Rand Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act

original.gif
 
Again, Lee and Cruz's votes were far more pro liberty than those who voted against this bill for the reason that it went too far in reigning in the NSA. Marco Rubio got up on the Senate floor and talked about how we were all going to get killed by ISIS if this bill passed.

I'm with you on this. I can forgive either vote on this because its so much an issue of pragmatism since both sides are good and bad in different ways. Its a question of whether the good outweighs the bad.
I predict ultimately the Patriot Act will be extended and the NSA will not be reformed. I'm in unsure if this was a good move. Time will tell.

Probably true.

When you have some "authoritarians" united with some "libertarians" in opposing something (the former because it "goes too far" and the latter because it "doesn't go far enough") - and at the same time you have other "authoritarians" united with other "libertarians" in supporting the very same thing (the former because it "goes adequately far" and the latter because it "doesn't go too far") ... well, then you know that you have reached the utter and droolingly vacuous wit's end of politics ...

And that's not even considering the fact that you could simply "reverse the polarity" of the "goes far" rhetoric and it would STILL amount to exactly the same thing (for example, "authoritarians" in opposition to this bill could say that it "doesn't go far enough" and "libertarians" in opposition could say that it "goes too far") ...

SMGDH ... but what else can you expect from such a grotesque mish-mash of "X steps forward, Y steps backward" stuffed into the same bag? ... it's like a Trojan Horse for everybody ...

So true. Its such a weird law.

Mind you, nobody in this discussion, not even Rand Paul, and certainly not Lee or Cruz, are libertarians, but I know what you mean.
The official press release from Rand's office:

I am more inclined to agree with Rand. But the bill is complex enough that this is still fundamentally an issue of pragmatism, rather than one vote being "wrong" and the other "right."
 
IF they really cared about reigning in the NSA, they would let the Patriot Act die and require the NSA to get warrants as stated in the 4th Amendment. The fact that so and so voted this way or that way has got everyone debating whether this bill was a "good bill" or not does not matter. Just another distraction from the main point of all this. It EXTENDS the PATRIOT ACT. If they really wanted to reign in the NSA, they would not have attached that clause.

It is the equivalent to letting marijuana smokers out of jail in order to extend the NDAA. Giving you peanuts while they take your fking dinner.
 
IF they really cared about reigning in the NSA, they would let the Patriot Act die and require the NSA to get warrants as stated in the 4th Amendment. The fact that so and so voted this way or that way has got everyone debating whether this bill was a "good bill" or not does not matter. Just another distraction from the main point of all this. It EXTENDS the PATRIOT ACT. If they really wanted to reign in the NSA, they would not have attached that clause.

It is the equivalent to letting marijuana smokers out of jail in order to extend the NDAA. Giving you peanuts while they take your fking dinner.

Who is "they"? Lee and Cruz aren't the "they" that attached "that" clause. It was probably attached by someone who ultimately voted against the bill. "They" will most likely vote on a clean version to extend the Patriot Act once the GOP gets in power. It's simple math. Most of the people who "stood with Rand" on this vote support the Patriot Act and the NSA spying. When "they" get in power "they" will find enough democrats to vote with them to get what "they" want which is clean extension of the Patriot Act. The best Rand can hope for is to pull the same tactics and somehow attach something to the clean Patriot Act extension bill that "they" don't want. I suggest gay marriage.
 
When you have some "authoritarians" united with some "libertarians" in opposing something (the former because it "goes too far" and the latter because it "doesn't go far enough") - and at the same time you have other "authoritarians" united with other "libertarians" in supporting the very same thing (the former because it "goes adequately far" and the latter because it "doesn't go too far") ... well, then you know that you have reached the utter and droolingly vacuous wit's end of politics ...

Or you could say that it has reached a balance point, and the appropriate action is the no-consensus default, which is to let it expire. ;)
 
Back
Top