Sen. Rand Paul Speaks on PATRIOT ACT

[46Tbird]

And the quasi-anti-big government motherfuckers that do all of their preaching on here about the evils of government yet still indiscriminately gobble down all of the Republican Party cock that they can have yet to make an appearance in this thread to give some bullshit reason as to why the Patriot Act is a solid piece of American legislation.

I'm shocked

I haven't seen anyone claim to be a Republican around here in a LONG time. I think everyone is ready to see a smaller, limited federal government. You seem confused about what conservatives want. Find some posts on the old board about the Patriot Act, you might be surprised who was against it over there.

Why is Harry Reid painting the Ft. Hood shooting like it was a terror cell? It was a nutbag.

Because he's Harry Reid, attempting to use emotion and fear to seize power.

[Sean88gt]

They also shelved Paul's amendment that would have kept 4473's safe from ATF searches.

Again, the leaders unify against the people.

[Slowhand]

I haven't seen anyone claim to be a Republican around here in a LONG time. I think everyone is ready to see a smaller, limited federal government. You seem confused about what conservatives want. Find some posts on the old board about the Patriot Act, you might be surprised who was against it over there.

Not claiming to be a Republican really doesn't stand for shit if they're not willing to call the party out on its bullshit. There's plenty of small government talk on here, but there's also plenty of reluctance to single out the GOP's hilarious inconsistencies with their own campaigns and "philosophies" on small government.

I'm looking at the crop of candidates that "conservatives" (again, using the term loosely here) have pulled together thus far and yes, I am quite confused as to what they want. Because what they talk about and what they're actually assembling are two different things, to me. For one, social conservatism still has far too strong a hold on the directives of the GOP for a party claiming to be focused on fiscal responsibility and the limitation of federal power.

Wouldn't it be the cock gobbling democrats that would defend this piece of legislation? As a rule the cock gobbling republicans are generally against legislation of this sort. You confused in your anger towards your fellow board members?

I'm confused by your statement, but no, it's not. On the 2006 vote for the extension of the Patriot Act, only 10 senators voted against the renewal:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not a single Republican. I don't have the congressional results handy at the moment, but the results were similar. I'm not suggesting that the Democrats get off scot free on this one, as they're voting for this in droves as well, but they didn't campaign and get elected on and continue to preach a message of small government. I expect them to be completely full of shit and wrong; I don't expect much different from the Republicans, but they are talking a different game and they need to be called on what is nothing short of a complete bluff.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Fuck the republicans. I hope that party dies right along with the democraps. Two faced back stabbing slimy politicians.

[GSRGuy94]

Wouldn't it be the cock gobbling democrats that would defend this piece of legislation? As a rule the cock gobbling republicans are generally against legislation of this sort. You confused in your anger towards your fellow board members?

They are the ones who passed it in the first place, and the major ones who keep supporting it's renewal.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Wouldn't need it if we just destroyed those mud hut monkeys.

[stevo]

Odd how we haven't had another large attack like 911 since the passing of the patriot act. I'm pretty sure that little tidbit is something that the liberal hippy college professors do not parrot in discussions though.

Stevo

[GSRGuy94]

Do you honestly think that is because of the Patriot Act? I'll just leave this here...

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[stevo]

Do you honestly think that the massive amount of information attained from the patriot act had nothing to do with it?

I do not agree with most of the freedom robbing measures of it, but for people to completely think it hasn't helped protect us is being obtuse.

Stevo

[GSRGuy94]

I didn't say that there weren't *potentially* good parts in it... but as a whole, it is an infringement of liberties.

[stevo]

I didn't say that there weren't *potentially* good parts in it... but as a whole, it is an infringement of liberties.

I never said it wasn't, I said that in the same time frame that it has existed, we have not had another 911 style/sized attack, and that you will never hear that when it's largest opponents discuss it.

Stevo

[GSRGuy94]

There are lots of things that could be done to try and make sure that we don't have another large attack. I repeat;

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[stevo]

Yeah, I read the quote. I'm not sure why you quoted it (twice) considering it doesn't even come close to my point.

My point was about people refusing to admit facts in certain arguments. But go ahead, spin away.

Stevo

[GSRGuy94]

Haha, you think I'm spinning? You said that people wouldn't admit to the fact that no major attacks have been carried out since the Patriot Act was enacted. To which I said that there is LOTS of stuff that could be done that would help with terrorism, but at what expense?

[stevo]

Haha, you think I'm spinning? You said that people wouldn't admit to the fact that no major attacks have been carried out since the Patriot Act was enacted. To which I said that there is LOTS of stuff that could be done that would help with terrorism, but at what expense?

I am STILL wondering what your statement and multiple quotes of Ben Franklin has to do with mine? I never said more or less could be done, I simply said you not see people who opposes the act mention the fact. I was making a statement about people omitting a fact when they decide that it will hinder their agenda.

But yes, keep trying to make my statement say something else, aka spin.

Stevo