Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with Rand Paul today.

[bvar22]

I [font size=3]HATE[/font] that the lack of leadership from the Democratic Party on this issue forces me into a position that is consistent with someone like Rand Fucking Asshole Paul,
and in opposition to the Democratic Party Leadership,
but there it is.
I am absolutely disgusted.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on President Obama's NSA surveillance reform speech:
'While I am encouraged the President is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details. The 4th Amendment requires an individualized warrant based on probable cause before the government can search phone records and e-mails' - via @NBCNews

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/obama-nsa-reform-proposals/

[font size=3]Principle before Party[/font]

I also agree with Joe Biden, pre-2008:

[font size=3]
Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[ProSense]

1. Yup,

"I HATE that the lack of leadership from the Democratic Party on this issue forces me into a position that is consistent with someone like Rand Fucking Asshole Paul, "

...there is absolutely no "leadership" in the Deomocratic Party. What we need is the consistency of drone-a-liquor-store-robber Senator "Rand Fucking Asshole Paul."

Senator Leahy's statement on the President’s NSA reforms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347529

Udall, Wyden, Heinrich Statement Reacting to President's Speech on NSA, Surveillance Reform
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347077

[JoePhilly]

2. The NSA got to them!

[ProSense]

5. Senator "Rand Fucking Asshole Paul":

Rand Paul Suggests Snowden And Clapper Share A Prison Cell

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday suggested that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should share a prison cell in the U.S.

"Maybe if they served in a prison cell together, we'd become further enlightened as a country over what we should and shouldn't do," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Paul said that he does not believe Snowden deserves harsh punishment for his leaks, but believes that both Snowden and Clapper broke the law.

"So James Clapper did break a law and there is a prison sentence for that. So did Edward Snowden," he said. "I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison. I think that's inappropriate. And I think that's why he fled, because that's what he faced."

- more -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-snowden-clapper-prison

Praise his "consistency."

[JoePhilly]

8. lol!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. Good job...

gotta hand it to ya Prosense...

[sabrina 1]

102. Very bad job actually, if the purpose was to show 'inconsistency'. Good job if it was to show

Consistency. Is that what you are clapping for, that Prosense demonstrated Paul's consistency regarding the rule of law, if so I will join you. But I'm awaiting Prosense's response to determine what she was attempting to do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. So now its "Heap Praise on Rand Paul Day" on DU...

thanks for letting me know...I would have worn my Rand Paul for President TShirt for the occasion

[sabrina 1]

134. Do you agree with what Biden said, which was also in agreement with Paul?

I have no clue what the gist of your comment is, sounds odd to be honest. I would like to know your opinion on Biden standing up for the Constitution in accordance with his oath. You appear to be disagreeing with Paul so I take it you are also disagreeing with Biden?? Just wanted to be clear.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. Can't someone just actually feel vomit rising to even be subjected to Rand Paul praise?

Ugh...that man is putrid. Plenty of places on the net that love to sing his praises...I tend to avoid them like the plague.

P.S. did Joe Biden say the words "I agree with Rand Paul on this" or did you just make that last part up?

Oh yeah...my grandmother always said..."lie down with dog...wake up with fleas".

[sabrina 1]

138. I never feel like puking over any human being. Must be that

Liberal thing. All human beings have flaws and if I were to feel like puking every time I didn't agree with someone's politics I would probably be dead by now. I prefer to prove them wrong when they are wrong and to give them credit when they are right.

Lots of Dems agree with Paul on this, AND on other issues, Ron Wyden eg, who has praised him for his positions on this issue, Grayson, who worked closely with him on other issues. Neither seemed to feel like 'puking' when he gave them support for issues important to Democrats.

Being blinded by emotion won't get much done in this country. Paul is RIGHT and Biden is RIGHT in those statements in the OP. Unless you take the Bush view that the Constitution is 'just a piece of paper'? Otherwise there really is no denying that Paul and Biden are both doing the job required of them by the oath they took, 'defend and protect the US Constitution'.

I'm still not sure where you stand on the issue. But never mind ... I think I got it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. I do...must be that "human" thing....

and not afraid to be one thing....

you are welcome to sidle up to racists and misogynists if you want....

[sabrina 1]

141. Humans puke when they don't agree with someone politically?

You learn something new on DU every day. Can't say I've ever witnessed that phenomenon.

[GoneFishin]

146. The same mental process is at work whether one hero worships a public figure no matter how

how heinous an act they may commit, or condemn a jerk no matter how firmly they stand on moral ground at a brief instant.

It's a sporting event mentality, I guess. You root for a certain color jersey regardless of all other factors. The jersey color is all that matters.

[hueymahl]

42. I would love to see Clapper in Prison for Perjury

[sabrina 1]

100. I see no inconsistency there. Thanks for the link. He is for the rule of law, and is consistent

about it. Can you point out the inconsistency for me, I must be blind or something but I read it three times. Still don't see it.

[ProSense]

101. "He is for the rule of law, and is consistent" Yeah,

I know:

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."

[sabrina 1]

105. That wasn't the topic, I'll be happy to veer off to another issue when we resolve the one you

were addressing with your previous link. I asked if you could point out the inconsistency in Paul pointing out that Snowden broke the law. He did, all Whistle Blowers generally break the law in order to provide the evidence needed to report the crimes they have witnessed.

So again, how is Paul stating that people who break the law, like Clapper who lied to Congress (or is that legal? Who knows, if it is, it's good to know should we ever be called to testify there) and Snowden who took documents illegally, should go to jail?

I am puzzled by your link, the one that was on topic, this one I have not read as it appears to be about something else, a 'look over there' kind of thing.

Could you clarify if you were trying to show that he IS consistent on law breaking with that link, or that he isn't?

[ProSense]

108. Topic "rule of law" and "consistency" Relevant: droning a liquor store robber n/t

[sabrina 1]

109. Topic rule of law: Stay on topic and if you have answers to questions about your claims, provide

them. Second Topic Rule of Law: If you can't answer them, simply say so.

[ProSense]

111. Is Rand Paul being consistent in support of killing a liquor store robber with a drone? n/t

[sabrina 1]

116. You didn't use that to prove inconsistency. You used a link directly related to the topic under

discussion, you know Snowden/Clapper/leaks etc to prove SOMETHING. My question was regarding that on topic link. Were you trying to prove him to be consistent or inconsistent with that link? I saw consistency re Snowden/Clapper/Leaks etc and I'm wondering what YOU saw in the link.

[ProSense]

117. You didn't answer the question. n/t

[sabrina 1]

120. I asked the question regarding the link you used to prove, something. I'm not in the habit

of answering my own questions because I really cannot read minds. Which is why I asked the question in the first place. You didn't answer it and it appears you are not going to. So I will try to read your mind. You posted a link assuming that because Paul suggested that Snowden deserved to go to jail because he broke the law (he did, thankfully) that showed INCONSISTENCY. Then you realized that in fact it did the opposite. Am I on the right the track?

Btw what do you think of Biden's statement? Any inconsistencies between what he said then and what he says now? I don't know what he is saying now to be honest, but do you? Has he been consistent?

[ProSense]

125. "He is for the rule of law, and is consistent"

You said that

I challenged the assertion, and asked: Is Rand Paul being consistent in support of killing a liquor store robber with a drone?

Still, let's get back to the example: The OP is about the 4th Amendment, which is a Constitutional issue and separate from law breaking. There are laws in place that are subject to Constitutional challenges. Adhering to them isn't breaking the law. Citizens United is the law, the ACLU supports it. Others believe it's unconstitutional.

In the piece I posted, Paul suggest that Snowden should be in jail. Snowden broke the law, but he claims to have done it in defense of Constitutional rights.

They are separate issues.

Now, in terms of the "rule of law" and consistency: Is Rand Paul being consistent in support of killing a liquor store robber with a drone?

[sabrina 1]

129. The US Constitution is the Law of the Land. If you run for elected office you take an oath to

'defend and protect' the Consitution of the US 'against all enemies, foreign AND domestic' Biden's statement is consistent with his oath.

The oath does not say 'except when you don't agree with the Constitution and you feel it is in need of amending' . That was BUSH's understanding of the oath he, laughingly took.

The ACLU supports the EQUALITY contained in Citizen's United, iow that it does not just apply to Large Corporations but also applies so small ones. If it had only applied to Big Corps, which was the understanding of many people, they would be taking it to the SC AGAIN. But challenging it on the basis of inequality isn't possible. You can disagree with the sentiment of the law while acknowledging its legal basis.

Snowden did break the law in defense of the Constitution. So do most Whistle Blowers and most know they are breaking the law. It will up to a court to decide if the information he revealed was more important to the public's right to know, than the breaking of the law. See Ellsberg.

But Security Contractors don't get to decide that violating the law for profit, because we know now that they have never found a terrorist, which was their justification for breaking the law AND for taking those billions of dollars to FIND terrorists. Clapper lied to Congress. Why lie if he believed they were doing nothing wrong?

You, in a post in this thread during the period when Bush was caught violating these same laws, spoke passionately in agreement with Biden and Paul on this subject. I agree completely with what you said then and still do.

As for the other subject re Paul on drones being used to kill robbers, that is insane.

That does NOT make him wrong on this subject. Nor does it make Biden wrong, or you, or me or anyone who stood up against these egregious policies during the Bush years and which are still with us. I haven't changed my mind one bit. Why have you?

[ProSense]

131. "The US Constitution is the Law of the Land." Is Citizens United a "law of the land"?

"If you run for elected office you take an oath to 'defend and protect' the Consitution of the US 'against all enemies, foreign AND domestic' Biden's statement is consistent with his oath. "

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and laws must meet it's test. That doesn't mean there aren't laws that are unconstitutional. The SCOTUS makes these determinations.

"The ACLU supports the EQUALITY contained in Citizen's United, iow that it does not just apply to Large Corporations but also applies so small ones. If it had only applied to Big Corps, which was the understanding of many people, they would be taking it to the SC AGAIN. But challenging it on the basis of inequality isn't possible. You can disagree with the sentiment of the law while acknowledging its legal basis."

Is it Constitutional?

Again, let's get back to the example: The OP is about the 4th Amendment, which is a Constitutional issue and separate from law breaking. There are laws in place that are subject to Constitutional challenges. Adhering to them isn't breaking the law. Citizens United is the law, the ACLU supports it. Others believe it's unconstitutional.

In the piece I posted, Paul suggest that Snowden should be in jail. Snowden broke the law, but he claims to have done it in defense of Constitutional rights.

They are separate issues.

Now, in terms of the "rule of law" and consistency: Is Rand Paul being consistent in support of killing a liquor store robber with a drone?

"Snowden did break the law in defense of the Constitution. "

Do you agree with Paul that he belongs in jail?

[bvar22]

107. Hey, Pro.

Why don't you tell us all about your evolution when it comes to Government Spying on the American Citizens? At one time, you were very opposed to the government having those powers,
but now you attack anybody who even dares to question them.
So...Whats Up with THAT?

ProSense (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless (sic) spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

[font size=3]"Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."[/font]

Was that YOU.... or somebody else?
What changed you mind?

[ProSense]

110. Can you show

"Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws. "

...me where Obama is breaking "existing FISA laws"?

I suppose you dragged that up to show that your hyping Rand Paul is good?

FYI see the information on the "Protect America Act" here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

[bvar22]

119. Gee, Pro... I don't think you can split that tiny hair.

Everybody who reads that KNOWS exactly what you were saying.

[font size=3]"Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."[/font]

...but NOW, Its the bestest thing ANY President could EVER do,
and anyone who questions it MUST be attacked.


So... when did you have this epiphany?
What tune will you be singing when the Republicans retake the White House?
I've never understood that "talent" to be able change an entire belief system overnight.

[sabrina 1]

113. Wow, I could not agree with Prosense on this. That was MY position also, and still is of course

because it is the correct position to hold when it comes to Constitutional rights.

Speaking of consistency! What happened indeed.

[whatchamacallit]

160. So you 1/2 agree with Rand Paul

Congrats!

[frazzled]

3. Thinking in fundamentalist terms will often lead to such things

I'd say you're probably really a libertarian at heart, and you should go with your heart. Go with Rand.

Your mask suggests you might have agreed with the dictum "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

[bvar22]

10. Many assumptions on your part.

What is NOT fundamental about the 4th Amendment?
Looks like a fundamental and explicit prohibition placed on our government to me.
When that become a BAD thing?
Or are you "flexible" depending on what the politicians tell you?

Maybe if you chose to address that issue instead of attacking someone for their long held beliefs,
you would be more convincing.

[LondonReign2]

22. Do you disagree with the statement that was bolded?

"The 4th Amendment requires an individualized warrant based on probable cause before the government can search phone records and e-mails"

[Broward]

46. I'd say you're probably an authoritarian at heart. Go with your heart.

[Demo_Chris]

96. Seems that way to me.

[sabrina 1]

118. Was Joe Biden being 'fundamental' when he made that statement about the Constitution, secret laws

etc? Is he a 'Libertarian' at heart also? He certainly agreed with Paul there and even went further. What do you think of Biden's statements?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Today?

[Egnever]

7. +1

[sabrina 1]

121. What do you think of Biden's statement about Constitutional rights. He appears to agree with Paul?

[SidDithers]

21. Nailed it...

"Principle before Party" my ass. More like posting privileges before principles.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

124. What do you think of Biden agreeing with Paul? Do you disagree with Biden's statement?

Wait, maybe you are not aware of the US Constitution's 4th Amendment. I totally agree with Biden, Obama also who agreed with Biden and Paul, which is why he was elected. So are you disagreeing or what?

[bvar22]

26. No.

I also agree with Ron Paul that:

*The War on Drugs should be ended

*The Drone Killings are illegal and a War Crime

and

*Foreign Wars should be ended,
ALL troops brought home
the Military budget radically cut,
and the Military re-tasked to "Defense Only".

After that, the rest is pretty much insane,
but I'm grateful that somebody is talking about these important issues,
and not just going along with whatever.

I am not surprised that you disagree with those issues mentioned above,
and desperately attack anyone who even tries to talk about them.

I am not ashamed of these beliefs.
I have held them LONG before there was a DU or a Rand Paul
or a "3rd Way" Democrat,
and don't see that changing.

Do you agree with Joe Biden position in 2006?

I did.
And I STILL agree with that very same position on that issue.
That is called "consistency",
and is the hallmark of an honest broker of information.

[Autumn]

47. I agree with 2006 Biden, R FAP

is correct that
*The War on Drugs should be ended

*The Drone Killings are illegal and a War Crime

and

*Foreign Wars should be ended,
ALL troops brought home
the Military budget radically cut,
and the Military re-tasked to "Defense Only".
And I agree that when he opens his mouth on anything else R FAP is a real fucking idiot. It boggles my mind that those sane things can come out of his mouth. I don't get it.

[bvar22]

58. Thank You.

I have held those beliefs for a LONG time.
I have helped elect Democrats for a long time.
I believe that it is OK to talk about these issues.

[Cali_Democrat]

91. This is why I never take you seriously

Your post:

*The War on Drugs should be ended

*The Drone Killings are illegal and a War Crime

and

*Foreign Wars should be ended,
ALL troops brought home
the Military budget radically cut,
and the Military re-tasked to "Defense Only".


<...>

I am not surprised that you disagree with those issues mentioned above,
and desperately attack anyone who even tries to talk about them.

Oh ya? Check out my previous posts:

On Drugs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=244072

Drone strikes and war:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2030334&mesg_id=2030354
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101612761
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=671338&mesg_id=671956

On the MIC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=177432

Those are just some I could find. There's more for sure.

You don't know shit about me and your assumptions are laughable.

I don't take you seriously. At. All.

[Demo_Chris]

97. If Rand Paul believed killer hookers was wrong....

And I am talking theory there mind you, but if he did many here would decide that killer hookers was grab something lethal and head downtown. When party is all you have left you tend to be pretty enthusiastic about it.

Now me, I have voted Democrat for quite a while, but I don't even know if I have a party anymore. The pigs and the men are starting to look the same, if you get my drift.

[sabrina 1]

126. Excellent post, bvar. Shameful to see what is going on here on this forum. I came here BECAUSE

those were the views of Democrats and I never, EVER saw anyone on this forum slam Biden or anyone else for standing up for our Constitutional Rights. I support everything you said. I see Sid is suggesting that Democrats ought to be PPR'd for holding Democratic viewpoints. If that EVER happens here, this place will clear out. Makes you wonder WHY anyone would want that to happen to a Democratic forum, doesn't it? You go, I go and a whole lot of others also. Just wanted to put that on the record in case anyone should take that suggestion even remotely seriously.

[bvar22]

133. If that ever happens on DU?

You can go see exactly what that would look like by visiting the BOG.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. [font size=3]To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.[/font]"

T. Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star,
May 7, 1918

I feel exactly the same way as Roosevelt,
and view those who would stop criticism of the President with utter contempt.
I have been a DEMOCRAT too damned long to STFU now.
We have earned the RIGHT to have a voice in OUR Party.

[sabrina 1]

142. I have never been tempted to visit the Bog that I recall. I am interested in discussion of the

issues without censorship and in finding good, Progressive Dems to take over this party.

I can imagine though what it would be like, which is why I wonder about anyone who wishes that on a Democratic Forum.

That is a great quote from Roosevelt. I saw it a lot on Dem Forums back during the Bush years when we were called traitors for criticizing the policies of Bush. Haven't seen so much anymore. Thanks for posting it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. LOL and fuck Ron Paul!

[bvar22]

61. I agree... Fuck Ron Paul.

I thought I made that clear in the OP.

But where do YOU stand on the 4th Amendment Prohibitions of government spying on citizens without a warrant?

Would you be disgusted to learn that you agree with Ron/Rand Paul,
and in disagreement with the Democratic Party Leadership?
I am.

[Blanks]

94. It's kind of like the 'broke clock' saying...

Even Rand Paul is bound to be right once in a while. Maybe as frequently as twice a day.

He's anti-government everything so he's bound to stumble across some government program that we can all agree is bad.

He also thinks FEMA, the EPA and the FDA are evil, so I try not to agree with him even when he's right.

[sabrina 1]

140. What about Biden then, can you agree with HIM when he's right?

[Blanks]

143. I like Biden...

I haven't watched the videos on this thread, is there a specific position of Biden's that you find objectionable.

Rand Paul - I don't like. The plagiarism, the creating his own board so that he can claim he's active in his profession, the standard Paul anti-government liberty bullshit. I don't like anything about Rand Paul.

The fact that being against the NSA is consistent with all of the rest of the things that Rand Paul is against does not endear me to him.

[sabrina 1]

144. Liking or not liking an individual is not at issue. I can like someone and disagree with them.

Or not like someone and agree with them. Depends on the importance of the issue. THIS is an exceptionally important issue.

I love what Biden said, he went way further than Paul in his opposition to Bush's anti-Consitutional policies. I was referring to the OP. But both are in agreement on this so how do you oppose one and agree with the other?

[Blanks]

148. Pretty simple really, it's the baggage...

I can dislike Rand Paul because he wants to gut the EPA, despite being a senator from a state with mountain top coal removal. The people in the state that he represents are being poisoned by destructive environmental practices and he wants to deny them access to health care.

The fact that he and Biden agree on a single 'smaller government issue' (in this case NSA surveillance) hardly makes them equal in my eyes. Beyond that, Rand Paul's approach to achieving the same end goal (as Biden) would most likely be destructive based on his other anti-government positions.

The Paul's have a dangerous view of the government's role IMHO. Even though they may appear to have the same view (Biden and Paul) - I can guarantee you the implementation of achieving the same end goal would start very differently. In Paul's case it would probably start by making cuts at NOAA or some other agency that he doesn't like. He can't be trusted.

[Grateful for Hope]

86. Yup

Echoing: "Fuck Ron Paul!"

[greatauntoftriplets]

88. And fuck Rand Paul too!

[Grateful for Hope]

89. Absolutely!

Like father, like son.

[sabrina 1]

136. How about the 4th Amendment? How about Biden?

I ask because you are responding to an OP that is about the US Constitution. It contains statements from two elected officials both of whom took an oath to 'defend and protect the US Constitution'. Both made statements consistent with that oath. Your 'fuck Ron Paul' comment seems to say you disagree with the OP regarding upholding the Constitution of the US and with Biden. Am I wrong? Is Biden wrong to agree with Paul? What is your position on the points raised in the OP?

[Bobbie Jo]

83. Right?

This revelation isn't exactly earth shattering.

File this one under: No Shit

[PowerToThePeople]

6. Paulite

you have boxes in your garage don't you?

Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[quinnox]

9. I am in agreement with Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden

on this issue. Two lone voices in the wilderness, often it seems like anyway.

[ProSense]

12. Here

Wyden's statement: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347077

[Cali_Democrat]

14. LOL

I'm loving this!

[Vattel]

34. Wyden wants way more reform than the President promised. Way more.

[ProSense]

54. Well,

"Wyden wants way more reform than the President promised. Way more."

...he knows when he sees significant progress.

Make no mistake, this is a major milestone in our longstanding efforts to reform the National Security Agency's bulk collection program.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347077

[Vattel]

60. Yes, and I agree that there is real progress in the President's reforms

In particular, the new requirement that looking at an American's phone data will require a visit to the FISA court is huge.

[bvar22]

13. Looks like I rang some bells among the ever vigilant authoritarians.

Man, those [i[Message Control guys get here fast.
It is like they have nothing else to do.

[quinnox]

15. lol

yea, sometimes it seems that way.

[ProSense]

16. Senator "Rand Fucking Asshole Paul,"

aka, drone the liquor store robber (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805) guy:

Rand Paul Suggests Snowden And Clapper Share A Prison Cell

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday suggested that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should share a prison cell in the U.S.

"Maybe if they served in a prison cell together, we'd become further enlightened as a country over what we should and shouldn't do," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Paul said that he does not believe Snowden deserves harsh punishment for his leaks, but believes that both Snowden and Clapper broke the law.

"So James Clapper did break a law and there is a prison sentence for that. So did Edward Snowden," he said. "I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison. I think that's inappropriate. And I think that's why he fled, because that's what he faced."

- more -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-snowden-clapper-prison

Praise his "consistency."

[MineralMan]

24. I believe you were here first, eh?

It's odd, still, that you pick Rand Paul to agree with, given the many others who have expressed concerns that President Obama didn't go far enough.

Many others have said the same thing. Several people had already posted their statements, even before you posted this thread. About Rand Paul, I have only this comment:

Fuck Rand Paul, and his dad too!

[quinnox]

27. But on second thought, you did mention Paul, which is a guarantee to draw

them like bees to honey.

Look, you even got a newbie puppet account down below! (wow, they removed him already, that was quick!)

[Union Scribe]

45. We must be at the laundry

because I suspect someone has lost a sock down there.

[quinnox]

51. lol, no doubt!

A real determined suckah, too! That idiot apparently won't quit trying to troll and sign up to post in this thread.

[bvar22]

93. That one kinda creeps me out.

Its like having a creepy stalker hiding in the bushes or something.

If someone's Belief System provokes THAT kind of cowardly behavior,
I'm glad that I'm on the opposite side.

[Broward]

50. The Democratic Party has been infiltrated.

[Demeter]

157. Maybe they get paid for it?

I don't know, the more I see of DU, the less I like it. I've been trying to venture outside the safety zone....

[JaneyVee]

11. Not me. I actually despise the absurd reductionist politics to

Serious political speeches and policy he and the rightwing engage in.

[GeorgeGist]

17. Right.

:derp:

[MineralMan]

18. It's interesting that you chose Rand Paul to

agree with, when there are so many others who are also expressing concern that the President didn't go further with restrictions.

At least, I think it's interesting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. quite telling actually...

[bvar22]

28. Purposely chosen to illustrate the point.

Perhaps you didn't read the OP closely enough.
Go back and try again.
I am DISGUSTED to be agreeing with someone like Rand Paul.

I think that the fact that you would overlook this is "interesting" too.

In fact, quite transparent.

[MineralMan]

31. No, I saw that you were "disgusted" to have

to mention Rand Paul. You even called him names, I noticed.

But, you didn't have to mention him. There were Democrats who said similar things about the President's plan.

I overlook nothing. Sometimes, I just comment on things in general. I did notice your condemnation of Rand Paul while praising him.

You come not to praise Ron Paul, but to bury him, clearly...

[bvar22]

52. And I told you I purposely chose him to illustrate the point.

How INSANE is it to wake up one morning having to agree with an idiot like Rand Paul,
and DISAGREE with the leadership of the Democratic Party?

We have truly fallen down the rabbit hole.


Tell me,
did you agree with Joe Biden 2006?
I did.

And I STILL agree with THAT Joe Biden.
That is called consistency,
and is a hallmark of an honest man.

I have held these beliefs long before there was an Ron Paul or a Mineral Man on DU.
Should I change them now to please you?

Should I NOT talk about them on DU?

Should I stop donating to Democrats and working to get Democrats elected?

[MineralMan]

79. 'Should I NOT talk about them on DU?'

You should do as you please on DU. I will do the same, and I'll reserve the privilege of commenting in threads like this one.

As for Joe Biden, I've been watching this issue since TIA was announced. It's one of those issues for which I have no influence at all, so I just keep my eye on it.

I've also been watching the Pauls for a very long time. My opinion of them has not improved over time.

[bvar22]

98. So if YOU feel like you "have no influence",

...you just keep your mouth shut and go along with whatever they tell you.
[font size=3]WOW![/font]
but that statement does explain a lot about your posts.

I haven't felt like I've ever had any "influence" on National Policy for a long, long time,
but that isn't a good enough reason to STFU.

I STILL hit the streets in Minneapolis/St Paul protesting Bush's Wars KNOWING full well we couldn't stop them, and am proud that I did.
Where were YOU?

[zeemike]

59. It is a perfect plan.

Get Ron Paul to say it and democrats are bound by law to disagree with it...no matter what.
So now third way democrats are FOR the surveillance state and have to piss on the 4th amendment to show they are not Paulbots.

[theaocp]

87. ^^^THIS^^^

K&R

[1000words]

77. Get past the messenger and address the message

We get it. You don't like Rand Paul.

[MineralMan]

78. Tell you what: You post what you want,

and I'll do the same. How does that sound?

[1000words]

80. By all means ...

Continue finding "interesting" things to imply, mkay?

[MineralMan]

81. Thanks for the permission.

Really.

[Bradical79]

151. Not really

Considering Rand Paul gets the most press time, it's an easy quote to pull. It's not the least bit interesting, lol.

[Number23]

163. I now OFFICIALLY love this thread.

[hrmjustin]

25. Who were you?

[MineralMan]

29. Poof!

Gone almost before getting here...

[hrmjustin]

32. He came back and is gone again.

[MineralMan]

33. Casper the Friendly Ghost?

Now you see him; now you don't.

[hrmjustin]

35. This will be a moment for a bit.

[quinnox]

40. lol, this troll won't quit! See below again.

Someone needs to take the childs computer away!

[hrmjustin]

44. Hope so.

[cyberswede]

72. ...but but but...he "can do this all day"...

er...but really maybe for less than an hour.

[bvar22]

38. Thank You, admins.

I am a loyal Democrat,
and have been for over 46 years.

I have some very strong opinions on these issues,
and thank you for allowing a loyal, ,long term Democrat to express them on your site.
Nowhere have I encouraged anyone to support Libertarians or anyone else.
My only goal is the bring change to the Democratic Party from within,
to be more consistent with the Party I joined 46 years ago.

These issues NEED to be talked about.

[stg81]

39. hopefully you will not have goons stomp a woman's head into gutter

[ananda]

41. "Even idiots occasionally speak the truth accidentally."

Lord Peter Wimsey speaking of Inspector Sugg in "Whose Body?"

[jsr]

71. Even idiots know water is wet

in this case.

[indepat]

48. Rand Paul is probably not wrong on more than 90% of the issues, but I wonder

if he would have had any concern were it on junior's or some other Republican's watch? In fact, would any criminal or unconstitutional act or any other overtly harmful act be of the least concern to any Republican Congress-critter were it on a Republican's watch?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. His father was a thorn on the side of the GOP

Leadership when it comes to privacy rights and the war in Iraq. They are wrong most of the time, but on this father and son are rather consistent.

[Maedhros]

56. You also probably agree with launching an initiative to combat AIDS in Africa,

one that saved millions of lives:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy--his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html

OH - but that was done by George W. Bush, so by definition it MUST be a pernicious, evil plot.

END AFRICAN AIDS FUNDING NOW!

[Maedhros]

69. You missed the sarcasm tag, my friend.

I was mocking those who cannot understand the notion of agreeing with an idea (i.e. The 4th Amendment requires an individualized warrant based on probable cause before the government can search phone records and e-mails) even though that idea came from a politically detestable person.


I apologize for the misunderstanding. I agree with your sentiments 100%.

[bvar22]

99. My Bad.

I misread your post.
Please accept my Mea Culpa.
I will delete/edit my post.

Peace.

[ProSense]

57. Here:

ACLU Comment on President’s NSA Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347726

[bvar22]

122. Here:

ProSense (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless (sic) spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

[font size=3]"Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."[/font]

[ProSense]

127. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724#post110

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024349102

[moonbeam23]

62. "Politics makes strange bedfellows"

i too despise waking up with Rand (coal mines don't need safety standards) Paul...but on those few issues he is in the right and needs to be acknowledge for being in the right....

The real question is why aren't lots of dems standing up and screaming the same things, even louder? They are popular positions....at least with the masses who even know about them or care to think about anything...

The real question about why Obama has switched so many positions...the obvious but frightening answer is that he has been threatened or blackmailed or both by the MIC establishment who runs everything behind the scenes...

And the really scary thing is...we may NEVER get another really decent politician again because everyone is vulnerable...anyone can be "wellstoned" and everyone has loved ones that could be put in danger...

[JDPriestly]

64. Unfortunately, I do too.

I understand Obama's difficult political position, but the Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. It is written in general terms for a reason.

As for Paul Revere, he was not working for the government. He was a rebel.

As for the soldiers and friends of the Union doing reconnaissance on the Rebel troops, they were fighting the war and spying on the military.

The collection of our metadata and reviewing our communications records without a warrant violates our most basic constitutional rights. There is a way to amend the Constitution. If Obama wants to amend it, let him use the procedures provided in the Constitution to do it. I don't think he will get anywhere.

I appreciate the fact that Obama understands the problem. But just understanding it is not enough. We have the right to the protection of the Bill of Rights. That is not up for discussion.

I remember the McCarthy era. I remember the struggle for civil rights. The surveillance by the NSA at this time could lead to much worse than either of those historical repressions, much worse. That is if it already hasn't.

[DonCoquixote]

65. sadly I do

Obviously, there will always be a need for Spies. When Bush outed Valerie Plame, he exposed someone who was not spying on Americans, but North Koreans as they were threatening actual WAR. However, the guns of the NSA are turned on Americans, and worse, the global corporations that frankly, should be the ones watched, are the ones who are funding and making money off this mess.

In all the sound and fury, why has one fact been ignored, the fact that the lives of soldiers and citizens were being given to a PRIVATE CONTRACTOR, that then hired a glorified TEMP like Edward Snowden. No, that is that a dig on Snowden, but a simple focus of the facts, that the sort of secure information that the KGB would have killed and died for is now being passed around to corporate stooges like it was an inventory order? The simple fact is, by the very fact Snowden even HAD the information, that signals a crisis.

Now of course, we know Rand Paul would have NO PROBLEM with corporations having the sort of information and pwers that used to be the sole province of GOVERNMENTS. Indeed, the day Wall Street makes it's own CIA, he will pop champagne, and I would still walk right past him on the street if he was bleeding to death. However, 2 plus 2 is four, no matter who says it, or even if they are just being weasel little bastards who gladly supported Citizens United (as both both Greenwald and Paul did) yet seem to fail to understand that the NSA abuses are indeed, FRUIT OF THAT POISONED TREE, because corporations are not merely the ones that benefit from Empire, they are the new aristocrats that even the rulers of the Empire answer to.

[Nye Bevan]

66. Anyone who says "whatever (person X) believes, I believe the opposite" is an idiot.

No matter how far you are away from someone on the political spectrum, you will always agree with them on something.

[abelenkpe]

67. I know what you mean

Rand Paul is a lunatic but he's right about this one thing. Disappointing that more democrats aren't saying the same.

[OKNancy]

68. ‘That’s what gave us Jim Crow’ - Rand Paul

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/thats-what-gave-us-jim-crow

[Iliyah]

70. Personally I know one thing

I rather have a Democratic Party Congress and President. Rand Paul may appear to be so concerned about the 4th Amendment, but I'll say he is unless you disagree with him and his way of belief, if so, you're screwed. Kinda sorta sounds like your typical GOPer.

[totodeinhere]

73. If you find yourself uncomfortable with agreeing with Paul, there are plenty

of good Democrats such as Senator Wyden saying the same thing. You can agree with them.

[Bluenorthwest]

114. Same goes for those who agree with some words by the Pope, plenty of others

saying the same to agree with who are not anti gay and anti choice, but DUers say one can agree with the Pope on one thing but not others, but just with the Pope, he's a special case, a Superstar you see.....

[totodeinhere]

149. I agree with you about the Pope although it may be off topic for this thread.

He doesn't have one major policy difference with the previous one. His handlers have advised him to put a smiley face on things. That's the only difference.

[robbob]

74. Very simple point re: Rand Paul

If there were a Republican president in the white house, do you think he would have said what he said?

...case closed.

[Iliyah]

75. NO

GOPers toll the line that their masters give. If it were a GOP right now in the WH, you would not hear a peep from him.

[markpkessinger]

76. Not so fast . . .

You are probably right that if a Republican were in the White House, Rand Paul probably wouldn't have said a word. But that only speaks to the fact that Rand Paul is an opportunistic, hypocritical asshole -- it does not speak to the issue of whether or not he has made a substantively valid point on this particular issue. One can despise Rand Paul (and I certainly do despise him), and believe that every word that comes out of his mouth is motivated by one self-serving agenda or another, and yet still agree with a substantive point he has made. In fact, if one cannot at least recognize that it is possible to do so, I would humbly suggest that person is placing party brand loyalty above commitment to principle.

[Iliyah]

84. 21st century, like it or not, what the NSA

and other surveillance facilities have done in the past and will do, I personally don't like. Can they be stopped, uh no. This conversation and future Snowden(s) will continue, and NSA will still do what they have been doing. Wait for the robots that will take many jobs away which per se is already happening.

[markpkessinger]

90. Well, I'm certain of one thing . . .

. . . and that is that absolutely nothing will change for the better if everyone adopts the kind of fatalistic attitude you display here.

[bvar22]

95. Sorry.

I refuse to go gentle into that Good Night.
I will rage against the Dying of the Light.

[font size=1]apologies to Dylan Thomas[/font]

[font size=3]
Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.


You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[bvar22]

103. An even MORE interesting question:

If a Republican were in the White House,
would YOU be protesting the gutting of our 4th Amendment?

I would, and I DID.
You see, I BELIEVE in Traditional Democratic Party Values, Issues and Policy.
It makes no difference WHO sits in the Oval Office.
I jopined the Democratic Party in 1967 BECAUSE I already BELIEVED in those Values.
I didn't adopt those values because I joined the Democratic Party.
In this case, the Egg comes before the Chicken.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

[font size=3]Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." [/font]

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star"
May 7, 1918

You will know them by their WORKS.

[MNBrewer]

82. It happens sometimes

It doesn't make you a republican, or a libertarian or a Paulite.

[Swede Atlanta]

85. I wasn't able to listen to all of the President's remarks but......

what I heard was not encouraging.

I heard nothing that sounds like a dramatic shift away from sucking up all of the phone and internet communications and storing them just in case they need them in future.

The only difference may be they will rely on the private communications companies to hold the data and they will then have to go to a "never say no" FISA court to search the records. Whether these records are held by a 3rd party or not they constitute a search and seizure of your telephone usage without probable cause. I don't care if a FISA court gives them authorization to search them after the fact the very collection of the data as agents of the federal government constitutes a seizure without probable cause.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. I'd be a lot more accepting of it if the NSA would root through the

1%'s shit a little more often, with an eye to 'national security', including stopping them from poisoning our food and water, or ripping off our credit/savings. Same for keeping an eye on my senators for corruption, greed, and corporate collusion.

But no, they use it to spy on US to make sure we don't oppose a fucking pipeline or some shit.

[ctsnowman]

145. Nailed it.

[Blue_Tires]

104. Wow...If only that Rand Paul got elected to congess somehow

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

he might be in a position to actually DO something instead of merely talk about it...


FWIW, I've had a *very* hard time reconciling the fact that most of the "I agree with Paul/Sensenbrenner/random RW nut on ________ issue" DUers are the same one cursing 24 hours a day Obama's DLC/third way/whatever triangulation....

Just food for thought...

[Nay]

106. Bernie Sanders said essentially the same thing in his interview

after the president's speech. The interviewer kept trying to deflect his point by diverting him to the question of who should be keeping all the bulk emails, etc., --- Bernie kept saying that NO ONE should be keeping any such stuff for the govt., that the govt. is prohibited by the 4th Amendment from accessing such stuff no matter WHO keeps the fucking stuff!!!

[Autumn]

112. Name removed disagrees with you

[ProSense]

115. Here:

‘That’s what gave us Jim Crow’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024349102

[bvar22]

130. Who has said that Rand/Ron Paul is NOT an asshole?

THAT was clearly stated in the OP.
Can you find anyone on DU who claims that Rand Paul is NOT an asshole?
Didn't think so,

...but since you are determined to fling whatever you can in a desperate hope that something sticks,
let me offer this:

ProSense (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimes by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

[ProSense]

132. Well,

"Who has said that Rand/Ron Paul is NOT an asshole?"

...unfortunately, hyping "asshole" and pretending not to doesn't cut it.

"Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with Rand Paul today."

It's never good to hype hypocritical assholes, unless you believe they deserve to be hyped.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024349102

Also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724#post110

[bvar22]

147. I really don't have time to devot to your therapy about what you IMAGINE people are saying.

Let us just stick to documented facts.

Now,
WHO said Rand/Ron Paul is NOT an asshole?

If you can't document THAT,
then all you got is an imaginary sack of bullshit spawned by your imagination.



Put up,
or shut up time.

[bobduca]

150. "imaginary sack of bullshit"

Now that's worthy of Mr Roffle Waffles.

[ProSense]

158. Like I said

"Now,
WHO said Rand/Ron Paul is NOT an asshole?

If you can't document THAT,
then all you got is an imaginary sack of bullshit spawned by your imagination. "

...it's never good to hype hypocritical assholes, unless you believe they deserve to be hyped.

Clearly, you're proud about the unfortunate moment that you find yourself agreeing with and hyping this "asshole"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724#post137


Speaking of "imaginary sack of bullshit," your hero: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024349102

[bvar22]

162. Still just making stuff up.

Despite you fantasies, delusions, and desperate flailing attempts to divert the discussion,
[font size=3]you STILL have provided no direct link to ANY statement of mine that "supports" or "hypes" Ron/Rand Paul.[/font]

It appears you are having difficulty distinguishing between Reality and your Fantasies.
I could help you with this problem, but I don't think you can afford me.

It is not nice to make things up and then use your fabrications to attack other members of DU.
Throughout history, civilized cultures have banned such behaviors.
Our culture even etched it in stone.

Fantasies &Fairy Tales belong in The Lounge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1018

Willful distortions and mis-characterizations of other members posts
do not belong on DU at all.

This OP and thread is about the difficulty of having an internal Moral Compass.
Apparently, that is a pain that you do not feel or understand.

[BelgianMadCow]

152. boink n/t

[JTFrog]

123. Fuck Rand Paul. n/t

[bvar22]

137. Agree. Fuck Rand/Ron Paul,

....but lets try to keep the 4th Amendment limitations on our Government.
Yes?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I really, REALLY like that Amendment.
Hate to see it go.
You DO know that sooner of later a Republican or worse WILL sit in the Oval Office?


Do you know that your odds of being harmed by a "terrorist" are greater than being struck by lightening?

Do you know that the ongoing Spying on Americans has not stopped a SINGLE terrorist attack?

[font size=3]
Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.


You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[Progressive dog]

153. Joe Biden still believes in principle before party,

he just doesn't agree with you.
Like most Americans, Joe Biden supports our system of government that has survived for over 200 years and counting.

[Progressive dog]

154. Joe Biden still believes in principle before party,

he just doesn't agree with you.
Like most Americans, Joe Biden supports our system of government that has survived for over 200 years and counting.

[bvar22]

161. That is both frightening and disturbingly funny.

Joe Biden 2006 and myself are in complete agreement.
I still agree with Joe Biden 2006.
That is WHY I posted the video clip.

That comes from having something called an Internal Moral Compass.
In other words, Wrong is Wrong,
and NOT dependent upon whom we like or dislike.

If collecting the meta data was "very, very intrusive" in 2006,
and not something with which we should "trust our president and vice president" in 2006,
it remains so today.

[Progressive dog]

164. This isn't 2006, he has moved on. nt

[malthaussen]

155. Ah, I think I see what is confusing you...

... you think our rulers believe in democracy. Hell, as democratically-eleted representatives of the people, they are in the best position not to believe in democracy.

-- Mal

[msanthrope]

156. Why would you agree with a person who got the 4th Amendment wrong?

There is no warrant needed for phone records. Not since the 70s.

Dear jeebus....why would you support a doofus who couldn't even get that simple point of law right?

[bvar22]

159. Looks like you and the doofus have something in common.

That is, you both got something WRONG.

Please show where I have supported the doofus.
I made it very clear that I do NOT support Rand Paul.
That is WHY it is so disgusting to be forced in to having to agree with him.

Do you agree with 2006 Joe Biden about the phone records?

I did then,
and I still agree with THAT Joe Biden.
My beliefs on important issues don't change depending on the latest elections.

Do you agree with Joe Biden 2006, or disagree with Joe Biden 2006?
Did you agree with him when Bush was President,
and disagree with his statement today?

.....or are you not concerned with those kinds of things,
and just believe what they tell you to believe
when they tell you to believe it.

So easy to just go with the flow.
Very convenient, and easy too.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not their promises or excuses.

[msanthrope]

166. I got nothing wrong...unlikr Rand Paul. nt

[bvar22]

167. Oh Come On.

At least some of your like minded "friends" entertain us with a Tap Dance.

Denial of Reality is such boring show without all the tap dancing,
especially when everybody can SEE and READ your own words and MY own words.
They are right up there.^^^

[woo me with science]

165. kick

[ucrdem]

168. I recommend vigorous exercise and a cold shower.

A strong emetic is also sometimes useful.