The PATRIOT Act is a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach"

[r3volution 3.0]

Guess who said this?

[RJ Liberty]

Hmmm... could it be Brett Kavanaugh? :tears::tears:

[r3volution 3.0]

Hmmm... could it be Brett Kavanaugh? :tears::tears:

No, that can't be, he's going to help Make America Great Again.

He's not a neocon stooge brought up by the Bush administration.

[RJ Liberty]

No, that can't be, he's going to help Make America Great Again.

He's not a neocon stooge brought up by the Bush administration.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/complete-he-4th-amendment-later-remind-me-in-5-minutes-36225074.png

[Aratus]

Aratus looks ...up!!!

[RonZeplin]

Guess who said this?

Dick & Liz Cheney


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxdZd90YCCE
Jun 17, 2014

[DamianTV]

Guess who said this?

Some fucking tool who truly hates America and what it stands for?

[AZJoe]

The PATRIOT Act is a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach"

This is what the hearings should have been about, instead of the amnesiac Ford stupid Jerry Springer sideshow distraction that Feinstein brought us.

[TheCount]

This is what the hearings should have been about, instead of the amnesiac Ford stupid Jerry Springer sideshow distraction that Feinstein brought us.
Who would have paid attention? The people who are supposed to care are more wrapped up in government worship than ever before.

[CaptUSA]

This is what the hearings should have been about, instead of the amnesiac Ford stupid Jerry Springer sideshow distraction that Feinstein brought us.

Do you really think anyone could raise funds off of that?? The ratings would have been so low. So low. I like big ratings. Huge ratings.

(Next, you'll hear the Trumpcuckers explain that this was Trump's plan all along... Sacrificing a Bush crony to get more $$ for the RNC. He even paid these accusers to come forward just for that purpose. 236D chess and all.)

[Ender]

Do you really think anyone could raise funds off of that?? The ratings would have been so low. So low. I like big ratings. Huge ratings.

(Next, you'll hear the Trumpcuckers explain that this was Trump's plan all along... Sacrificing a Bush crony to get more $$ for the RNC. He even paid these accusers to come forward just for that purpose. 236D chess and all.)

While telling everyone else how stupid they are.:confused:

[CCTelander]

While telling everyone else how stupid they are.:confused:


That's about the size of it. And calling everyone else leftists, progressives, commies, or trolls on top of it. Maybe some day they'll grow up.

[Ender]

That's about the size of it. And calling everyone else leftists, progressives, commies, or trolls on top of it. Maybe some day they'll grow up.

Or perhaps THEY are really the paid trolls. :speaknoevil:

[shakey1]

The PATRIOT Act is a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach"

How Orwellian.

https://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/orwellian-police-state-DS.jpg

[spudea]

I'm sure Rand would have voted yes on Kagan and Sotomayor. There's no satisfying Libertarians on this forum. Many here lament Ron Paul for having to play the Republican party game just to get elected to the House. Ron Paul is the swamp for not winning as a Libertarian candidate. Change my mind.

[RJ Liberty]

Do you really think anyone could raise funds off of that?? The ratings would have been so low. So low. I like big ratings. Huge ratings.


:tears:

[Ender]

I'm sure Rand would have voted yes on Kagan and Sotomayor. There's no satisfying Libertarians on this forum. Many here lament Ron Paul for having to play the Republican party game just to get elected to the House. Ron Paul is the swamp for not winning as a Libertarian candidate. Change my mind.

Comparing a pushing the Patriot Act through to being a member of Congress is not even in the same ball park.

[PierzStyx]

Some $#@!ing tool who truly hates America and what it stands for?

And guess who supports him?

[Brian4Liberty]

The PATRIOT Act is a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach"

Guess who said this?

Yeah, this needed it’s own thread... :rolleyes:

Was there anyone who was not aware of this? Yes, Kavanaugh was a bad pick for anyone concerned about the 4th amendment.

Who was he a good pick for? What benefits are expected? Now that is more worthy of investigation.

Let’s start out with the person who picked him. Kavanaugh was chosen by Don McGahn. What might his agenda be?

Maybe his past connections would be informative:


Koch Brothers’ Operatives Fill Top White House Positions, Ethics Forms Reveal (https://theintercept.com/2017/04/04/koch-trump-wh/)

If the billionaire Koch brothers turn to the White House for favors, they will see many familiar faces.

Newly disclosed ethics forms reveal that a significant number of senior Trump staffers were previously employed by the sprawling network of hard-right and libertarian advocacy groups financed and controlled by Charles and David Koch, the conservative duo hyper-focused on entrenching Republican power, eliminating taxes, and slashing environmental and labor regulations.
...
Donald McGahn, Trump’s campaign attorney turned White House counsel, provided legal services to a range of outside Koch groups working to influence the election. McGahn, through the law firm Jones Day, advised Freedom Partners, as well as i360, the Koch’s big data firm set up to identify and target voters, and Americans for Prosperity, the election advocacy and grassroots lobbying organization run by the Koch brothers. Ann Donaldson, McGahn’s chief of staff, came to the White House from McGahn’s law firm. Her financial disclosure shows that she also provided legal services to Freedom Partners and i360.
...

It does seem that McGahn’s history indicates more than anything a desire to enable big money to influence elections. Where would Kavanaugh stand on such issues?

[Krugminator2]

And guess who supports him?

Me? Almost every libertarian legal thinker?

The most prominent libertarian legal theorist? (Not to mention the guy Judge Napolitano listed as his top Supreme Court choice) https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/01/the-case-for-kavanaugh

[Ender]

Me? Almost every libertarian legal thinker?

The most prominent libertarian legal theorist? (Not to mention the guy Judge Napolitano listed as his top Supreme Court choice) https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/01/the-case-for-kavanaugh

Uh, NO.

Here is Judge Napolitano's opinion on Kavanaugh:


Filling the Swamp
By Andrew P. Napolitano

When Donald Trump started running for the Republican nomination for president in June 2015, he began by attacking the Republican establishment in Washington, and he began his attack by calling the establishment “the swamp.”

His real target was the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington. These entities hover around power centers no matter which party is in power.

Beneath the swamp, Trump argued, lies the deep state. This is a loose collection of career government officials who operate outside ordinary legal and constitutional frameworks and use the levers of government power to favor their own, affect public policy and stay in power. Though I did not vote for Trump — I voted for the Libertarian candidate — a part of me rejoiced at his election because I accepted his often repeated words that he would be a stumbling block to the deep state and he’d drain the swamp.

On Monday night, he rewarded the swamp denizens and deep state outliers by nominating one of their own to the Supreme Court.

Here is the back story.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia — my friend during the final 10 years of his life — and his neighbor and colleague Justice Anthony Kennedy often remarked to each other during the Obama years that each would like to leave the Supreme Court upon the election of a Republican president. Scalia’s untimely death in February 2016 denied him that choice, but Kennedy bided his time.

When Trump was elected president, Kennedy told friends that he needed to await Trump’s nominee to replace Scalia to gauge whether the judicially untested Trump could be counted upon to choose a nominee of Kennedy’s liking and Scalia’s standing.

Trump knew Kennedy’s thinking, and that guided him in choosing Neil Gorsuch for Scalia’s seat. Gorsuch believes in the primacy of the individual and natural rights and is generally skeptical of government regulators. He is also a former Kennedy clerk.

So the Gorsuch selection was intended to serve two purposes. The first was to pick a Scalia-like thinker for the court as candidate Trump had promised, and the second was to give Kennedy a comfort level so he could retire and give President Trump a second nominee. It worked.

When Kennedy paid an unprecedented visit to the Oval Office two weeks ago, ostensibly to tell the president of his intention to retire, he also had a secret purpose — to recommend his replacement. The announcement of Kennedy’s departure began a firestorm of lobbying in behalf of four people from a list of 25 potential nominees that Trump had published when searching for Scalia’s replacement.

The idea of a published list is novel. But it cemented loyalty from conservatives to Trump, who, of course, had no track record in evaluating or appointing judicial nominees. The standards used to put names on the list involved examining academic credentials and published works and, with the exception of one person, requiring judicial experience with a traditionalist bent, even if brief.

Social and religious conservatives pushed the president to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a fiercely Catholic mother of seven and former Notre Dame Law School professor who is a known opponent of abortion. Intellectual conservatives pushed for Judge Raymond Kethledge, a philosopher like Justice Gorsuch who believes in the primacy of the individual and who recognizes natural rights. The president’s sister Judge Maryanne Trump Barry had her brother convinced that her colleague Judge Thomas Hardiman, a blue-collar diamond-in-the-rough conservative, would fulfill his promise to his base.

But at the last minute, a gaggle of Washington lawyers and lobbyists — called the establishment when you agree with them and the swamp when you don’t — persuaded the president to reject his commitment to his sister and nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is the man Justice Kennedy had asked the president to nominate and is another former Kennedy clerk.

The suspense over all this was palpable earlier this week. The showman in the president beat a drum so effectively last weekend that we all watched with excited pulse rates on Monday night. I was and remain extremely disappointed. Donald Trump — whatever you think of him as a president — has been utterly faithful to his campaign promises in foreign and domestic policy. Until now.

Now he has given us a nominee to the highest court in the land who typifies the culture he railed against when he claimed he’d drain the swamp. This man and this culture accept cutting holes in the Fourth Amendment because they don’t believe that it should protect privacy. This man and this culture accept unlimited spying on innocent Americans by the National Security Agency because they don’t believe that the NSA is subject to the Constitution.

This man and this culture even looked the other way in the face of deep state shenanigans against President Trump himself. This man and this culture accept the federal regulation of health care and its command that everyone buy health insurance, called Obamacare. This man and this culture embrace the Nixonian mantra that if the president does it, it is not illegal.

What happened here?

The Kavanaugh nomination is not a question of his qualifications; it is a question of his values. It is dangerous for judges to embrace values that diminish personal freedom rather than expand it. When they do that, they reveal their view that freedom comes from the government, not from within us. Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers profoundly rejected the government-as-source-of-freedom argument, but Judge Kavanaugh accepts it.

Jefferson once remarked that unless you pick someone’s pocket or break someone’s leg, no one should care how you exercise your freedom or pursue happiness. I wish the president had nominated a person who believes that, as well. But he didn’t.

[dude58677]

I would have preferred Mike Lee but now it’s too late. Taking it back will damage the Republicans in the midterms and then the Democrats will impeach Donald Trump. Mike Pence will take over( a career politician). Democrats will run a socialist and the we’ll be back to square one with career politicians running our country. There will be very few options for libertarians as a result as a door open will now be closed.

There are people who say the Supreme Court pick was the most important part of the 2016 election. No, it’s do we elect people who drop what they are doing and temporarily serve and go back to their own lives as the founders intended or do we elect self serving lawyers and lobbyists who make millions off their time in office could care less about the American people.

[CaptUSA]

Interesting tidbit here for anyone following my line of reasoning on this show:


The Supreme Court confirmation fight is bringing in record donations for the Republican Party.

That’s according to a GOP official, who says the Republican National Committee and its associated groups raised more than $3 million in digital donations this past weekend — the most it’s ever raised online.

And last Saturday was the GOP’s highest single-day online fundraising haul. The official wasn’t authorized to publicly discussing the fundraising details and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The party says the fundraising is being propelled by donors anger over how allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have played out. The White House says the drama is “energizing” the GOP’s base.

[juleswin]

Guess who said this?

The guy Reason magazine said was libertarian?

The way I see it, if Trump the big govt, neocon supported him, he cannot be any good. Add to that, Brett K came up through the Bush's family nominations, a family who I think may be just as big govt and neocon as Trump.

I want him taken down but nit for the reason the democrats are using.

[Krugminator2]

Uh, NO.

Here is Judge Napolitano's opinion on Kavanaugh:

Ummm...Yes. Judge Napolitano is literally the only one that I know of which I even said in a previous post and implied by using Napolitano in the post you are responding to. Feel free to find just one other libertarian legal person who is against Kavanaugh. I can find like 15 who support him.

[devil21]

Yeah, this needed it’s own thread... :rolleyes:

Was there anyone who was not aware of this? Yes, Kavanaugh was a bad pick for anyone concerned about the 4th amendment.


As opposed to the steady stream of "Saint Kavanaugh is under attack by teh Demz!!111!!" threads that we needed so many of and you never had a problem with as moderator? At least be balanced about it, sheesh.


Interesting tidbit here for anyone following my line of reasoning on this show:

Bingo. It's all about duping the gullible sheep out of their money and creating a fever pitch to get people buying into the illusion that federal elections matter. It's an esoteric sort-of-thing since it creates the "consent" aspect to continuing the agenda.

[Brian4Liberty]

As opposed to the steady stream of "Saint Kavanaugh is under attack by teh Demz!!111!!" threads that we needed so many of and you never had a problem with as moderator? At least be balanced about it, sheesh.

The fact of the matter is that Kavanaugh supporters see all anti-Kavanaugh threads, and the anti-Kavanaugh people see all pro-Kavanaugh threads. And both sides complain about the other.

[CaptUSA]

Bingo. It's all about duping the gullible sheep out of their money and creating a fever pitch to get people buying into the illusion that federal elections matter.

More details: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/midterms/article219488090.html


The National Republican Congressional Committee’s low-dollar donations over the past week are up 175 percent compared to the same time period the previous month, NRCC communications director Matt Gorman said. He added that the average donation total is up 111 percent, and that the committee has raised 194 percent more overall in the last week, again compared to the same timeframe the month before--all signs of grassroots enthusiasm.

At this rate, it'll work out better for the RNC if Judge Blutarsky is NOT confirmed.

[Ender]

The fact of the matter is that Kavanaugh supporters see all anti-Kavanaugh threads, and the anti-Kavanaugh people see all pro-Kavanaugh threads. And both sides complain about the other.

I've gotten called a few names for saying that I did not believe the sexual assault accusations but also could not support him for the SCOTUS.

[Brian4Liberty]

Me? Almost every libertarian legal thinker?

The most prominent libertarian legal theorist? (Not to mention the guy Judge Napolitano listed as his top Supreme Court choice) https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/01/the-case-for-kavanaugh


The guy Reason magazine said was libertarian?

The way I see it, if Trump the big govt, neocon supported him, he cannot be any good. Add to that, Brett K came up through the Bush's family nominations, a family who I think may be just as big govt and neocon as Trump.

I want him taken down but nit for the reason the democrats are using.

Kavanaugh is the choice of the Koch Brothers and Reason via Doug McGahn, the “libertarian” guy who actually picked Kavanaugh.

[Ender]

Kavanaugh is the choice of the Koch Brothers and Reason via Doug McGahn, the “libertarian” guy who actually picked Kavanaugh.

I'd +rep you again, if I could!