What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"? 385
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.
What was the effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Public relations... What was everybody expecting?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
wrong (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:wrong (Score:4, Informative)
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 [alternet.org] :
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 [salon.com]:
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, since many here appear ignorant... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
why is that the question? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why is that the question? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why is that the question? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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... [cgpgrey.com]
Re:why is that the question? (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ca
Re:why is that the question? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It wasn't a filibuster (Score:3)
Thank you - just PR for his presidential run. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
More than PR (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 anarchis
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 gover
Re:More than PR (Score:4, Informative)
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... [247wallst.com]
http://politicsthatwork.com/de... [politicsthatwork.com]
http://www.politicususa.com/20... [politicususa.com]
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
"inflammatory" as defined by the ratings-based news outlets that rely on him for something to put on the air
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
PR Stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:2)
Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
A more cynical person would find that to be +5, Funny.
Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Sadly not much (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
More likely they're just callus authoritarians.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Sadly not much (Score:5, Insightful)
There are statistics that come out all the time:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157... [gallup.com]
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.
Not much (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
It showed a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
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/... [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: (Score:2)
I believe you're forgetting about Mr. Wyden [oregonlive.com] (D-OR).
However, they are both hopelessly outgunned in this quest.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
That's fine. I plan to show up to cancel out your vote.
Re:It showed a lot (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
This. (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about it. And a politician in favor of a little more freedom has a little more visibility. That's enough.
It's a fake!! (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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!! (Score:4, Informative)
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 [alternet.org] :
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 [salon.com]:
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
It wakes up the ... (Score:4)
... public.
Has my vote (Score:2)
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.
Why the quote marks around "filibuster"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 accura
Re: (Score:2)
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
why the quotes (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
it's in quotes because he's the little boy who cries wolf and everybody has stopped paying attention to him
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 pharmaceutica
Re: (Score:3)
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:STANDING OVATION. (Score:5, Funny)
GO RAND :)
Is this some dialect of BASIC?
Re:STANDING OVATION. (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org], not to be confused with visual basic for applications or VBA)
Re:STANDING OVATION. (Score:4, Funny)
he'll be gone soon enough
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yes, and...?
Was there a point here?
Strat
And I wish (Score:2)
And your sig annoys me. Denmark, Germany, France. All of them seem to be getting alo
Re:I feel dirty. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 positi
Re: (Score:2)