I have to give him credit.. Rand Paul fillibuster

[crockett]

I don't really agree with most of his positions, but I defiantly support him 100% in his filibuster of the USA Freedom Act..

The USA Freedom act is the name of the bill which will allow the Patriot act to be continued.. (ie NSA spying on everyone)


Live feed if you want to see how long he can talk..

Senator Rand Paul R-KY NSA Surveillance | Video | C-SPAN.org

[epitome]

He's just doing this because he's running for president.

He voted against NSA reform. He said it's because he wants it to all go away, but any politician knows that you can start the process by chipping away at something. He could have voted for NSA reform.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

I don't really agree with most of his positions, but I defiantly support him 100% in his filibuster of the USA Freedom Act..

I'm not even aware of what his "positions" are.

What are his positions on things that really matter? This NSA thing is one of those issues that DOES matter and I agree with him 100% on that.

Where does he stand on all these wars and U.S. military adventurism?
What's his idea to get our economy kicking ass?
Things like that.
And I'm not interested in whatever his social positions are. No way he (or any Democrat or Republican) are going to meet my standards in that dept.

I haven't bothered with learning much about him because...he belongs to one of the 2 ruling parties. So he's worthless to me.

What do you know about him crockett? What are all those positions he has that you disagree with him on?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by epitome

He's just doing this because he's running for president.

He voted against NSA reform. He said it's because he wants it to all go away, but any politician knows that you can start the process by chipping away at something. He could have voted for NSA reform.

The patriot act has been in place since 2001. It's been there nearly 15 years.. We shouldn't be chipping away at this point, but smashing it with a fucking hammer.

He's done though.. it seems this wasn't a "real" filibuster as the bill isn't slated to be voted on until later in the week. I'm not sure how he could call it a filibuster though unless he was just holding up some other bill from today in protest..

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

The patriot act has been in place since 2001. It's been there nearly 15 years.. We shouldn't be chipping away at this point, but smashing it with a fucking hammer.

I agree 100%.

But like most things...when something is started in Washington D.C. it becomes a "business".

The Patriot Act is big business now. The TSA, the NSA, all the people they've hired to work for all these spy agencies.

That's why The Patriot Act will probably still be here 100 years from now.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm not even aware of what his "positions" are.

What are his positions on things that really matter? This NSA thing is one of those issues that DOES matter and I agree with him 100% on that.

Where does he stand on all these wars and U.S. military adventurism?
What's his idea to get our economy kicking ass?
Things like that.
And I'm not interested in whatever his social positions are. No way he (or any Democrat or Republican) are going to meet my standards in that dept.

I haven't bothered with learning much about him because...he belongs to one of the 2 ruling parties. So he's worthless to me.

What do you know about him crockett? What are all those positions he has that you disagree with him on?

He's like his dad.. He often sounds good for short periods of time but then he goes off the wall. It's always a mix of the good & bad with him it seems.

He's one of those guys that says something and your like ok I can agree with that then he takes it way out there and your like.. huh

Example he was one of the leading forces behind the Sequesters which costs tax payers millions of dollars and fixed nothing. I can understand him wanting to fix spending, but largely due to him & Cruz no deals were able to be made.

He is anti abortion.. anti gay marriage both are ridiculous positions if you claim to be pro freedom..

But then on the other hand he seems to be against the current drug war..

He's kinda all over the place, but typically very extreme in his views on the subjects.. He's either very for it or very against it, with no middle ground.

I suspect he's just very anti big govt, but doesn't mind telling people what they can do in their bedrooms..

Honestly, I'm surprised you don't know much about him as he's libertarian and running for president. I'd rather see him win over Bush if that matters as at least he isn't a yes man to the GOP which is all Jeb Bush would be..

[TCLGirls]

Watch out, Rand Paul (like is dad) is one of those "private property rights trump anything and everything" kind of guys. Which means he thinks a private coffee shop should have the right to deny service to people because they are gay, or black, or white, or female, or male or jewish or whatever. In other words, he wants to repeal the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1965.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Watch out, Rand Paul (like is dad) is one of those "private property rights trump anything and everything" kind of guys. Which means he thinks a private coffee shop should have the right to deny service to people because they are gay, or black, or white, or female, or male or jewish or whatever. In other words, he wants to repeal the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1965.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

Example he was one of the leading forces behind the Sequesters which costs tax payers millions of dollars and fixed nothing. I can understand him wanting to fix spending, but largely due to him & Cruz no deals were able to be made.

He is anti abortion.. anti gay marriage both are ridiculous positions if you claim to be pro freedom..

But then on the other hand he seems to be against the current drug war..

The sequester was 100% President Obama's idea...remember? So that is kind of a moot point.

The abortion and gay marriage stuff...I don't know what his thoughts are on them, and don't really care. Social issues and Presidents Of The United States have nothing in common. The President can't do anything about any of them.
And I think we all can see that marriage is something that should be for anyone who wants it: straight, gay, tranny, etc.
The fact that the govt. has anything at all to do with marriage just shows that our govt. is too big and too controlling.

The third thing you said: Now that is a real issue.

Do you happen to know what he thinks about some of the other real issues? Specifically on foreign policy? That is the issue that is fucking up the entire world (U.S. foreign policy since the end of WW2).

[Robbie]

The sequester:
"On August 2, 2011, President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 as part of an agreement with Congress to resolve the debt-ceiling crisis. The Act provided for a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "super committee") to produce legislation by late November that would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years. When the super committee failed to act, another part of the BCA went into effect. This directed automatic across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestrations") split evenly between defense and domestic spending, beginning on January 2, 2013."

The President came up with the idea in the first place. Then when it actually happened he backpedaled on it.
And it actually only cut 85 billion out of a 2.77 TRILLION dollar budget in 2013.

By the way...the President has done complete backflips with the sequester.

First he thought it up. Then he pushed it through Congress and even went on National Television to the American people to pressure Congress to pass it.

It was then passed by DEMOCRATS (who controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House) in 2011...and was signed into law by Pres. Obama.

Then when it actually happened...he ran away from it.

And now...that it did happen and the deficit went down a couple of ticks...he BRAGS about reducing spending! LOL!
Typical politician...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Watch out, Rand Paul (like is dad) is one of those "private property rights trump anything and everything" kind of guys. Which means he thinks a private coffee shop should have the right to deny service to people because they are gay, or black, or white, or female, or male or jewish or whatever. In other words, he wants to repeal the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1965.

Rand Paul gets 3 Pinocchios

Rand Paul's rewriting of his own remarks opposing the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

It's fuzzy if he is sincere or getting just on an election year soapbox on the PATRIOT Act renewals ...

[2MuchMark]

Rand Paul is an interesting fellow... sometimes I agree with the guy and sometimes I don't. It's cool to see him try to squash the Freedom act. I hope he gets his way on this.

Out of all of the republican Nominees, Rand Paul would the guy I would hate to see the least.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Rand Paul gets 3 Pinocchios

Rand Paul's rewriting of his own remarks opposing the Civil Rights Act - The Washington Post

It's fuzzy if he is sincere or getting just on an election year soapbox on the PATRIOT Act renewals ...

I just read that. What's the "controversy"?

I don't get it. Controversy used to mean something...well, controversial. The article says his comments are "controversial" (I guess because that's the way they want to paint him).

I kept looking for that "gotcha" statement that seems to be what all political interviews are designed to get these days.

What I read was the guy said that he is worried about the govt. controlling private business. And he thinks the better way would be for people to not go to any business that would be biased against any certain type of people.

I think he's being naive about that.
But so are people who think the govt. is always "good" and should have total power over everything.

I think we all know that the "sweet spot" is in the middle somewhere. Govt. making sure that discrimination doesn't occur, but the govt. not being allowed to just have free reign either.

These types of social issues are like some kind of circus sideshow. They don't mean shit.

What we the people need to hear from these candidates is what are they going to do about energy independence, JOBS, getting people off of welfare and food stamps, feeding the poor, getting our military under control and stopping the massive defense spending every year.

I could give 2 fucks what any candidate has to say about social issues. Especially ones that are moot points. The Civil Rights Act is NEVER going to be overturned for God's sakes. And I'm sure that Rand Paul doesn't even think about it and would never have even opined if the interviewer hadn't been trying to play "gotcha" with him.

I mean...who in the hell sits around pondering the ramifications of a 50 year old law?
Nobody.
But if you're asked about it...you might be stupid enough to try to answer off the cuff like he did.
And then it's "Gotcha" time.

Has nothing to do with being President or the problems our country and our world currently face.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by **********

Out of all of the republican Nominees, Rand Paul would the guy I would hate to see the least.

He's still a Republican. Which means he's had to bow down to the central party his entire political career just to get to the level of Senator (which takes a lot).

If he were to miraculously win the Presidency he will have lost any of the idealism (if he still has ANY left) that he ever had.

No Republican or Democrat can make it past being elected city dog catcher without selling their soul to the RNC or the DNC and cutting deals in backrooms.

They are damaged goods before we ever see them on the national radar.

[johnny_r]

Rand Paul is maybe the best republican candidate, a better than Bush #3 at least ..
He has some nice points regarding the NSA and war on drugs

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by crockett

He's done though.. it seems this wasn't a "real" filibuster as the bill isn't slated to be voted on until later in the week. I'm not sure how he could call it a filibuster though unless he was just holding up some other bill from today in protest..

really? funny how this even made it to the news

'politician talks about nothing for no reason'

[JJ Gold]

Originally Posted by **********

Rand Paul is an interesting fellow... sometimes I agree with the guy and sometimes I don't. It's cool to see him try to squash the Freedom act. I hope he gets his way on this.

Out of all of the republican Nominees, Rand Paul would the guy I would hate to see the least.

Your opinion means nothing. You are Canadian. Go worry about Margaret Trudeau.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by JJ Gold

Your opinion means nothing. You are Canadian. Go worry about Margaret Trudeau.

means enough to piss you off

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Robbie

[B]ut if you're asked about it...you might be stupid enough to try to answer off the cuff like he did.
And then it's "Gotcha" time.

Has nothing to do with being President or the problems our country and our world currently face.

That is the point and has everything to do with being the Chief of State. You don't want the President to be ''stupid enough''.

[tony286]

They are saying there can be up to 26 GOP candidates for President. So they have to go more extreme to the right to get the base and then it costs them the election.
Im not voting for Hilary but I give her credit, they asked her about voting for Iraq. She said it was a mistake, end of story. Not like the GOP guys wrapping themselves in knots.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Watch out, Rand Paul (like is dad) is one of those "private property rights trump anything and everything" kind of guys. Which means he thinks a private coffee shop should have the right to deny service to people because they are gay, or black, or white, or female, or male or jewish or whatever. In other words, he wants to repeal the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1965.

Yea it's this kinda stuff is why I say he's way too extreme on stuff. He starts off sounding sensible about something then next thing you know he's fucking rambling on like a lunatic. I only support his effort to do away with the NSA spying because he's one of the only guys trying to do anything about it.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by tony286

They are saying there can be up to 26 GOP candidates for President. So they have to go more extreme to the right to get the base and then it costs them the election.
Im not voting for Hilary but I give her credit, they asked her about voting for Iraq. She said it was a mistake, end of story. Not like the GOP guys wrapping themselves in knots.

Yes it was pretty fucking funny to watch a little college girl end Jeb Bush.. I mean seriously, if there was any fucking question Jeb Bush should have practiced in the mirror 50 times and had he response worked out, it was about the Iraq war.

Anyone with the pea size brain of a mouse would have known that Iraq was gonna be an issue for every candidate most specifically one with the Bush name. Yet he gets dumb founded and flustered on it..

That to me shows he's is just like his brother, he has to be told what to say and is nothing more than another sock puppet for the same Neo cons whom ran his brother's presidency and put us into 3 wars.. (first Iraq war, 2nd Iraq war & Afghan)

If Jeb Bush some how manages to get elected you can bet your ass we will be in another war. 19 of 21 of his advisers are from his brother's & dad's team.. He is just another war mongering neo con puppet face.





Those are the same people whom put us into war 3 times in the middle east and all on Jeb Bush's team..

[TrashyGirl]

Filibuster-ers wear diapers. Literally. Just thought I'd add that.

[dyna mo]

there's nothing wrong with the USA Freedom act, it's a step in the right direction as it curbs bulk collection of data by the NSA.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by tony286

They are saying there can be up to 26 GOP candidates for President. So they have to go more extreme to the right to get the base and then it costs them the election.
Im not voting for Hilary but I give her credit, they asked her about voting for Iraq. She said it was a mistake, end of story. Not like the GOP guys wrapping themselves in knots.

They don't call the GOP Tour Bus the clown car for nothing..

[Joshua G]

i still dont understand what your afraid of.

i dont mind a benevolent government is able to use technology to identify communications that can help law enforcement find threats before they unleash. in fact, the national security argument in light of the emerging threats against the US are persuading congress & obama.

Nobody politically (except paul) wants to be the guy that prevented the FBI NSA et al. from finding info that could have saved lives. its simple as that.

nothing in the founding fathers beliefs & experiences covers this matter of privacy when using publicly available mass communications systems. back then, the printing press was state of the art, & news literally took weeks to cross the country. their values pertaining to liberty dont translate to 100% privacy on an AT&T network.

why would george washington vote against this bill? I dont see it. he was a staunch federalist.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by crockett

If Jeb Bush some how manages to get elected you can bet your ass we will be in another war. 19 of 21 of his advisers are from his brother's & dad's team.. He is just another war mongering neo con puppet face.



Those are the same people whom put us into war 3 times in the middle east and all on Jeb Bush's team..

No fan of the Bush's but you say that like Obama hasn't put us in more wars.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

there's nothing wrong with the USA Freedom act, it's a step in the right direction as it curbs bulk collection of data by the NSA.

I'm sure you have read the entire thing, just like all the Congressmen whom voted for it..

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

They don't call the GOP Tour Bus the clown car for nothing..

just like they don't call the Hillary tour van the Mystery Machine for nothing.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'm sure you have read the entire thing, just like all the Congressmen whom voted for it..

I'm sure you have read the entire thing, just like all the Congressmen whom voted for it..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

No fan of the Bush's but you say that like Obama hasn't put us in more wars.

Obama didn't start the Afghan war, he didn't start the Iraq war.. He kept us out of the Ukraine conflict and has tried pretty hard to keep us out of Syria. Syria is the same war as Iraq, it's the same insurgents.. just a different border.

I'd say Obama has done the best he or anyone could to keep our actions there as minimal as possible and has forced countries in the middle east to fight their own war.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I'm sure you have read the entire thing, just like all the Congressmen whom voted for it..

I'm not the one claiming it's ok.. You are.. I'm the one saying "any" re-authorizing of warrantless spying on American citizens is not ok. It's sad that you are ok with the Constitution being ignored but I say it's time it ends.

Anyway carry on with your trying to play Gotcha.. You don't ever seem to have anything useful to say other than.. trying to twist people's words and play your dumb gotcha games..

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

i still dont understand what your afraid of.

i dont mind a benevolent government is able to use technology to identify communications that can help law enforcement find threats before they unleash. in fact, the national security argument in light of the emerging threats against the US are persuading congress & obama.

Nobody politically (except paul) wants to be the guy that prevented the FBI NSA et al. from finding info that could have saved lives. its simple as that.

nothing in the founding fathers beliefs & experiences covers this matter of privacy when using publicly available mass communications systems. back then, the printing press was state of the art, & news literally took weeks to cross the country. their values pertaining to liberty dont translate to 100% privacy on an AT&T network.

why would george washington vote against this bill? I dont see it. he was a staunch federalist.

so, lets take the OWS movement for example. They used this patriot act to tap into communications and identify the leaders of protestors, protesting against of banking groups with huge european connections robbing the US blind. (as they see it), and created plans to have these leaders shot.

your argument suggests the founding fathers and all the efforts they made to prevent banks and europe from taking over the US, would be totally ok with federal organizations invading the privacy of these private protesting civilians, all the while creating plans to have them assassinated

am i reading that right?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by crockett

Obama didn't start the Afghan war, he didn't start the Iraq war.. He kept us out of the Ukraine conflict and has tried pretty hard to keep us out of Syria. Syria is the same war as Iraq, it's the same insurgents.. just a different border.

I'd say Obama has done the best he or anyone could to keep our actions there as minimal as possible and has forced countries in the middle east to fight their own war.

I think you have your facts wrong. The "insurgents" in Syria are the one's Obama shipped guns to to overthrow the government. He stayed out of it so much that he started it. And I guess you forgot about Libya another he started. Oh and Ukraine was also another of our meddling in affairs. Obama is just starting wars by proxy..

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'm not the one claiming it's ok.. You are.. I'm the one saying "any" re-authorizing of warrantless spying on American citizens is not ok. It's sad that you are ok with the Constitution being ignored but I say it's time it ends.

Anyway carry on with your trying to play Gotcha.. You don't ever seem to have anything useful to say other than.. trying to twist people's words and play your dumb gotcha games..

what?

this entire thread is re: your endorsement of rand paul's obstructing the passage of the bill.


i'm not playing gotcha. i'm letting you know youy fucking opinion re: this bill is not everyone's, you are not right here.

you are simply voicing your fucked-up opinion.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

It's sad that you are ok with the Constitution being ignored but I say it's time it ends.

why don't you tell that to your buttboy obama?

he's all for this bill.

[bronco67]

There's some things to like about Rand Paul. Too bad he'll bend over for the extreme right in the primary, just like Jeb Bush will. All the other candidates won't be bending over, because they're in line with the nutbags.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

why don't you tell that to your buttboy obama?

he's all for this bill.

Why do you make everything a "team" issue? I've stated many times I do not support Obama on the NSA spying. Here I am giving a Republican presidential candidate a thumbs up for trying to do something about the spying..

Yet still you try to make it out as if "I'm" the one playing team politics. Are you really this blind and jaded that all you can see is right and left?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I think you have your facts wrong. The "insurgents" in Syria are the one's Obama shipped guns to to overthrow the government. He stayed out of it so much that he started it. And I guess you forgot about Libya another he started. Oh and Ukraine was also another of our meddling in affairs. Obama is just starting wars by proxy..

He didn't fucking start it but then again your a guy that has to have a conspiracy in everything. The war started in 2011 as a result of the Arab Spring which also over through several other govts..

The rebels begged US for weapons for 2 years before we started helping them, which was largely due to ISIL making so much head way. If it wasn't for ISIL, we likely wouldn't be involved. Getting involved in Syria and putting troops back into Iraq is the last thing Obama wanted to do..

He has tried his whole presidency to wash his hands of the Bush fuck ups in Iraq. In fact Republicans in Congress were having hissy fits because Obama wouldn't start handing out guns like candy to the Syrian rebels..

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I think you have your facts wrong. The "insurgents" in Syria are the one's Obama shipped guns to to overthrow the government. He stayed out of it so much that he started it. And I guess you forgot about Libya another he started. Oh and Ukraine was also another of our meddling in affairs. Obama is just starting wars by proxy..

Obama Dindo Nuffin in chief.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Why do you make everything a "team" issue? I've stated many times I do not support Obama on the NSA spying. Here I am giving a Republican presidential candidate a thumbs up for trying to do something about the spying..

Yet still you try to make it out as if "I'm" the one playing team politics. Are you really this blind and jaded that all you can see is right and left?

shitty spin attempt.

go back and read what you wrote that i was replying to.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by crockett

He didn't fucking start it but then again your a guy that has to have a conspiracy in everything. The war started in 2011 as a result of the Arab Spring which also over through several other govts..

The rebels begged US for weapons for 2 years before we started helping them, which was largely due to ISIL making so much head way. If it wasn't for ISIL, we likely wouldn't be involved. Getting involved in Syria and putting troops back into Iraq is the last thing Obama wanted to do..

He has tried his whole presidency to wash his hands of the Bush fuck ups in Iraq. In fact Republicans in Congress were having hissy fits because Obama wouldn't start handing out guns like candy to the Syrian rebels..

I take it you've never heard of color revolution?

U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings
Log In - The New York Times

"The last thing he wanted to do" lol yeah right.

[Barry-xlovecam]

We may get lucky with the right-wing "nutbags" v. someone very liberal (read: Libratard) like Elizabeth Warren. This contrast may make the rise of a new 3rd party, a populist one, plausible.

Should this hypothetical populist party gain the presidency, it's candidate will not have the political baggage of the parties controlling Congress. There just might be some populist compromise necessary. However, by a compromise, as I suppose, the parties in control of the Congress may risk their positions to candidates of the new third party in the mid-term elections to follow.

This is how Lincoln's victory established the Republican party's position and decimated the old Whig political machine. So, would the Democrats or the Republicans be the ultimate loser in this scenario?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

shitty spin attempt.

go back and read what you wrote that i was replying to.

I'm sorry that you feel it's ok to spy on Americans with out warrants and collect massive amounts of data. Myself, I feel that is a massive violation of my constitutional rights as an American. I don't care if Obama or John McCain or anyone else thinks it's ok.. I don't think it's ok and I'm saying that.

I'm not spinning anything, I've always publicly posted my dislike of the NSA spying and records collecting, but you seem to want to make everything right vs left. In the last topic I started about this very issue, I told you there too there was no reason to make it a right vs left but you continued to do so , so I stopped replying to you.

I'm simply giving a guy credit for at least trying to do something in Washington. I think for the most part, the guy is a little bit off and too extreme, but I do agree with him on this issue. I also disagree with Obama on this same issue.

Yet still you make it about team sports.. The best part about you trying to make this a right vs left argument, is that the majority of both the right and the left thinks it's ok to spy American citizens.. The one thing they are unified on is violating our Constitution rights, which it seems you support.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

I'm sorry that you feel it's ok to spy on Americans with out warrants and collect massive amounts of data. Myself, I feel that is a massive violation of my constitutional rights as an American. I don't care if Obama or John McCain or anyone else thinks it's ok.. I don't think it Ok and I'm saying that.

I'm not spinning anything, I've always publicly posted my dislike of the NSA spying and records collecting, but you seem to want to make everything right vs left. In the last topic I started about this very issue, I told you there too there was no reason to make it a right vs left but you continued to do so , so I stopped replying to you.

I'm simply giving a guy credit for at least trying to do something in Washington. I think for the most part, the guy is a little bit off and too extreme, but I do agree with him on this issue. I also disagree with Obama on this same issue.

Yet still you make it about team sports..

again, shitty spin attempt.

here's the reality: i can see that this bill is curbing NSA data collection and therefore, a step in the right direction and i simply posted that view of mine here.


i didn't post here wanting, needing or expecting a reply from you.
you feel the need to misrepresent my view to be about team sports, in some bizzarre spin attempt. when you know full well i refer to both your party and the other as tard parties libtards and republitards.

[dyna mo]

if i were making this a team sports issue, why the fuck would i use BO for that?

oh i know why, because i fucking wouldn't.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

again, shitty spin attempt.

here's the reality: i can see that this bill is curbing NSA data collection and therefore, a step in the right direction and i simply posted that view of mine here.


i didn't post here wanting, needing or expecting a reply from you.
you feel the need to misrepresent my view to be about team sports, in some bizzarre spin attempt. when you know full well i refer to both your party and the other as tard parties libtards and republitards.

This bill still allows them to mass collect data and do it with out individual warrants. This is not a step in the right direction it is an approval to continue doing what the Supreme Court ruled was above and beyond what the Patriot Act allowed. This bill legitimizes the mass collection with out warrants.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

This bill still allows them to mass collect data and do it with out individual warrants. This is not a step in the right direction it is an approval to continue doing what the Supreme Court ruled was above and beyond what the Patriot Act allowed. This bill legitimizes the mass collection with out warrants.

that's your fucking opinion of it and i couldn't give a shit. what i do give a shit about is your lack of ability to allow others to have their interpretation of it.'

i posted my fucking view without the fucked-up insecure need to attempt to denigrate someone else's view in order to prop up my own.

have the nutsack to do the same crockett.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's your fucking opinion of it and i couldn't give a shit. what i do give a shit about is your lack of ability to allow others to have their interpretation of it.'

i posted my fucking view without the fucked-up insecure need to attempt to denigrate someone else's view in order to prop up my own.

have the nutsack to do the same crockett.

Umm you are the one in a topic I started trying to tell me over and over again that my opinion is wrong. I didn't start a topic that said "Dyna Mo is an idiot whom thinks spying on US citizens is ok"..

You came into my topic and started telling me I'm wrong about everything, trying to play gotcha games and now you're the victim..

[dyna mo]

The undersigned civil liberties, human rights, and other public interest organizations write
in support of the USA FREEDOM Act (S. 2685), which Senator Leahy reintroduced on
July 29. We urge both the Senate and the House to pass it swiftly and without any dilution
of its protections.

We support S. 2685 as an important first step toward necessary comprehensive
surveillance reform. We urge the Senate and the House to pass it quickly, and without
making any amendments that would weaken the important changes described above.


Sincerely,
Access
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American Association of Law Libraries
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Antiwar.com
Arab American Institute
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Brennan Center for Justice
Campaign for Digital Fourth Amendment Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Media and Democracy/The Progressive
Charity & Security Network
Citizen Outreach
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Constitution Alliance
The Constitution Project
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Cyber Privacy Project
Defending Dissent Foundation
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Press Action Fund
Freedom of the Press Foundation
FreedomWorks
GenOpp
Government Accountability Project
Human Rights Watch
Liberty Coalition
Media Alliance
Medical Library Association
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Security Counselors
New America’s Open Technology Institute
OpenMedia.org
OpenTheGovernment.org
PEN American Center
Public Knowledge
Republican Liberty Caucus
R Street
Rutherford Institute
TechFreedom


https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...t_073 014.pdf