The people that criticize Rand Paul's sincerity on Filibuster

[dude58677]

First of all it did force Congress to block the extension. Second of all, can anyone do better? Can they talk for 11 hours straight? Most people are lucky to talk for 30 minutes straight. I couldn't talk that long. Talking 11 hours straight is an achievement in and of itself.

[wizardwatson]

First of all it did force Congress to block the extension. Second of all, can anyone do better? Can they talk for 11 hours straight? Most people are lucky to talk for 30 minutes straight. I couldn't talk that long. Talking 11 hours straight is an achievement in and of itself.

Yes, reading articles for 11 hours is an amazing human achievement. In some parts of the world a $2 an hour achievement. I think Rand was making more though.



Not to downplay it. But you need to qualify it with an achievement "FOR A POLITICIAN".

Perspective.

[dude58677]

Yes, reading articles for 11 hours is an amazing human achievement. In some parts of the world a $2 an hour achievement. I think Rand was making more though.



Not to downplay it. But you need to qualify it with an achievement "FOR A POLITICIAN".

Perspective.

Yes.

[nikcers]

First of all it did force Congress to block the extension. Second of all, can anyone do better? Can they talk for 11 hours straight? Most people are lucky to talk for 30 minutes straight. I couldn't talk that long. Talking 11 hours straight is an achievement in and of itself.

For a politician to go against his own party while running for that parties nomination is what makes him such an interesting individual. He is running against Washington, but instead of straight opposition he is galvanizing a bipartisan partnership that says leave me alone. Rand Paul was a successful optometrist who fought against his own; to make stricter rules to have everyone get re certified with higher standards and he even made his colleagues strive to be a better person. Even with right and wrong not being black and white he pushes even people as corrupt as Lindsay Graham to be a bigger person even he thinks he wants to try to make this country better in his misguided way.

[jaymur]

Also, I agree with you.

For a politician to go against his own party while running for that parties nomination is what makes him such an interesting individual. He is running against Washington, but instead of straight opposition he is galvanizing a bipartisan partnership that says leave me alone. Rand Paul was a successful optometrist who fought against his own; to make stricter rules to have everyone get re certified with higher standards and he even made his colleagues strive to be a better person. Even with right and wrong not being black and white he pushes even people as corrupt as Lindsay Graham to be a bigger person even he thinks he wants to try to make this country better in his misguided way.

[jaymur]

Rand Paul's filibusters have been better than Cruz's for example. Cruz did a reading from Dr Seuss, for crying out loud. Even if Rand had his staff put together what he spoke on, at least he was getting good work out of his staff and potentially swaying the public vs just consuming time.

[anaconda]

Maybe Rand should simply ask McCain, publicly, about the Keating 5 Scandal and just shut this POS up completely. Seems easy enough.

[anaconda]

For a politician to go against his own party while running for that parties nomination is what makes him such an interesting individual. He is running against Washington, but instead of straight opposition he is galvanizing a bipartisan partnership that says leave me alone. Rand Paul was a successful optometrist who fought against his own; to make stricter rules to have everyone get re certified with higher standards and he even made his colleagues strive to be a better person. Even with right and wrong not being black and white he pushes even people as corrupt as Lindsay Graham to be a bigger person even he thinks he wants to try to make this country better in his misguided way.

Also note that we don't currently see polarized smack down feuds in the Democratic Party, since they are they uniformly corrupt and milk toast.

[nikcers]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chris-ch...ong-loud-type/
Every Republican candidate has a strong suit he thinks will get him to the presidency. Sen. Marco Rubio says he represents the future, Sen. Ted Cruz says he's the purest conservative, Sen. Rand Paul is Mr. Liberty, former Gov. Rick Perry is running on his Texas record, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is positioning himself to be the general election candidate. Christie's route to relevance will be based on the show he puts on for voters.

[MaxPower]

"When your argument lacks substance, abuse the plaintiff." -Marcus Tullius Cicero, 2000 years ago.

Resorting to the ad hominem when you have no valid complaints against someone's arguments or actions is one of the oldest desperation plays in the book.

[nikcers]

He was soon endowed with a costume and the power to summon the spirits of great American warriors from the past. I like it.

[Schifference]

Rand Paul was a successful optometrist who fought against his own; to make stricter rules to have everyone get re certified with higher standards

Does that sound Libertarian?

[liberalnurse]

Rand Paul was a successful optometrist

Is a successful Ophthalmologist.

[nikcers]

Does that sound Libertarian?

Rand Paul is a Republican, I think you are in the wrong sub.

[liberalnurse]

Rand Paul is a Republican, I think you are in the wrong sub.

Ya think?

[MaxPower]

Does that sound Libertarian?

So long as a private entity controls and performs the certification, there is nothing unlibertarian about it; only to the extent that it is State-mandated/enforced is it inconsistent with libertarianism.

[nikcers]

Is a successful Ophthalmologist.

For a politician to go against his own party while running for that parties nomination is what makes him such an interesting individual. He is running against Washington, but instead of straight opposition he is galvanizing a bipartisan partnership that says leave me alone. Rand Paul Is a successful Ophthalmologist; he fought to make stricter rules to have everyone get re certified with higher standards and he even made his colleagues strive to better people. Even with right and wrong not being black and white he pushes even people as corrupt as Lindsay Graham to be better even if he thinks he wants to try to make this country better in his own misguided way.

[nikcers]

So long as a private entity controls and performs the certification, there is nothing unlibertarian about it; only to the extent that it is State-mandated/enforced is it inconsistent with libertarianism.

When people ask me what my political affiliation is I say I am a Rand Paul Republican. I think he is his own brand, people tend to get the point when I say it.

[JohnGalt1225]

I've seen a contingent of people criticize him for "grandstanding." I don't understand why anyone would care, even if Rand was insincere the net effect is still the same. I'd rather see politicians pandering for freedom rather than pandering for more tyranny. I do think that Rand is very sincere though considering he's been talking about these issues for a long time now.

[Valli6]

Rand Paul has argued against the Patriot Act since campaigning for the Kentucky Republican senatorial primary of 2010. And He's been publicly speaking out against it since at least 2007. He's in the process of fulfilling a campaign promise. It's disingenuous to suggest he filibustered just to raise money or sell books.

Rand Paul at Ron Paul Tea Party - December 16, 2007 - (Part 2)

(0:38 to 1:26)
"There was another member of the founding fathers that we've already mentioned today, and that was James Otis. He wasn't as well known, but one of the interesting things is James Otis - one of the big things that he was opposed to are a "writs of assistance." We call them "warrantless searches."

The Patriot Act was passed in the wee hours of the night, in the rush, the aftermath of 9/11, with no thought, with no reading of the bill. My father [Congressman Ron Paul] maintains that the bill may not have even been printed when the voting was going on. We rushed through an act that allows and encourages your librarian to be a spy. It encourages your phone company to be a spy."

During Kentucky's Republican senatorial primary in 2009-2010.

Freedom Watch - May 20, 2009

(@ 5:43) "I'm absolutely opposed to the patriot act. Would've voted NO on it and would vote to sunset any provisions as quickly as we could."

ABC News - May 18, 2010

"Even though Rand Paul is expected to win (primary) on Tuesday, Grayson's (rival Republican) backers say Paul would be vulnerable in a general election because he wants to repeal the Patriot Act and do away with any federal role in either gay marriage or drug laws."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_...ry?id=10673873

Running in Kentucky's general election for senator in 2010.

The Nation - September 9, 2010

"Conway says he would have voted for the Iraq War, while Paul says he would have voted against it; Conway supports the Patriot Act, while Paul has criticized it as an "overreach"; Conway crusades against marijuana, calling it a "gateway drug," while Paul has said that ten- and twenty-year sentences for possession are too harsh"
http://www.thenation.com/article/154...erby?page=full

And immediately upon entering the senate.

U.S. Senate February 9, 2011
Sen. Rand Paul Opposes PATRIOT Act Renewal (7:00)


U.S. Senate - February 15, 2011

Dear Colleague:

James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.

He condemned these general warrants as “the worst instruments of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever were found in an English law book.” Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges—not soldiers or policemen—would issue warrants. Otis’ battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).

I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.

I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.

As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?

The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.

It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of “security.”

For example, one of the three provisions set to expire on February 28th—the “library provision,” section 215 of the PATRIOT Act—allows the government to obtain records from a person or entity by making only the minimal showing of “relevance” to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. This provision also imposes a year-long nondisclosure, or “gag” order. “Relevance” is a far cry from the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause. Likewise, the “roving wiretap” provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which is also scheduled to expire on the 28th, does not comply with the Fourth Amendment.* This provision makes possible “John Doe roving wiretaps,” which do not require the government to name the target of the wiretap, nor to identify the specific place or facility to be monitored. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Writs of Assistance fought against by Otis and the American colonists.

Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act previously made permanent and not scheduled to expire present even greater concerns. These include the use and abuse by the FBI of so-called National Security Letters. These secret demand letters, which allow the government to obtain financial records and other sensitive information held by Internet Service Providers, banks, credit companies, and telephone carriers—all without appropriate judicial oversight—also impose a gag order on recipients.

NSL abuse has been and likely continues to be rampant. The widely-circulated 2007 report issued by the Inspector General from the Department of Justice documents “widespread and serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI’s misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI’s own internal policies.” Another audit released in 2008 revealed similar abuses, including the fact that the FBI had issued inappropriate “blanket NSLs” that did not comply with FBI policy, and which allowed the FBI to obtain data on 3,860 telephone numbers by issuing only eleven “blanket NSLs.” The 2008 audit also confirmed that the FBI increasingly used NSLs to seek information on U.S. citizens. From 2003 to 2006, almost 200,000 NSL requests were issued.* In 2006 alone, almost 60% of the 49,425 requests were issued specifically for investigations of U.S. citizens or legal aliens.

In addition, First Amendment advocates should be concerned about an especially troubling aspect of the 2008 audit, which documented a situation in which the FBI applied to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain a section 215 order. The Court denied the order on First Amendment grounds. Not to be deterred, the FBI simply used an NSL to obtain the same information.

A recent report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) entitled, “Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008,” documents further NSL abuse. EFF estimates that, based on the proportion of violations reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board and the FBI’s own statements regarding NSL violations, the actual number of violations that may have occurred since 2001 could approach 40,000 violations of law, Executive Order, and other regulations.

Yet another troublesome (and now permanent) provision of the PATRIOT Act is the expansion of Suspicious Activity Reports. Sections 356 and 359 expanded the types of financial institutions required to file reports under the Bank Secrecy Act. The personal and account information required by the reports is turned over to the Treasury Department and the FBI. In 2000, there were only 163,184 reports filed. By 2007, this had increased to 1,250,439. Again, as with NSLs, there is a complete lack of judicial oversight for SARs.

Finally, I wish to remind my colleagues that one of the many ironies of the rush to advance the PATRIOT Act following 9/11 is the well-documented fact that FBI incompetence caused the failure to search the computer of the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. As FBI agent Coleen Rowley stated, “the FBI headquarters supervisory special agent handling the Moussaoui case ‘seemed to have been consistently almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts” to meet the FISA standard for a search warrant, and therefore no request was ever made for a warrant. Why, then, was the FBI rewarded with such expansive new powers in the aftermath of this institutional failure?

In the words of former Senator Russ Feingold, the only “no” vote against the original version of the PATRIOT Act,

“There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.”

I call upon each of my Senate colleagues to seriously consider whether the time has come to re-evaluate many—if not all—provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Our oath to uphold the Constitution demands it.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.
 United States Senator

https://www.rawstory.com/2011/02/ran...o-patriot-act/

[GunnyFreedom]

Does that sound Libertarian?

Considering the program was done in the private market and not by the government, then yes, yes it does.

[acptulsa]

There are two kinds of people doubting Rand Paul's sincerity on this: Those who have been wasting their hero worship on people who have done nothing but preserve, protect and expand the unconstitutional tyranny, and those who had their constituents convinced they were anti-tyranny until Rand showed everyone what a freedom fighter really looks like.