carlfense Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Filibustered. Opponents included Rand Paul who claims to be concerned about privacy. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 What happened to Rand "I will speak until I can speak no further" Paul, the drone filibustering libertarian? Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 19, 2014 Author Share Posted November 19, 2014 What happened to Rand "I will speak until I can speak no further" Paul, the drone filibustering libertarian? What, indeed. It's almost like he never actually believed that stuff. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Here is my personal feelings one what is happening here. Most in Washington don't want to make these changes because they know (even though it stomps on our privacy and what the government should be doing) it allows the government to monitor the publics actions for threats against the US. So....when ever pressed in an election or in a press conference, the all will talk about how concerned they are about our freedoms and our privacy, but, in the end, they don't want to stop what the NSA is doing. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 What happened to Rand "I will speak until I can speak no further" Paul, the drone filibustering libertarian? What, indeed. It's almost like he never actually believed that stuff. Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 “They probably needed my vote,” he (Rand Paul) said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html#ixzz3JbAdG1R9 Yup sure sounds like he doesn't give a crap about any of that... Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 20, 2014 Author Share Posted November 20, 2014 “They probably needed my vote,” he (Rand Paul) said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html#ixzz3JbAdG1R9 Yup sure sounds like he doesn't give a crap about any of that... Oh boy. You buy that, huh? Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 “They probably needed my vote,” he (Rand Paul) said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html#ixzz3JbAdG1R9 Yup sure sounds like he doesn't give a crap about any of that... Oh boy. You buy that, huh? Says it right there, but since he has and "R" after his name he is telling a lie. The bill needs to (or should) come up again, maybe he can get the bill he wants. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 “They probably needed my vote,” he (Rand Paul) said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html#ixzz3JbAdG1R9 Yup sure sounds like he doesn't give a crap about any of that... Oh boy. You buy that, huh? Says it right there, but since he has and "R" after his name he is telling a lie. The bill needs to (or should) come up again, maybe he can get the bill he wants. No. It's not the "R" after his name that makes him a liar. What makes him a liar is the fact that he claims to want one thing and votes for the opposite. 2 Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 “They probably needed my vote,” he (Rand Paul) said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-nsa-bill-112984.html#ixzz3JbAdG1R9 Yup sure sounds like he doesn't give a crap about any of that... Oh boy. You buy that, huh? Says it right there, but since he has and "R" after his name he is telling a lie. The bill needs to (or should) come up again, maybe he can get the bill he wants. No. It's not the "R" after his name that makes him a liar. What makes him a liar is the fact that he claims to want one thing and votes for the opposite. "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?" Sen Rand Paul So he speaks out against the Patriot act, then votes against a bill that would extend it until 2017, and now hes a liar. Got it. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 So he speaks out against the Patriot act, then votes against a bill that would extend it until 2017, and now hes a liar. Got it.Why not vote for something that does 9/10 of things that you want and then introduce a bill that fixes that 1/10 bit? I'll tell you why: because he is a fraud. Don't take my word for it . . . watch his positions "evolve" over the next two years. Link to comment
Recommended Posts