Even when they likely eventually lose this fight, they're still fighting the good fight. Kudos to them. It's nice to see that there's still some Republicans who think that limited government covers something besides tax cuts.
Yes, this reminds me of of Bush on the aircraft carrier calling it "Mission Accomplished". Paul delayed the inevitable, and nothing more.
Based on Rand Paul's dropping most libertarian beliefs to remain viable for the GOP base (opposition to abortion, etc)...... He'd probably cast the deciding vote for the patriot act of it helped him politically.
What has he done -- cause a minor inconvenience on the rubber stamp?
No, I'll credit someone when they a) hold to their principles even if it's unpopular or b) actually accomplish something. I don't believe Paul would take this stance if he knew it could actually work. It's a political stunt, and nothing more......utterly meaningless.
That's not what he said, you took it completely out of context simply because you don't like his ideology. Bias works both ways, you have to watch for it no matter if it's Fox News or Mother Jones.
The context is that he was talking about being opposed to the use of technology for warrantless surveillance - surveillance that would be impossible without that technology - versus dealing with an active threat.
The drone thing was a toss off example that people have seized upon. What you're doing is no better than when people take that whole "never let a tragedy go to waste" statement out of context.
Your initial comment suggests he wants automated drones shooting down people for robbery or petty crimes. The expanded context shows that he's saying there is no difference between the consequences of a human and automated police force for him. To suggest that those comments imply the same conclusion is patently false.
In this context, what is the difference between a cop and a drone? Either way kills the man. Either way a person has to make the call to fire. It's not like we are arming robots with guns and AI and flying them out on streets like the sentinels from x-men. The biggest difference is the person controlling the drone might be less inclined to shoot the person because they feel threatened. Perhaps you could explain to me how this equates to him being OK with drones killing for shop lifting. From what I see that could also mean he is OK with a cop killing for shoplifting.
Why does the man need to be killed? Rand made up a hypothetical scenario and he said "A person leaving a liquor store with a gun and 50 dollars", not "A person pointing a gun at someone" or "A person threatening imminent harm", or anything like that, just "someone [coming] out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash". That's described me, following me going into a liquor store with my lawfully carried gun and 100 dollars.
He's talking about killing people who aren't immediate apparent threats.
I'm a Reddit liberal, and would say that Obama had a great deal of power when enacting meaningful healthcare reform. It was named after him for a reason. I also wouldn't say any President has carte blanche when "ending the drug war", and I'm damn sure that Paul wouldn't do anything differently than Obama has done there.
Bernie Sanders is much more consistent on these issues, actually sticks to his principle, and happens to be a little less unelectable than Rand Paul.
I'm a Reddit liberal, and would say that Obama had a great deal of power when enacting meaningful healthcare reform.
To bad he didn't enact meaningful healthcare reform or healthcare reform, period. Instead, he made us all customers of the failed American insurance scheme that is reasonable for the destruction of American healthcare to begin with.
All this after he campaigned SPECIFICALLY AGAINST any plan that had a mandate.
It was named after him for a reason.
Yup. He was president. They couldn't exactly call it Hillarycare(even though that's why we got it) could they?
I also wouldn't say any President has carte blanche when "ending the drug war", and I'm damn sure that Paul wouldn't do anything differently than Obama has done there.
Um....What? I can tell you with 100% confidence that if Obama REALLY REALLY wanted the drug war to end, he could do it himself.
You pass an executive order and you tell your chain of command that you will no longer be enforcing the drug war and it will be the absolute lowest priority of law enforcement. You know, like many states have already done.
Also, Paul would come out against the drug war publicly, which is more than Obama has done.
Remember the Ogden memo from 09? Probably not. The Ogden memo was sent out to the states by Obama telling them he would not attack states with laws legalizing bud.
Guess what? 2 weeks later we had the biggest crackdown in recent American history.
Bernie Sanders is much more consistent on these issues, actually sticks to his principle, and happens to be a little less unelectable than Rand Paul.
I don't know about that. Maybe just as consistent if not MAYBE slightly more?
They are both senators, they are both electable. Don't let your opinion get in the way of objectivity.
Obama passed health care reform. Something that has been talked about by both parties since before FDR. And Obama had a heck of a time getting it passed.
The guy just stopped a major bill with heavy GOP support in the face of party leadership and is new getting torched by them, and your response is to talk about how he's just playing politics?
This political theater gets way more press than it deserves. Want to do away with it, write and sponsor your own bill, get the votes, and pass the thing. Filibuster is just a free campaign commercial.
Huh? The provisions of the PATRIOT Act expired because the Senate didn't pass legislation to extend them. The President can't veto legislation that was never passed in the first place.
Not trying to be a dick, but it sounds like you have little knowledge of the subject you're talking about.
The PATRIOT Act had sunset clauses in a number of its provisions. Those clauses expired on Sunday. If you can give me firm examples of these "non-proper channels" Obama can use to restart a law that expired, I'm all ears.
123
u/basec0m Jun 01 '15
*Temporarily