Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Listening to Rand Paul Speak

YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 4:12:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've had CNN on for a while. They're talking about the Patriot Act, because it expires in 6 hours and a little over 47 minutes as I type this post. Specifically, Rand Paul was speaking moments ago. He really is a compelling speaker. I'm not a Rand Paul fan, but that guy is really the only voice in congress who is railing against mass governmental surveillance. I was impressed.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 4:28:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 4:12:10 PM, YYW wrote:
I've had CNN on for a while.

lol, my condolences.

They're talking about the Patriot Act, because it expires in 6 hours and a little over 47 minutes as I type this post. Specifically, Rand Paul was speaking moments ago. He really is a compelling speaker. I'm not a Rand Paul fan, but that guy is really the only voice in congress who is railing against mass governmental surveillance. I was impressed.

I'm not sure if he's the *only* voice. I've seen Jeff Merkely, Bernie Sanders, and even other teabaggers like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie raise these concerns. I tend to think they're drowned out by loons, like Peter King, who want to incarcerate Glenn Greenwald for running with the story - and I tend to think that even people who aren't the biggest fans of Snowden would find that deplorable.

But, on-topic, you're right: Rand is an exceptional speaker, and at least on this he seems to be on the right side. Time will tell whether he *stays* on this side, or jumps ship a la McCain-Romney to appeal to the GOP base come primary season, but credit where credit is due.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 8:32:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 4:12:10 PM, YYW wrote:
I've had CNN on for a while. They're talking about the Patriot Act, because it expires in 6 hours and a little over 47 minutes as I type this post. Specifically, Rand Paul was speaking moments ago. He really is a compelling speaker. I'm not a Rand Paul fan, but that guy is really the only voice in congress who is railing against mass governmental surveillance. I was impressed.

Yeah, he talks big but I'm not his fan.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 12:05:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

How many of them were the government acting on "tips", supplying the motive, the means, the money, and the materials, and hoping the guy they supplied the stuff to actually does something with it?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 12:37:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 12:05:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

How many of them were the government acting on "tips", supplying the motive, the means, the money, and the materials, and hoping the guy they supplied the stuff to actually does something with it?

Wait...are you suggesting the Government is baiting people into attempting terrorism so that they can nab that person and take credit for preventing a terrorist attack?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 12:57:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 12:37:37 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 6/2/2015 12:05:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

How many of them were the government acting on "tips", supplying the motive, the means, the money, and the materials, and hoping the guy they supplied the stuff to actually does something with it?

Wait...are you suggesting the Government is baiting people into attempting terrorism so that they can nab that person and take credit for preventing a terrorist attack?

No no, I am hinting at the idea that Government is tempting people into committing barbarous acts so they can justify having the money spent on the resources to do such a thing. The prevention of terrorism and the subsequent credit is just a by-product.

On a more serious note: the local police department, the county sheriff's office, and certain DEA branches craft sting operations that engage in a variety of... shall we say dubious tactics in which to 'apprehend' certain people. Why should such a tactic NOT extend all the way up?

Separate but close circumstance:

Lets say a dude were to have talked/texted to another dude, or is related to a dude that committed some act we find heinous. The dude that had NOT committed the act gets a call from the police/FBI. This is of course pretty normal, in appreciation of the circumstance. After a handful of meetings, the relative of the dude that did this, obviously, gets a little fed up. You can only say "I don't know jack about what he did."

So, the FBI says "Hey, lets meet at your place."

?!?!?!??

OKay... in preparation that something shady is going down, you (acting as the relative of the guy that did something) agree, but just to be on the up and up, you and a pal have a little pow wow before this meeting, and even tell your pal that something seems off for this meeting. Said Pal comes back to your place, along with the FBI. FBI tells your pal to take a hike. Now its just you, about 4 agents in a room, one agent at the your car with your pal, outside a few blocks over ?!?!?, and some local law enforcement.

You, btw, are found dead in your apartment after having been shot by multiple officers after having grabbed a decorative weapon off the wall, and used it to attack the armed FBI agents in your home. The crime scene (by which I mean your assault of the officers, not your shooting) demonstrates a trail of blood from the middle of the apartment to the back door.

The Boston Bomber's had a relative down here that received a text or two in the same time frame. Granted, the guy was not a peach, but he was killed in his apartment under such a circumstance.

Because I enjoy a good conspiracy, I think the Boston Bombers were radicalized by the FBI, told their relative on the other side of the sea board they had met a contact... but the contact gave them faulty parts in which to build a device. Because these 2 dudes were smart, they corrected the problem, and made a live device, rather than the dummy device that was to be intercepted by authorities. The FBI then cleaned up the sources that knew the parts supplied were dummy parts, or at least threatened the jailed Bomber that should he mentioned anything about not being a lone wolf, family members would start getting offed, and just like any good thug, indeed made good demonstration.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 3:42:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 4:12:10 PM, YYW wrote:
I've had CNN on for a while. They're talking about the Patriot Act, because it expires in 6 hours and a little over 47 minutes as I type this post. Specifically, Rand Paul was speaking moments ago. He really is a compelling speaker. I'm not a Rand Paul fan, but that guy is really the only voice in congress who is railing against mass governmental surveillance. I was impressed.

This is why I support Paul for 2016. He's an outspoken leader who has the guts to say what nobody else is willing to.
Ashton
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 3:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

Didn't stop the Boston Bombing. And the "71 isis soldiers" in the US.
Ashton
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 3:45:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

You know what also would prevent terrorist attacks? Throwing every single person in prison.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 3:50:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think Paul will jump ship on the patriot act thing. He'd lose just about every supporter he has. People already have a hard enough time viewing him as a real libertarian, but that would be the last straw from his supporters.

I was aware Beenie Sanders was against the patriot act as well. He might be somebody I'd consider voting for if he won the Democratic nomination. It's tough for me to say that, but I'd consider voting Democrat if he won.

Also I thought YYW was one of those wierd liberals that supported the patriot act. This is news to me.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 5:52:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

As far as I've seen there have been very near 0 (or 0) attacks prevented by the indiscriminate mass collection of data from US citizens, and claims to the contrary have been disproved.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:25:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 5:52:05 AM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

As far as I've seen there have been very near 0 (or 0) attacks prevented by the indiscriminate mass collection of data from US citizens, and claims to the contrary have been disproved.

thumbs up to what you wrote.

The provisions which allow mass collection of data on non-suspects without a warrant needs to be stripped from the patriot act. I'm sure there are many claiming that the Patriot Act has a positive affect on stopping terrorism, but it is important to realize it covers everything from anti-money laundering to information sharing between various law enforcement, so they are probably right. We do know undoubtedly that the mass collection of phone calls and email has not done squat for us other than provide a tool which is ripe for misuse.

Anyone who is looking for a blanket extension of the act without removing the terms which allow blanket data collection need to get their non-freedom loving heads out of their arses.

Paul Rand would not have needed to filibuster had someone in power with common sense came to the table with revisions to the act to throw out the bad and keep the good. I guess that would have been the job of the majority, Republicans, who are more intent on sending troops to Iraq or stopping gay marriage. Now that is a platform for making a safe America!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 2:41:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 8:25:51 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/2/2015 5:52:05 AM, numberwang wrote:
At 6/1/2015 11:57:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
To be fair, the program has prevented countless terrorist attacks (or so the Government claims).

As far as I've seen there have been very near 0 (or 0) attacks prevented by the indiscriminate mass collection of data from US citizens, and claims to the contrary have been disproved.

thumbs up to what you wrote.

The provisions which allow mass collection of data on non-suspects without a warrant needs to be stripped from the patriot act. I'm sure there are many claiming that the Patriot Act has a positive affect on stopping terrorism, but it is important to realize it covers everything from anti-money laundering to information sharing between various law enforcement, so they are probably right. We do know undoubtedly that the mass collection of phone calls and email has not done squat for us other than provide a tool which is ripe for misuse.

Anyone who is looking for a blanket extension of the act without removing the terms which allow blanket data collection need to get their non-freedom loving heads out of their arses.

Paul Rand would not have needed to filibuster had someone in power with common sense came to the table with revisions to the act to throw out the bad and keep the good. I guess that would have been the job of the majority, Republicans, who are more intent on sending troops to Iraq or stopping gay marriage. Now that is a platform for making a safe America!

There was a revised bill put on the table, the USA Freedom Act:

http://www.usatoday.com...
Three key sections of the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law that expired at midnight Sunday will now be restored and extended through 2019.

However, Section 215 of that law will be changed to stop the NSA from continuing its mass phone data collection program. Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.

The Senate's hard-fought passage of the USA Freedom Act represented a major victory for privacy rights advocates in Congress. It also highlighted the upper hand those advocates now have in the GOP over traditional defense hawks such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who had fought to renew the Patriot Act without changes.


My understanding was that Rand Paul wanted to kill both the PATRIOT Act and this revised version of it, and while he successfully filibustered the PATRIOT Act, the revised version got a supermajority.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?