Slashdot Mirror
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.
His father Ron Paul once ran third party and got less than 1% of the vote, if I'm not mistaken.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
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.
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
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.
.... 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...
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...
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.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
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
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).
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
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.