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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because that is an analogous situation to the one you seem to support.
I did not intend to leave that impression. Just pointing out that prosecutors do what they want, and justify it later. The VA attorney clearly violated his oath, regardless of the merits of the cause.
To be fair, Cooper only opposed gay marriage because, as he pointed out, it's his job as AG to represent the state of North Carolina. He was on record as opposing the ban.
He was lying. [aside]You can tell when politicians do that by checking to see if their lips are moving.[/aside]. Virginia's Attorney General was in a similar position, except it wasn't just a state law, it was written into the state Constitution. Yet he still refused to uphold the law. So Cooper was just blowing smoke up your ass. He defended the anti-gay marriage law because he decided that was the most politically beneficial position, and had a handy excuse to use for doing it.
Does logic warp in the presence of such accusations? Do valid points become invalid if countered with claims of misogyny? Is 2 = 2 somehow not correct because the author was accused of being an MRA (and therefore bad by association)? How do you rationalise away the valid points about discrimination against men by claiming that arbitrary persons attack arbitrary women?
Do all MRA cucks tend to write in the style of movie supervillains?
Instead of coming up with some diversionary snide remark, you should have just apologized and acknowledged that "You're right, fey000, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. As usual."
Why would this be a "troll"? It's a true statement. In fact, as the gender obtaining only 40% of college degrees, they are becoming a distinct minority in well-educated populations.
Why does Mrs. Clinton pay women on her staff 87 cents for each dollar she pays men?
Why does Obama pay women 78 cents for each dollar he pays men on his staff?
Probably because both of those statistics derive from studies using flawed/dishonest methodology?
To be fair, it's the exact same flawed/dishonest methodology used by SJWs when they claim that women are paid 78 cents for every dollar than men make.
The reaction to the reviewer's comments were way overblown - he was addressing the topic. It was a social science paper. If 5 males had written a paper that concluded men are better drivers than women, a very subtle way to ask the authors to review their findings would be to suggest the partner with some female researchers to ensure their paper doesn't come off as having a biased viewpoint. This one was no different.
But at least he's offering a path. The plan is to cry "That's Sexist" about 20 times a day. Usually to your superiors. Often because of their "word choice".
This is the one where Holder is asked if bulk collection of data includes members of Congress. Holder's response was basically "We should discuss that offline." Right. So I guess those closed door meetings with Senators is exactly the "forum for discussion" he was talking about.
They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
I won't.
I don't think its the sunk money that matters to them. It's the heady feeling of autocracy and superpowers which they'll never give up. The NSA and CIA are significantly staffed by bad, treasonous, anti-democratic people.
The bill that made it to the house floor was so watered down it was meaningless. It got so many votes because it was a way for congressmen to clean their skirts, while doing nothing significant to curtail the activities of the NSA.
"The revised bill that makes its way to the House floor this morning doesn't look much like the Freedom Act.
This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program. It claims to end "bulk collection" of Americans' data only in a very technical sense: The bill prohibits the government from, for example, ordering a telephone company to turn over all its call records every day.
But the bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for "area code 616" or for "phone calls made east of the Mississippi." The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Now of course, economy is a complex beast, but compare the deficits in this table [wikipedia.org] with the US 2014 deficit of 2.8% of GDP (which was a record low). You'll see that most EU countries are doing better or much better than the US even though the EU as a whole is doing slightly worse as some of the large southern economies are pulling the rest of us down.
I think you are a bit confused. The EU (United States of Europe) is ONE economy with ONE currency - the Euro. It's sort of like the US before the civil war, with Germany looking and acting like New England and the southern European states looking like the US southern states. Except, of course, that Germany wants economic slaves while New England wanted to eliminate slave ownership.
That the southernes aren't doing to good is furthermore not exactly news... They've always done poorly, one way or another...
That's quite a load of bullocks. The Greek people, for instance, have always been one of the hardest working cultures on the continent. For you to simply claim it's because they are in trouble because they are lazy is really stunning.
So they should only be allowed to charge the same price for a drug in every country? Clearly, you hate poor people, and want to spread Hep C throughout the third world and not provide treatment.
I don't disagree with you about the big pharma companies (I think I mentioned that), but you've got your head so far up your ass you can't distinguish between discretionary pricing policies and every other issue involving the pharmaceutical companies.
I know - it's all about you - you just want cheaper drugs and fuck everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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".
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.
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.”
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You forgot about Tang.
Because that is an analogous situation to the one you seem to support.
I did not intend to leave that impression. Just pointing out that prosecutors do what they want, and justify it later. The VA attorney clearly violated his oath, regardless of the merits of the cause.
To be fair, Cooper only opposed gay marriage because, as he pointed out, it's his job as AG to represent the state of North Carolina. He was on record as opposing the ban.
He was lying. [aside]You can tell when politicians do that by checking to see if their lips are moving.[/aside]. Virginia's Attorney General was in a similar position, except it wasn't just a state law, it was written into the state Constitution. Yet he still refused to uphold the law. So Cooper was just blowing smoke up your ass. He defended the anti-gay marriage law because he decided that was the most politically beneficial position, and had a handy excuse to use for doing it.
That all you got? "Faux News hypnotized sheeple wingnut zOMG!!!"?
2008 called - they want their talking points back.
Do all MRA cucks tend to write in the style of movie supervillains?
Instead of coming up with some diversionary snide remark, you should have just apologized and acknowledged that "You're right, fey000, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. As usual."
Has there ever been marginalized group that has demanded and fought for greater rights and acceptance that did not eventually gain them?
NAMBLA is an organization based in New York and San Francisco that wants to reform age of consent laws. What progress has it made?
Well they were featured in more than one South Park episode. That certainly progress in spreading awareness of their .... "cause".
Except, well.... men aren't a majority group.
Why would this be a "troll"? It's a true statement. In fact, as the gender obtaining only 40% of college degrees, they are becoming a distinct minority in well-educated populations.
Why don't they call themselves masculists?
Shouldn't that be masculininists? Or members of the masculininism movement?
Why does Mrs. Clinton pay women on her staff 87 cents for each dollar she pays men? Why does Obama pay women 78 cents for each dollar he pays men on his staff?
Probably because both of those statistics derive from studies using flawed/dishonest methodology?
To be fair, it's the exact same flawed/dishonest methodology used by SJWs when they claim that women are paid 78 cents for every dollar than men make.
This story probably sparked the recent interest.
The reaction to the reviewer's comments were way overblown - he was addressing the topic. It was a social science paper. If 5 males had written a paper that concluded men are better drivers than women, a very subtle way to ask the authors to review their findings would be to suggest the partner with some female researchers to ensure their paper doesn't come off as having a biased viewpoint. This one was no different.
For gods sake, this again!
But at least he's offering a path. The plan is to cry "That's Sexist" about 20 times a day. Usually to your superiors. Often because of their "word choice".
Seems like a solid plan to me.
Well let's see if I can find that clip... yea, here it is on YouTube
This is the one where Holder is asked if bulk collection of data includes members of Congress. Holder's response was basically "We should discuss that offline." Right. So I guess those closed door meetings with Senators is exactly the "forum for discussion" he was talking about.
They've invested billions if not trillions in the surveillance networks and infrastructure.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
I won't.
I don't think its the sunk money that matters to them. It's the heady feeling of autocracy and superpowers which they'll never give up. The NSA and CIA are significantly staffed by bad, treasonous, anti-democratic people.
The bill that made it to the house floor was so watered down it was meaningless. It got so many votes because it was a way for congressmen to clean their skirts, while doing nothing significant to curtail the activities of the NSA.
"The revised bill that makes its way to the House floor this morning doesn't look much like the Freedom Act.
This morning's bill maintains and codifies a large-scale, unconstitutional domestic spying program. It claims to end "bulk collection" of Americans' data only in a very technical sense: The bill prohibits the government from, for example, ordering a telephone company to turn over all its call records every day.
But the bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for "area code 616" or for "phone calls made east of the Mississippi." The bill green-lights the government's massive data collection activities that sweep up Americans' records in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
--- Justin Amash
Now of course, economy is a complex beast, but compare the deficits in this table [wikipedia.org] with the US 2014 deficit of 2.8% of GDP (which was a record low). You'll see that most EU countries are doing better or much better than the US even though the EU as a whole is doing slightly worse as some of the large southern economies are pulling the rest of us down.
I think you are a bit confused. The EU (United States of Europe) is ONE economy with ONE currency - the Euro. It's sort of like the US before the civil war, with Germany looking and acting like New England and the southern European states looking like the US southern states. Except, of course, that Germany wants economic slaves while New England wanted to eliminate slave ownership.
That the southernes aren't doing to good is furthermore not exactly news... They've always done poorly, one way or another...
That's quite a load of bullocks. The Greek people, for instance, have always been one of the hardest working cultures on the continent. For you to simply claim it's because they are in trouble because they are lazy is really stunning.
So they should only be allowed to charge the same price for a drug in every country? Clearly, you hate poor people, and want to spread Hep C throughout the third world and not provide treatment.
I don't disagree with you about the big pharma companies (I think I mentioned that), but you've got your head so far up your ass you can't distinguish between discretionary pricing policies and every other issue involving the pharmaceutical companies.
I know - it's all about you - you just want cheaper drugs and fuck everyone else.