Mello_SixtyNine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2014
- Posts
- 102,385
Rand Paul has been filibustering the Patriot Act.
- Thread starter Mello_SixtyNine
- Start date
Who exactly makes money off the PATRIOT Act? Or are you talking about government-departmental budgets?
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Every authority that operates under it....there will be entire agencies, departments and sub industries that support them riding on PATRIOT act allowing their jobs to exist.
Do you know what that kind of information mining operation is worth? OMFG BILLIONS bro...BILLIONS. That's just building all the servers they are to house all the hardware for this ever expanding info war. That doesn't even touch on the commercial values of what they pull. Power? Dude....they just have to go "oh look a terrorist" and you're fucked. You think they are going to relinquish that kind of authority without a fight? LOL I know you love big gov but they aren't that sweet n' cuddly...they will fight to get and keep as much power as they can.
A giant pile of bullshit has been piled on the coat tails of that particular bill over the past what 12 years now? Yea...there are FAR reaching consequences for pulling the PATRIOT act now. Even if they kill it I doubt anything would come to a stop....it would just get renamed/moved around and buried under Uber Mega Top Secret classifications and buried under tons of black tape.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/282/527/5d7.jpg
Last edited:
Comshaw
VAGITARIAN
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2000
- Posts
- 12,026
Can anyone say StoneGarden Grant? That's the name of the funding being siphoned to local law enforcement through HomeLand Security and by the Patriot Act. Everyone on the law side of things has a hand in this cookie jar.
Comshaw
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Exactly...everyone from the highest levels of the military down to every local Buford T Justice stands to loose something. No one is filibustering the god damn patriot act. It's cute and all but the time for that was back in what 2004 or whenever the original one passed. Paul is just putting on a show.
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
But, he is the only one arguing the Constitution.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
So?? LOL
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
Your right, who needs that stoopid Constitution anyway*L*
Is that why our local police have all that heavy military gear?
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Welcome to reality...............Money>Constitution, repeatedly and without fail for well over a century. What makes you think this is any different?
Gotta fight that terror!!
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
the constitution is a reasonable guideline to go by, kinda like dont fuck your best friends wife on their wedding night
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,412
Did I miss hear on CNN this morning? My understanding is that while this looks a filibuster Congress never took whatever official step it is to open voting that would make this a filibuster? I know it's just a technicality I just wonder if anybody knows off the top of their head if I got my information straight.
Rand wasn't around then. I rarely applaud putting on a show for the sake of putting on a show but I can get behind this. For the record while I do think the Pauls put on shows to get attention I have never doubted that they mean every word that comes through their lips. Most politicians I assume are lying sometimes (and with some of them you can tell when they are lying because it's simply the prudent thing to do. Go back to Romney in the Republican Primaries. I remember watching thinking about his lies and being sad. Because if he'd been honest he would have lost the primaries but if he'd somehow managed to slip that trap the destruction of Obama would have been so complete you would have sworn that his homeworld was Alderaan.
Honestly if your only argument is the Constitution you don't have an argument.
I'll see if I can dig up a quote that seems to have more to do with military surplus stuff. It's got to go somewhere and when all is said and done the cops are males. I'd be lying if I claimed that I wouldn't magically sign up for neighborhood watch if they said "You can drive a fuck mothering tank around the neighborhood." I'd be on that shit so quick you'd swear my name was Barry Allen.
Rand wasn't around then. I rarely applaud putting on a show for the sake of putting on a show but I can get behind this. For the record while I do think the Pauls put on shows to get attention I have never doubted that they mean every word that comes through their lips. Most politicians I assume are lying sometimes (and with some of them you can tell when they are lying because it's simply the prudent thing to do. Go back to Romney in the Republican Primaries. I remember watching thinking about his lies and being sad. Because if he'd been honest he would have lost the primaries but if he'd somehow managed to slip that trap the destruction of Obama would have been so complete you would have sworn that his homeworld was Alderaan.
Honestly if your only argument is the Constitution you don't have an argument.
I'll see if I can dig up a quote that seems to have more to do with military surplus stuff. It's got to go somewhere and when all is said and done the cops are males. I'd be lying if I claimed that I wouldn't magically sign up for neighborhood watch if they said "You can drive a fuck mothering tank around the neighborhood." I'd be on that shit so quick you'd swear my name was Barry Allen.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
True but in the political world it's all about how far can you bend the language to get around it.......and the more money the further/deeper the politicians will bend those guidelines.
If Paul is making use of the Senate's "unlimited debate" rule to obstruct a bill from coming up for a floor vote, I'd call that a filibuster, whether they've reached the point where it could come up for a floor vote or not.
And if he's using the rule not so much in any hope of effective obstruction as to take the opportunity to grandstand for the C-SPAN cameras, like Cruz did when he was ranting against Obamacare and reading from Green Eggs and Ham, I'd call that a filibuster too.
The Senate really needs to drop the unlimited-debate rule. It was designed for a body of like 26 guys. The House had the same rule, in the beginning, but they soon scrapped it as unwieldy in a growing deliberative body.
Last edited:
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
Yepper, but if there are some limits to the debauchery, we are all better off
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
True...unfortunately they write/enforce the limits so...
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
Then lets bring in term limits, kick the fuckers out
DooleyDarter
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts
- 1,510
And Honestly Sean if all you have is progressive mamby pamby, you have nothing.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,412
Term limits are great. . .if you want more corruption and less work getting done. Sure they won't be campaigning half way into their term but that just means more people for big business to bribe and less reason to give a shit what your constituents think. Now if you're of the opinion that they shouldn't care about us and should do what they want/feel is right then yeah term limits are great.
Second term limits just create a bunch of people who have no idea how the system works nor how to make it function. I want a Congress where the top Democrat and top Republican ask about each others wives, show sympathy when Rover dies, go out for drinks and play golf. I want guys who also know exactly how the system is supposed to function, not a bunch of fumbling noobs who by the time they figure out what's going on are kicked out the door. If your idea of good government is the kind that is basically crippled by inexperience then sure. But isn't that half the problem with Community Organizer in Chief? That he never really learned to steer this big motherfucker? Yes. Yes it is.
I have much more than progressive mamby pamby on nearly every subject under the sun and when I don't mostly sit back and watch the conversation occasionally asking questions. That doesn't change the simple fact that if your entire argument hinges on "the Constitution says this" then you have nothing. Sorry to say the Constitution wasn't written by God(s). Hell if we're being perfectly honest with ourselves they were well read, educated and traveled. . .for their day. I'd happily pit our top political scholars against any of them on history and law and democracy.
The Constitution is not a perfect document and we were given tools, clumsy as they may be, to fix it when it conflicts with the way our modern world functions.
Mello_SixtyNine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2014
- Posts
- 102,385
They don't give a shit what their constituents think already! Why let them stay another term at their $184,000 per year gig?
80% of likely voters are concerned that the government is collecting and storing personal information such as phone records, emails, and bank statements. Almost the same percentage of people says that a warrant should be required to search those types of records.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,412
They at least pretend that they care. I would argue that incumbant rates show that not only do they care, but the locals most often feel the love, especially amongst representatives. For Senators it's not quite as clear cut since often they go unapposed by their own party and then you're not so much voting for them as against the other guy.
Yeah, the NSA isn't popular, but the reason that's going to last is if an attack happens any time in the next election cycle after it is eliminated the voters are going to realize that it's the government's fault they weren't kept safe. People are very, very stupid if you haven't noticed.
I've seen a message-button at SF cons (there are many libertarian trufen): "The United States Constitution has its faults, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got now." Which is a lie, of course. The United States Constitution is a hell of a lot worse than what we've got now; it was drafted for an 18th-Century agrarian society with minimal government at the state level and less at the national level; and no modern industrialized society can flourish without a strong national government intervening aggressively in the economy -- which is not what (most of) the Framers envisioned, but it is what we can't do without.
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,412
What I will agree with them on is that too often because we are afraid of "challenging" the framers we common sense our way around the Constitution when we ought not. I hate the NSA, and I'm not a fan of the TSA if we're being perfectly honest. However given that bombs come in small sizes and planes are fragile. . .well I fully understand at the very least metal detectors and x-raying your luggage to make sure you're not sneaking a grenade onto a plane. But that's still an unwarranted search and if it's not we need write at least a law that says by flying you are automatically suspect of blah blah blah so we can search you.
Similar threads
