I have to give him credit.. Rand Paul fillibuster
 

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.. :helpme

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

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.

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?

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..

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. :(

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..

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.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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).

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...

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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

really? funny how this even made it to the news

'politician talks about nothing for no reason'

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

means enough to piss you off :1orglaugh:2 cents:

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''.

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.

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.

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.


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...nv4.png&w=1484


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

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

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.

They don't call the GOP Tour Bus the clown car for nothing.. :1orglaugh

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.

:2 cents:

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

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

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

http://i.imgur.com/pwOmQev.jpg

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

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'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..

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?

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..

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.

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

he's all for this bill.

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.

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?

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..

Obama Dindo Nuffin in chief.