

Actually dude, you can quite easily change whether the IP stack looks in hosts first or not..

`/etc/nsswitch.conf` - learn about it!

Re:Apk make you eat yer words again?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're up to... what? 4 million registered Slashdotters?

Even if 1000 Slashdotters used HOSTS files, that's still 99.975% that don't. "100's" isn't a big deal.

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons, because APK is a stalker who thinks a discussion should be a fistfight.

Projecting your ac 'defense' now Bouldin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin said nobody uses hosts. Wrong http://it.slashdot.org/comment... and wrong again too since its used for security by a widely used security ware http://it.slashdot.org/comment... and with all the sockpuppetry here and fake names used? 4 mill. sockpuppets maybe at best.

Filibuster?

[jandersen]

I still can't get my head around this; a guy is allowed to hold off a vote on legislation by talking, because in the US there is a rule that makes it impossible to do what would happen in other, democratic nations, namely that a couple of bailiffs would gently lead him away until he regained his sense. In some cases this can mean that a vote cannot be held before a deadline, so in this situation a single bully can veto legislation that the majority wishes to pass. And this is applauded as a courageous act of ... what? And the defence of this practice is, no doubt, "freedom of speech"; funny how "freedom" so often mean "your right to do as you please", not "my right to stand up and give you a well deserved slap", figuratively speaking.

The real reason that this kind of idiocy is allowed, is not that it is about an important freedom, but simply that is does not matter in the bigger picture. It looks spectacular, if only because it is spectacularly boring, and it gives people the illusion that their freedoms are real, but the deals have already been done in the board rooms, where the real power lies.

Re:Filibuster?

[smaddox]

In an ideal democracy, the minority is not silenced by the majority. In a real democracy it is. The filibuster brings us closer to the former.

Re:Filibuster?

[david_thornley]

The US Federal government is set up to require a broad agreement to make laws, either a majority of both houses and presidential approval, or two-thirds of both houses. The filibuster is a mechanism for a single Senator to impede the progress of a bill, provided he or she is willing to keep standing and talking for a very long time. This gives Senators a chance to express extreme opposition to a bill, as long as they're willing to do the work.

The effect included...

[Anonymous Coward]

Making this story appear on /., raising his profile three tenth's of a thousandth of a percent, and raising his odds of becoming President of the United States by an amount which is even noticeable, with sufficiently sensitive polling equipment and adequate patience.

Additionally, his doing so engendered the writing of the previous sentence.

Additionally, his doing so engendered the writing of the previous sentence.

Additionally, his doing so engendered the writing of the previous sentence. (et cetera, et cetera, et... well, you get the idea).

It highlighted the ideal of

[dbIII]

It highlighted the "libertarian" ideal of the wishes of one man being far more important than an elected majority.
So more in keeping with the style of George King of England than George Washington.

The filibuster is a bug in the system kept for convenience of game playing factions instead of being a working part of the machinery of running the country.

Much Loved Nabil Ayouch

[Anonymous Coward]

MUCH LOVED, nabil ayouch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-VPfcolBC0

Actually, since many here appear ignorant...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is currently a federal court ruling against the Patriot Act data gathering with a deadline for compliance that is days away. The Senate is desperately trying to get out of town for another vacation so the senators were planning to just rubber-stamp a fix (re-wording it but not actually changing it) and then fly home. Unfortunately for those lazy senators, the court's deadline would hit during their vacation and the NSA has notified the senate that it will have to shut down the data vacuum very soon to assure compliance unless a bill is quickly passed making it legal beyond the court deadline. By doing what he did, Rand Paul threw a mini monkey wrench into the plans to renew the act in the dead of night when the public was not looking... now people are looking AND he consumed precious hours of floor time that Reid (D-NV) and McConnel (R-KY) were planning on using.

There is now not enough time to ram-through a full-renewal of the Patriot Act, because the House won't support that and there's not enough time for the usual arm-twisting. There may also now not be enough hours on the senate calendar for the slightly-better House fix (which many senators oppose but might be willing to grudgingly accept). Probable result: short-term "fix" that keeps Patriot Act alive for 2 or 3 months, during which the public can pester their representatives followed by more permanent "fix" that leaves data in the hands of the TELCOs and requires feds to get a warrant to get at the data (this is closer to the House Republican idea).

If there is ANY reduction in the mass-surveillance, it will trace back directly to this quasi-fillibuster. ANY senator who did not take part in this and yet claims to oppose all the spying is just lying - THOSE senators wanted the whole thing renewed without any public fuss.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are from different parts of the GOP. They have worked together many times when their interests overlapped and their principles lined-up. They have both helped each other on fillibusters even when they did not fully agree on the substance.

Rand is a Libertarian-leaning Republican.

Ted is a TEA Party-leaning Republican.

On this one, Rand was in total opposition to the Patriot Act, while Ted supports some of it. They both have expressed concerns about the Constitutionality of aspects of it and Ted is a very experienced Lawyer who has both worked at the Supreme Court and successfully argued cases there (i.e. his concerns are serious, rather than poll-tested, advisor-supplied talking points).

Re:wrong

[dywolf]

Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience.
He is a serial panderer, even for a politician.
He has flipflopped so many times...

Cruz isn't much better (actually he's not; he's worse, and a tool)

But on to Rand and why he is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is:

Rand Paul’s Incoherent Foreign Policy Mess :

To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.

Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:

Should predator drones be used against American citizens?

During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:

“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”

One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”

Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:

“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”

Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?

In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:

“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”

Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:

“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”

Should birth control be banned?

Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.

In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amend

Re:wrong

[One With Whisp]

I guess I must not be part of your political persuasion then, because damn. A lot of that list makes him look bad, but some of them make him look really good:

1) Rand Paul opposes gun control measures and voted with his party to filibuster the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would've merely expended background checks to include internet sales and gun shows.

Good, good.

2) Rand Paul, like Ron Paul before him, has repeatedly objected to key provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

I'd have to see those "key provisions" to have an opinion on this one.

5) Rand Paul voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Again, it's very possible there's some bad, terrible shit in there. I'd have to see his reasons for opposition before believing this to be a point against him.

7) Rand Paul is a fan of paleoconservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and has appeared on Jones' show numerous times. He's also endorsed his share of wild conspiracy theories.

Guilt by association.

9) Rand Paul has repeatedly voted to de-fund and repeal the Affordable Care Act, and would very likely do so as president. He's also spread "horror stories" about the law in Kentucky even though his state's exchange is one of the best in the nation.

He sounds good for the push for repealing. I would need to see these "horror stories" to determine anything about this part, though. Given this seems like a pretty left-wing site, the horror stories could have actually been legitimate objections which the left is so fond of labeling as hate/racism/sexism/etc.

12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.

Is there ANYONE other than congressmen and their cronies who don't support this?

14) Rand Paul supports Voter ID laws, saying there's "nothing wrong" with them.

And what is wrong with them, exactly? I'm legitimately curious, I've never quite understood the problem with them. As long as there's a requirement not to allow which candidates/bills/etc were voted on to be tied or associated with the person or their ID, I just don't see the problem.

15) Rand Paul, in addition to a series of racially-questionable associates, is a supporter of both states' rights and nullification, archaic tent-post beliefs held by neo-Confederates.

As am I, States' Rights is perhaps the greatest issue facing our nation today. And nullification is the right of the jury; whether by design or intentional, it is indeed a good feature.

In fact, that last point alone if even a very good reason for me to vote for this guy. Shit, if he was a convicted serial rapist I would still have to think about it, that last point is just too strong.

The points I didn't quote are issues I'm not challenging, though. If they are accurate then, well, fuck.

Re:wrong

[khallow]

Are you trying to promote Paul or bad mouth him? If you think libertarians are crazy, you ought to see their critics, amirite?

Re:wrong

[dywolf]

Reporting the man's hypocrisy is not flamebait.
Yes it sucks that it makes your hero no different from the rest of the politicians.

but he is what he is.

Re:wrong

[dywolf]

Merely pointing out his hypocrisy.
He has a reputation here for being a libertarian hero, but few seem to know how many times he's flipped on the things that makes him a darling to the "libertarians".

Re:wrong

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

As am I, States' Rights is perhaps the greatest issue facing our nation today. And nullification is the right of the jury; whether by design or intentional, it is indeed a good feature.

Not Jury nullification but this:
  Nullification is a term that means that states could reject or nullify a law passed by Congress if they do not like the law. Think about it for a minute.

Re:wrong

[eheldreth]

I'm not sure if I would vote for Rand Paul. There are certainly issues I disagree with him on. You on the other hand seem to have no grasp of nuance in complex issues. You try to flatten and simplify every quote into it's most meaningless talking point and then twist it to fit your narrative. You do realize most of those "flip flop" issues are just nuanced positions on complex issues, right? Just for brevity I've picked out two of the "flip flop" issues you alluded to. Lets address the "drone" statements first. Paul's first statement was in regards to the use of drones in anti-terror operations and the fear at that time they could begin being used against Americans on American soil without due process. Pauls second statement was addressing the use of drones by civilian police against active, direct, and immediate criminal threats. As to the third statement, drones are not inherently military equipment and the militarization of the police force is a wholly separate issue from their use of drones. Now lets look at the "Israel" issue. Paul is a supporter of eliminating all foreing aid. One of his ideas I don't support by the way. The followup question three years later is asked in the context of eliminating aid to Israel specifically. In this situation Paul is obviously pointing out that he has no desire to target Israel explicitly for removal of foreign aid. Unless your interviewing for a job with Fox News twisting these nuances to fit your predisposed ideas about what "The other side" is thinking only weakens political discourse in the long run.

Re:wrong

[Shirley Marquez]

The problem with voter ID laws is that they effectively act as a poll tax. There is a cost in time and money to get the necessary documents. The system is often set up so that the burden of getting those documents falls disproportionately on minorities, the poor, the disabled, and other disadvantaged populations. For starters, they are less likely to drive or to travel internationally, so they are less likely to already have some of the acceptable IDs. Urban DMVs that are badly underfunded and understaffed relative to their suburban counterparts are also common, meaning that the time burden of visiting them hits urban populations disproportionately.

Of course, the Republicans who push for voter ID laws don't care about those people, as they tend not to vote Republican. But even Republicans may care about the difficulties that some elderly people have had with the laws.

Re:wrong

[miach]

>> 12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.
> Is there ANYONE other than congressmen and their cronies who don't support this?

I'm not sure what echo chamber you're living in, but a lot of people don't support a flat tax. It sounds good to people who don't think about it, but is actually very regressive.

Re:wrong

[Rakarra]

12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.

Is there ANYONE other than congressmen and their cronies who don't support this?

Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.

Re:wrong

[Rakarra]

Reporting the man's hypocrisy is not flamebait.

Not a fan of Rand Paul, but the original article was pretty flamebaity, in that some of the "flip-flops" are only flip-flops if you over-simplify a topic to make somewhat different issues seem the same.

Re:wrong

[Rakarra]

Others, especially in the Salon's comment section have already pointed out some of the fallacies with a few of those flip-flops, but I'll focus on the contraception position because no one else has, and it is hardly a flip flop. He's one of the folks who believes that life begins at conception, no later. So for him, the morning after pill is not a contraceptive because it terminates a fertilized embryo, which would make it an abortion method.

His stance is fairly consistent if you believe that before fertilization = contraceptive, after fertilization = abortion. It's a bit sneaky to say that the morning after pill is the same sort of "contraceptive" that a condom is.

Paul's support of the Blunt Amendment is also perfectly in line with his support and with his libertarian principles that people are perfectly fine to do what they wish with themselves or consenting adults, but others shouldn't have to pay for their actions.

Re:wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

We see that you are as misinformed and mislead as Rand.

and example: READ and UNDERSTAND the critics of the flat tax, don't summarily dismiss them as 'liberal bias', to see how horribly regressive it is, only the wealthy capitalist gain form it, and only them and economic illiterate like it.

Re:wrong

[khallow]

Funny, how people are more concerned about hypocrisy, real and imagined, than about genuine evil. Perhaps you ought to look into what it takes to be an elected politician. The key thing for purposes of considering your empty accusations of hypocrisy is that his job is to represent the interests of his constituents, which aren't mostly not libertarian in viewpoint, not merely advocate a particular ideology with pure consistency.

I notice that no one bothers to point out the hypocrisy of the vast majority of US politicians here. Somehow Rand's hypocrisy is far more significant than the hypocrisy of a Reid or Shelby, to name a couple which I've noticed. I think it's a terrible idea to leave politics to the completely venal, but this sort of attitude remains strangely commonplace.

One would have to be a fool to eschew a strong libertarian (or whatever philosophical traits one deems desirable) candidate on the basis that he isn't ideologically pure while ignoring that he has a job that demands a lot of things over ideological purity. Especially when his supposed hypocrisy is not notable compared to background noise of the group he is part of.

Re:wrong

[khallow]

Except for the obvious bit about not actually being regressive. The actual regressive tax problem I see with a flat tax is that they can't permanently eliminate tax loophole creation. That's what creates localized regressive tax situations today.

Re: wrong

[Atomic Fro]

Nullification is a term that means that states could reject or nullify a law passed by Congress if they do not like the law. Think about it for a minute.

Isn't that how we avoided national id's? Being from Washington state, I can tell you that's how we and Colorado have recreational marijuana sales. The federal government is rarely benign nor correct. Sure you can point to things like civil rights being dictated to the states from the federal government, but they have always had to be fought for and usually paid for in blood in spite of the federal government.

Re:wrong

[khallow]

Well, I've been READing and UNDERSTANDing you and I have yet to see an actual fact backing your assertion that the tax is regressive. If we actually look at the proposed mechanics of the tax, it's a a flat tax on everything past a certain base amount. That right there makes it slightly progressive. And that's pretty much it.

Re:wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's reason 16:

16) "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion; it doesn't say keep religion out of government" - Rand Paul

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5CAyAFqao

Re:wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you're a white, upper middle class guy who wears a fedora and loves My Little Ponies, right? Probably with a half grown beard because it won't fill in all the way. Most of Rand Paul's supporters are.

Re:wrong

[Magius_AR]

Just about everyone? No one likes the complexity of the tax system, but very very few people support the flat tax when they understand the ramifications.

What ramifications? Are you assuming that the only possible flat-tax that could pass is a vanilla regressive tax with no prebate? FairTax (which I believe is the most widely supported flat tax proposal) accounts for the regressive nature of flat taxes in its model.

Re:wrong

[miach]

Even the IRS agrees it's regressive (http://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/whys_thm03_les02.jsp) - ie. it takes a larger percentage of income from lower income people.

TRANSCRIPT/VIDEO LINKS and blah blah

[TheRealHocusLocus]

First hour
Second Hour
Great reading so far. Hopefully more forthcoming.

C-SPAN of the event:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?3...
Rand Paul Filibuster begins at index 3 hours 49 minutes.

OPTIONAL POST CONTENT:

"Blah blah PR whore not a hero who cares about independent candidates blah straw polls straw men blah Obama good Obama bad yay Rand yay Ron guns terrorists NSA python script Hosts file WTF all crooks no change schedule all for nought TV says 'filibuster is happening' blah no transcript blah Brietbart posts transcript Yah! Pauls site no transcript posted WTF blah kook like Alex Jones blah USA Freedom Act must be good cuz it has Freedom in the name blah yeah right? good PR bad PR hate dem Repubs hate dem libs blah Rand just a flip flop flip flop dookey drones liquor store tach story FAIL bleedin' heart whatever blah blah look moron blah screw that like dislike fake filibuster real filibuster blah blah"

Y'all go on without me. I'm busy reading the first couple hours of transcript because I like to read, then maybe pick up some of the rest at CSPAN because it does represent exhaustive research to gather talking points, and it also might yield insight on whether Rand and the staff he hires are presidential material.

Power

[DarthVain]

The thing about power and those that wield it is, once you have it, you're loath to give it up...

To play devil's advocate a bit, a lot of responsibility comes along with that power. You know a la Spiderman etc... One might at the time of decision making balance the overreaching power with the ability to have the best and every source of information available to you in order to make said decisions, to which you will be ultimately judged and have to live with.

In addition, while the NSA may report directly to Obama, you are also assuming that they are giving him the whole picture. Every organization, probably NSA particularly, is going to have their own power struggles within it, and having access to information is likely one of those things that is pretty valuable particularly again when referring to an organization such as the NSA.

Money.

[supabeast!]

The effect was people crowdfunding Rand Paul’s 2016 book tour, which lays the groundwork for his 2020 and 2024 book tours. He’s keeping the Paul family business alive.

Socialist here

[rsilvergun]

And let me say that the reason we're opposed to libertarians is because they fall into two camps, ineffective idealists and phoneies out to make a quick buck. There's just no way a weak, decentralized govt can stand up against a modern corporation. Socialists are pro big govt because what's the worst that could happen? It just doesn't matter to us if the jackboot in our v necks is public or private, so we'll take our chances with the govt and try to hang onto it..

Re:Socialist here

[khallow]

There's just no way a weak, decentralized govt can stand up against a modern corporation.

Except by taking their stuff or putting people in jail, of course. The thing missing in your argument is the vast power differential between even a "weak, decentralized" government and a corporation.

It just doesn't matter to us if the jackboot in our v necks is public or private, so we'll take our chances with the govt and try to hang onto it..

Sure, it does. A business's power is far easier to break. Just destroy or take their capital or stop buying their stuff, then they stop making a profit. That jackboot goes away when the business can no longer pay for it. For better or worse a small group of people can considerably harm even a large business, if they target it with effective sabotage or high profile bad publicity.

Re: Effects & Media Impact

[Firepig]

Media has a huge impact. Had it carried the filibuster with the zeal of a car chase story, Rand's action would have had a major impact on people's view of the Patriot Act. However, it's likely most people don't even know it occurred. Media thus acts (wittingly I'd argue) as a de facto government censor.

Bouldin knows I do (hello Bouldin)

[Anonymous Coward]

Bouldin's CLAIMED he is a 'security engineer'? Ok:

"Nobody uses hosts files for security" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @05:53PM (#49746865)

FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

SpyBot S&D does dimwit

(you FAIL #1)!

MANY use that program stupid & know it does!

(you FAIL #2)!

---

NOD32/ESET's says hosts = valuable security http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I also "overturned a SECURITY expert" on a "false positive" on my Hosts program RIGHT there & he gave in!

(YOU FAIL #3)!

(Had to - MalwareBytes' employees VETTED my code & even host + HIGHLY RECOMMEND it for me near top of -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

Mr. Oliver Day of Symantec/Norton/SecurityFocus does http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

(you FAIL #4)!

YOU TRIED TO DENY it & it's there in Black & White!

"I don't see Oliver Day of SecurityFocus on there. Weren't you going to cite him?" - by bouldin (828821) on Thursday May 21, 2015 @08:43PM (#49747763)

FROM-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

(you FAIL #5)!

---

WHOSE INITIALS ARE ON THIS - WINNER IN 2008 (proof of paid for good layered security article):

http://forums.pcpitstop.com/in...

(YOU FAIL #7)!

Via layered security/defense in depth methods my security guide extolls? I COMPLETELY shut down your "desperation" RARE edge cases you tried too!

(You FAIL #8)!

Do YOU have *ANYTHING* like it to YOUR credit? No.

(YOU FAIL #9)!

---

Do you write a ware that noted security pros even seconded me on?? No.

(You FAIL #10)!

A ware that not only secures you but ALSO SPEEDS YOU UP (e.g. unlike antivirus, not as effective anymore vs. online modern threats, where mine is @ stopping sources of infestation BEFORE they can get into you, & IF in you, stopping their communications BACK to C&C servers too!)

APK

P.S.=> LMAO: "Bouldin's GOLDEN top 10 'greatest hits'" (fails vs. me) - & he "DISAPPEARED" after that & YOU suddenly now appear today with a NEW 7-digit trolling sockpuppet account? See subject, lol... apk