I don't care about non-citizens abroad.
And domestically is the only one that I think we should discuss.
Sen. Rand Paul Speaks Out Against the PATRIOT Act
- Thread starter Digga38
- Start date
And domestically is the only one that I think we should discuss.
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Young Paul outchere giving that work ................................................................... by his lonesome ........... 
where are the Congressional Black Caucus or Latinos ..... right...its a bunch of white libertarians standing up for your rights (they are far from perfect or have perfect ideas). Nontheless, it shouldn't be that way.
The most potent and simple point he made is that all you have to do is abide by the Constitution/Bill of Rights and get a warrant, as opposed to just arbitrary collection of data
Why are the Congress people so jellyfish ? ..................... why?
This is why I made that thread about the Constitution and Slavery in The Root http://www.thecoli.com/threads/sohh...ion-bill-of-rights-being-slaveholders.316332/....... as black people will have a very nuanced view of the Bill of Rights, cause it wasn't written for people that look like us or our ancestors. So we, rightly so, have a bit of a dubious relationship to it. Yet,[paraphrasing], as MLK, Jr said we have to make sure the words inscribed in the Bill of Rights ARE actually manifested FOR EVERYONE.
My point is, people need to wake up, and stop thinking b/se a black person says something it makes it right and ok. Be analytical. A white guy, in this instance Rand Paul, is standing up for your rights, and so happens that a black guy in this instance, BHO, is not. Being a sheep based on the race of someone goes against exactly what MLK, Jr was talking about .......... since the "content of the character" of that person is what makes the ultimate difference.
If a Chinese guy is saying GMOs are bad, I'm not going to agree with the church going black guy with a family who works at Monsanto who tells me its good.
If a Latino woman says MJ and hemp should be legalized, I'm not going to agree with the sexy black female HBCU graduate that got a degree in criminal justice that keeps telling me that we need to keep locking up brothers and sisters.
Be analytical and look at issues for what they are not just the race of the person putting their views out there.
where are the Congressional Black Caucus or Latinos ..... right...its a bunch of white libertarians standing up for your rights (they are far from perfect or have perfect ideas). Nontheless, it shouldn't be that way.The most potent and simple point he made is that all you have to do is abide by the Constitution/Bill of Rights and get a warrant, as opposed to just arbitrary collection of data
Why are the Congress people so jellyfish ? ..................... why?
This is why I made that thread about the Constitution and Slavery in The Root http://www.thecoli.com/threads/sohh...ion-bill-of-rights-being-slaveholders.316332/....... as black people will have a very nuanced view of the Bill of Rights, cause it wasn't written for people that look like us or our ancestors. So we, rightly so, have a bit of a dubious relationship to it. Yet,[paraphrasing], as MLK, Jr said we have to make sure the words inscribed in the Bill of Rights ARE actually manifested FOR EVERYONE.
My point is, people need to wake up, and stop thinking b/se a black person says something it makes it right and ok. Be analytical. A white guy, in this instance Rand Paul, is standing up for your rights, and so happens that a black guy in this instance, BHO, is not. Being a sheep based on the race of someone goes against exactly what MLK, Jr was talking about .......... since the "content of the character" of that person is what makes the ultimate difference.
If a Chinese guy is saying GMOs are bad, I'm not going to agree with the church going black guy with a family who works at Monsanto who tells me its good.
If a Latino woman says MJ and hemp should be legalized, I'm not going to agree with the sexy black female HBCU graduate that got a degree in criminal justice that keeps telling me that we need to keep locking up brothers and sisters.
Be analytical and look at issues for what they are not just the race of the person putting their views out there.
Last edited:
white su·prem·a·cy
noun
- the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.
The point of contextualizing this surveillance program with white supremacy is that the United States government which is a white institutions in itself, believes that its citizens here and abroad and non citizens should be monitored due to the premise that the United States government should be the dominate force in society. Its ironic that a black man is now the face of this paradox.
I support a US Hegemony abroad.
Hegemony abroad was the foundation for Bush's reasoning for going into Iraq..and its the foundation for why Obama and dem let ISIS fester into what it is now but thats a discussion for another day
What's sad and discusting is.Young Paul outchere giving that work ................................................................... by his lonesome ...........
The most potent and simple point he made is that all you have to do is abide by the Constitution/Bill of Rights and get a warrant, as opposed to just arbitrary collection of data
Why are the Congress people so jellyfish ? ..................... why?
This is why I made that thread about the Constitution and Slavery in The Root http://www.thecoli.com/threads/sohh...ion-bill-of-rights-being-slaveholders.316332/....... as black people will have a very nuanced view of the Bill of Rights, cause it wasn't written for people that look like us or our ancestors. So we, rightly so, have a bit of a dubious relationship to it. Yet,[paraphrasing], as MLK, Jr said we have to make sure the words inscribed in the Bill of Rights ARE actually manifested FOR EVERYONE.
My point is, people need to wake up, and stop thinking b/se a black person says something it makes it right and ok. Be analytical. A white guy, in this instance Rand Paul, is standing up for your rights, and so happens that a black guy in this instance, BHO, is not. Being a sheep based on the race of someone goes against exactly what MLK, Jr was talking about .......... since the "content of the character" of that person is what makes the ultimate difference.
If a Chinese guy is saying GMOs are bad, I'm not going to agree with the church going black guy with a family who works at Monsanto who tells me its good.
If a Latino woman says MJ and hemp should be legalized, I'm not going to agree with the sexy black female HBCU graduate that got a degree in criminal justice that keeps telling me that we need to keep locking up brothers and sisters.
Be analytical and look at issues for what they are not just the race of the person putting their views out there.
Obama and some of the other black leadership are some of the first ones to fall in line...
Indiglow Meta (R$G)
Ultra.
Rand Paul isn't standing up for anything, he's on that Libertarian wave. A lot of racists love them because it gives them the right to freely shoot people of color.
Digga38
The seperation between what's fake and what's real
the american people are desperate
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Desperate for Puppet Paul! I tell ya!
How can anyone hate on this? Tha Patriot Act is an atrocity.
And try pointing to 20 members of Congress who AREN'T racist?!? Until we get the racists out of government altogether at least give me a racist with a conscience and some common sense.
Mind you I haven't personally investigated whether he's racist or not, it just seems to be the narrative.
And try pointing to 20 members of Congress who AREN'T racist?!? Until we get the racists out of government altogether at least give me a racist with a conscience and some common sense.
Mind you I haven't personally investigated whether he's racist or not, it just seems to be the narrative.
Last edited:
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
The Patriot Act
Rand Paul's libertarian street cred
Jun 1st 2015, 19:01 BY M.S.
IN A panel discussion at Harvard University on Saturday, Viet Dinh, who served as assistant attorney general in George W. Bush’s administration and was the chief architect of the USA Patriot Act, was asked whether it was true that Barack Obama’s national security policies were largely a continuation of Mr Bush’s. Yes, he replied, but not because of the choices Mr Obama or any other politician had made. The continuities existed because of a consensus in the law-enforcement, intelligence, and prosecutorial agencies regarding the tools they wanted in order to conduct the war on terror. “Even if Rand Paul becomes president, we won’t see a significant, seismic shift,” Mr Dinh said.
On Sunday night, Mr Paul did his best to put the lie to that claim by single-handedly forcing the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act. Mr Paul's filibuster will certainly burnish his credentials with libertarians. But the provisions of the act that have expired are limited. The most important of these regards the ability of the FBI or other agencies to collect and search bulk metadata on electronic communications without obtaining a warrant. Such warrantless searches were presumed legal owing to a ruling by the special federal court (known as the FISA court). But last month a federal appeals court ruled otherwise. And because Mr Paul has forced the Senate to miss the deadline for passing the USA Freedom Act, a new version of the Patriot Act, the authority to carry out such searches has expired.
But as Charlie Savage reports in the New York Times, authorities will still be able to “grandfather in” searches related to investigations opened before June 1st. Because agencies have open-ended investigations into organisations such as al-Qaeda, many warrantless searches can probably continue apace. Judges also rarely object to federal agencies' requests for warrants to conduct specific searches. Meanwhile as soon as Tuesday the Senate will once again grind away at authorising the USA Freedom Act. Mr Paul may try to delay them, but eventually they will succeed.
So Mr Paul's filibuster was essentially an electoral stunt. The deeper issue was not whether Mr Paul himself could succeed in derailing the re-authorisation of the Patriot Act, but whether the libertarian faction in the Republican party (which Mr Paul exemplifies) has become strong enough to cause a real split over national-security issues. This is an important question not only because of what it means for the future direction of Republicans or of conservatism, but because of the implications for lawmaking. Over the past decade it has become increasingly clear that the ideological sorting of America's two-party system—the elimination of liberal Republicans and the weakening of conservative Democrats—has all but paralysed the legislative branch. Ideologically divisive legislation (such as health-care reform for Democrats, Social Security reform for Republicans) can pass only when, as in 2009-10, a single party manages to dominate both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Reviewing the surveillance state
The exception is cases where ideological splits within one party run deep enough to create the potential for cross-party alliances. Beginning in the 1990s, "third way" pro-market liberalism caused just such a split in the Democratic party. On a few issues, libertarianism seems to be creating a similar split in the Republican party. In areas such as same-sex marriage, the drug war and mass incarceration, reforms that once seemed out of the question are beginning to seem possible (or, in the case of same-sex marriage, almost certain). The question is whether libertarian antipathy to the security state and military intervention have made policy change possible in these spheres as well.
The answer, for the moment, appears to be no. Mr Paul's insistence on scrapping much broader provisions of the Patriot Act has pushed the Republican party's security establishment firmly back into the camp of the neo-conservatives who once dominated it. Despite having endorsed Mr Paul for president, Mitch McConnell, majority leader of the Senate, denounced his rhetoric against the USA Freedom Act as part of a "campaign of demagoguery".
In the longer term, though, Mr Paul is the thin end of a potentially large wedge. The left half of the Democratic electorate is chafing for an opportunity to vote against the expansive national-security state as soon as Barack Obama is no longer in charge of it. The investigators, prosecutors, judges and spies who comprise that security state may, as Mr Dinh says, be in relative agreement about what tools they need, but large segments of both parties' voters are not. Mr Paul’s filibustering voice may seem lonesome now, but his demands that security not come at the cost of liberty resonate with a large and perhaps growing segment of the electorate.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/patriot-act
Of course the sheeple on the coli fall for it every time.
Wake up sheeple!
Rand Paul's libertarian street cred
Jun 1st 2015, 19:01 BY M.S.
IN A panel discussion at Harvard University on Saturday, Viet Dinh, who served as assistant attorney general in George W. Bush’s administration and was the chief architect of the USA Patriot Act, was asked whether it was true that Barack Obama’s national security policies were largely a continuation of Mr Bush’s. Yes, he replied, but not because of the choices Mr Obama or any other politician had made. The continuities existed because of a consensus in the law-enforcement, intelligence, and prosecutorial agencies regarding the tools they wanted in order to conduct the war on terror. “Even if Rand Paul becomes president, we won’t see a significant, seismic shift,” Mr Dinh said.
On Sunday night, Mr Paul did his best to put the lie to that claim by single-handedly forcing the expiration of parts of the Patriot Act. Mr Paul's filibuster will certainly burnish his credentials with libertarians. But the provisions of the act that have expired are limited. The most important of these regards the ability of the FBI or other agencies to collect and search bulk metadata on electronic communications without obtaining a warrant. Such warrantless searches were presumed legal owing to a ruling by the special federal court (known as the FISA court). But last month a federal appeals court ruled otherwise. And because Mr Paul has forced the Senate to miss the deadline for passing the USA Freedom Act, a new version of the Patriot Act, the authority to carry out such searches has expired.
But as Charlie Savage reports in the New York Times, authorities will still be able to “grandfather in” searches related to investigations opened before June 1st. Because agencies have open-ended investigations into organisations such as al-Qaeda, many warrantless searches can probably continue apace. Judges also rarely object to federal agencies' requests for warrants to conduct specific searches. Meanwhile as soon as Tuesday the Senate will once again grind away at authorising the USA Freedom Act. Mr Paul may try to delay them, but eventually they will succeed.
So Mr Paul's filibuster was essentially an electoral stunt. The deeper issue was not whether Mr Paul himself could succeed in derailing the re-authorisation of the Patriot Act, but whether the libertarian faction in the Republican party (which Mr Paul exemplifies) has become strong enough to cause a real split over national-security issues. This is an important question not only because of what it means for the future direction of Republicans or of conservatism, but because of the implications for lawmaking. Over the past decade it has become increasingly clear that the ideological sorting of America's two-party system—the elimination of liberal Republicans and the weakening of conservative Democrats—has all but paralysed the legislative branch. Ideologically divisive legislation (such as health-care reform for Democrats, Social Security reform for Republicans) can pass only when, as in 2009-10, a single party manages to dominate both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Reviewing the surveillance state
The exception is cases where ideological splits within one party run deep enough to create the potential for cross-party alliances. Beginning in the 1990s, "third way" pro-market liberalism caused just such a split in the Democratic party. On a few issues, libertarianism seems to be creating a similar split in the Republican party. In areas such as same-sex marriage, the drug war and mass incarceration, reforms that once seemed out of the question are beginning to seem possible (or, in the case of same-sex marriage, almost certain). The question is whether libertarian antipathy to the security state and military intervention have made policy change possible in these spheres as well.
The answer, for the moment, appears to be no. Mr Paul's insistence on scrapping much broader provisions of the Patriot Act has pushed the Republican party's security establishment firmly back into the camp of the neo-conservatives who once dominated it. Despite having endorsed Mr Paul for president, Mitch McConnell, majority leader of the Senate, denounced his rhetoric against the USA Freedom Act as part of a "campaign of demagoguery".
In the longer term, though, Mr Paul is the thin end of a potentially large wedge. The left half of the Democratic electorate is chafing for an opportunity to vote against the expansive national-security state as soon as Barack Obama is no longer in charge of it. The investigators, prosecutors, judges and spies who comprise that security state may, as Mr Dinh says, be in relative agreement about what tools they need, but large segments of both parties' voters are not. Mr Paul’s filibustering voice may seem lonesome now, but his demands that security not come at the cost of liberty resonate with a large and perhaps growing segment of the electorate.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/patriot-act
Of course the sheeple on the coli fall for it every time.
Wake up sheeple!
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Connect The Dots3 hours 53 mins ago
How is Rand Paul similar to President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria?
===
Answer:
Both are highly trained eye surgeons and are young guns.
Both are scions of a famous political father.
Both have major ethical shortcomings as world class hypocrites.
And both suffer from major psychiatric disorders.
Eye surgeons may see everything, but still lack vision.
How is Rand Paul similar to President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria?
===
Answer:
Both are highly trained eye surgeons and are young guns.
Both are scions of a famous political father.
Both have major ethical shortcomings as world class hypocrites.
And both suffer from major psychiatric disorders.
Eye surgeons may see everything, but still lack vision.
when the fukk did that happen?