Rand Paul's Patriot Act Filibuster

[robertreams]

I'd like to believe you, but nothing Obama has done so far shows he would give up a tool he uses so often. He could have shut down the domestic spying program any time.

Ask Bernie Sanders what he thinks! And, Obama, excuse me but that's President Obama, has used the veto only once up to now.

 

[boomer177]

[I]Battle Lines in G.O.P. Set Stage for Surveillance Vote[/I],
New York Times, May 31, 2015
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/u...0150531&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=66636455&_r=0

 

[JackLuis]

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2107/8306/original.jpg?w=800&h​

Just for laughs.

 

[Sean Renaud]

They do read them. They do keep track of where people stand on the issues be it from letters, phone calls or wherever. Public pressure changes things. The day it doesn't......well. Please don't think that one person can't make a difference. It's just not true.

I've never really been convinced that any number of us really made a difference. If we did gun control would have gone much differently the last couple years. An over whelming majority of Dems and a slight majority of Republicans all wanted stricter background checks and. . .nothing happened. And I could point out issue after issue after issue like that.

I'm glad you have faith, I have relatively little.

 

[boomer177]

Pew Research Center, "Americans’ Views on Government Surveillance Programs," May 16, 2015
>> http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/03/16/americans-views-on-government-surveillance-programs/#Americans are comfortable targeting others for surveillance, but not themselves

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ask Bernie Sanders what he thinks! And, Obama, excuse me but that's President Obama, has used the veto only once up to now.

Actually it's four times. It's the lowest amount in almost literally forever but it's more than one just for the record.

 

[Busybody]

when Bush/Ashcroft said the PAT ACT was needed they were attacked by the same people that are now saying the PAT ACT is needed

 

[Sean Renaud]

when Bush/Ashcroft said the PAT ACT was needed they were attacked by the same people that are now saying the PAT ACT is needed

Who is saying it's needed today? It was a bad law then and it's a bad law now and anybody defending it at any time is simply wrong.

Cute comic, even if it's not really an accurate portrayal of your chosen party.

 

[Busybody]

Who is saying it's needed today? It was a bad law then and it's a bad law now and anybody defending it at any time is simply wrong.

Cute comic, even if it's not really an accurate portrayal of your chosen party.

Hussein Black Obama

Racist Lynch

Muslim CIA Director

Partisan FBI "leader"

among others

 

[Sean Renaud]

Hussein Black Obama

Racist Lynch

Muslim CIA Director

Partisan FBI "leader"

among others

I'm assuming you can quote some of these people saying that? If any of them are defending it makes them scum. It was never a good law and it was never necessary.

 

[Busybody]

here is just one

The Muslim CIA durector

CIA chief: Terrorists watching Senate NSA fight http://hill.cm/G91zb19

You can find all teh others, please dont pretend its not so

 

[Busybody]

here is just one

The Muslim CIA durector

CIA chief: Terrorists watching Senate NSA fight http://hill.cm/G91zb19

You can find all teh others, please dont pretend its not so

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/new-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-defends-patriot-act-nsa/

 

[Busybody]

here

Hussein Black Obama

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ress-not-patriot-act-expire-article-1.2240807

 

[Busybody]

when Bush/Ashcroft said the PAT ACT was needed they were attacked by the same people that are now saying the PAT ACT is needed

 

[Sean Renaud]

See that wasn't so hard was it? And Obama is scummy shit bag. Not like I haven't called him out constantly on his drone attacks, or his handling of Iran as well. Or his complete cowardice when it comes to Gitmo.

 

[Busybody]

See that wasn't so hard was it? And Obama is scummy shit bag. Not like I haven't called him out constantly on his drone attacks, or his handling of Iran as well. Or his complete cowardice when it comes to Gitmo.

when are you gonna behead some?

 

[Sean Renaud]

when are you gonna behead some?

Probably never. See here's the issue, when it comes to things like Drone Warfare, Gitmo, (Obama does seem to have ended or seriously dialed back torture so point there), spying to protect us I get two choices in this country. The side who will lie to me and say they'll fix it and maybe they'll fix SOME of it. Obama did at least try to give drone calls to Congress and they politely declined the responsibility, he made a half assed effort to close Gitmo and get terrorists civillian trials. Then I have the party who flat out tells me that these are all great and wonderful things and they will never shut them down and might just expand them given a chance. It's a choice between a wolf and a wolf in sheep's clothing. If I'm lucky the latter will try to keep his disguise up.

I'm also not a one issue voter and all this goes under National Security as one issue. Republicans are much worse on civil rights and much worse on the economy. Oh and women's rights. And education. And Disaster Aid.

 

[Busybody]

Can we go back to Ted Cruz psuedo-filibustering re: Obamacare for a minute? Remind me why that was so horrible but Rand Paul is totes cool.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Can we go back to Ted Cruz psuedo-filibustering re: Obamacare for a minute? Remind me why that was so horrible but Rand Paul is totes cool.

First I don't really recall being pissed so much as amused at Ted Cruz. However without having watched a highlight real of Rand (maybe he gets just as bizarre) but there is a difference between talking about an issue in the hopes of boring everybody literally to death and reading "Green Eggs and Ham." If that's what a filibuster is then Senators should be required to memorize every Micheal Jackson song ever written and the filibuster ends automaticaly if you miss a lyric or skip a song on an album.

That said I actually think both men did a good job and it's far better than the current bullshit filibuster. I bet that 60 votes needed bullshit would end and 51 would be the new norm if you had to stand and talk indefinitely to filibuster. Even then filibustering is kinda stupid in the modern era but whatever. We're not gonna change that.

 

[JackLuis]

From Wiki-
"The English term "filibuster" is derived from the Spanish filibustero, itself deriving originally from the Dutch vrijbuiter, "privateer, pirate, robber" (also the root of English "freebooter"[2]). The Spanish form entered the English language in the 1850s, as applied to military adventurers from the United States then operating in Central America and the Spanish West Indies such as William Walker.[3][4]

The term in its legislative sense was first used by Rep. Albert G. Brown, (D-MS) in 1853, referring to Abraham Watkins Venable's speech against "filibustering" intervention in Cuba.[5]"

So it means to invade someone else's country and then claim youere right to do so. Gotcha.

 

[Busybody]

THE WASHINGTON DC FOLLIES: Democrat Senate leadership is going to the mat on a Sunday for the Patriot Act. Just soaking this up. All of it.

Plus: Year 7 of Obama’s presidency, Democrats are going to the mat for Bush’s Patriot Act. This is failure on his promises to make world love us.

Also: That is pretty hilarious, come to think of it. “That cowboy screwed everything up! We have to keep his policies!”

And: I’m so old, I remember when the @SenateDems opposed the Patriot Act.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I assume you have citation, and hopefully a final vote?

 

[Aglaopheme]

I've never really been convinced that any number of us really made a difference. If we did gun control would have gone much differently the last couple years. An over whelming majority of Dems and a slight majority of Republicans all wanted stricter background checks and. . .nothing happened. And I could point out issue after issue after issue like that.

I'm glad you have faith, I have relatively little.

We should have jumped on gun control when we had the chance. There was a moment of sanity there when progress could have been made. It did not last long. Unfortunately, most Democrats shy away from this issue. It's utterly moronic. Nothing happened, because almost no one tried. Politicians cave to public pressure all the time. For better or for worse. You'd best believe the teapartiers believe they can make a difference with their voices. No offense, but your attitude is part of the problem. The prevailing, loudest voice should be that of the majority. I don't mean answering a pollster, I mean making those calls, writing those letters, protesting, etc.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No offense taken. I'm glad there are people like you who trust the system. Tea Partiers might believe they have that power but aside from weakening the Republican Party and costing them seats in 2010 what have they actually accomplished? They've actually been detrimental to their cause. Whoever that woman was who ran up against Harry Reid and said "If we lose this election we should look to 2nd amendment solutions." basically cost them a seat. Pee Wee Herman would have won. The same goes for that woman who started running ads about "I am not a witch." That's at least two seats and those are just easily proven seats. There are probably others. I think a strong case can be made that their effect on the 2012 election amounted to keeping the crazies in long past when they shouldn't have been playing forcing Romney farther right than he could recover from and without them they would have done better then as well.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I concur, hence the for better or for worse.

I never said I trust the system, I said I can and do make a difference. It takes work, a lot of work, but it's work worth doing.