4 ms·

> All R's voted wrong except Cruz, Lee, Heller, Paul, and Murkowski. The roll-call vote I'm looking at [1] only has Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski voting to

> All R's voted wrong except Cruz, Lee, Heller, Paul, and Murkowski. The roll-call vote I'm looking at [1] only has Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski voting to move the bill to a vote on passage; Paul supported the filibuster. [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

nostromo 12y ago
Paul ended his support because the bill also renews the Patriot ACT until 2017. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244 http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244 He's actually been very consistent in opposing Patriot ACT renewals, and I applaud him for it.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  So some Patriot Act provisions expire in 2015. That could make for some interesting politicking.
- phaus 12y ago
  Not sure how one can be pro mass surveillance and anti-patriot act at the same time. Fuck that guy.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Because Paul isn't pro mass surveillance.
    - phaus 12y ago
      What is his justification for voting against? Unless his argument was that the bill is inadequate, I can't really see a good reason.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        Do you bother reading previous answers before you comment ? He is opposing it because it renews the Patriot Act, which is a higher order Evil compared to the NSA-related measures. > “In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”
        dang 12y ago
        > Do you bother reading Please don't make political arguments into personal quarrels on HN, even when someone doesn't bother reading. Political arguments are abrasive to begin with. Let's not add gratuitous abrasiveness. This comment would be quite a good one without the first sentence.
        wnoise 12y ago
        Is it really gratuitous? Don't we want to show that some behaviors (like not reading the content) aren't welcome? Spelling that out rather than the mystery of a downvote is useful.
        dang 12y ago
        What's gratuitous is using the occasion to get in a personal dig.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        > Please don't make political arguments into personal quarrels on HN I am not making any kind of political statement nor a personal quarrel, I am simply pointing out that he got the answer previously but jumped on the comment trigger before reading anything linked. Is saying "Do you bother reading" considered offensive now?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

nostromo 12y ago

Paul ended his support because the bill also renews the Patriot ACT until 2017. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244 http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244 He's actually been very consistent in opposing Patriot ACT renewals, and I applaud him for it.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
So some Patriot Act provisions expire in 2015. That could make for some interesting politicking.
phaus 12y ago
Not sure how one can be pro mass surveillance and anti-patriot act at the same time. Fuck that guy.
- adventured 12y ago
  Because Paul isn't pro mass surveillance.
  - phaus 12y ago
    What is his justification for voting against? Unless his argument was that the bill is inadequate, I can't really see a good reason.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      Do you bother reading previous answers before you comment ? He is opposing it because it renews the Patriot Act, which is a higher order Evil compared to the NSA-related measures. > “In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”
      - dang 12y ago
        > Do you bother reading Please don't make political arguments into personal quarrels on HN, even when someone doesn't bother reading. Political arguments are abrasive to begin with. Let's not add gratuitous abrasiveness. This comment would be quite a good one without the first sentence.
        wnoise 12y ago
        Is it really gratuitous? Don't we want to show that some behaviors (like not reading the content) aren't welcome? Spelling that out rather than the mystery of a downvote is useful.
        dang 12y ago
        What's gratuitous is using the occasion to get in a personal dig.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        > Please don't make political arguments into personal quarrels on HN I am not making any kind of political statement nor a personal quarrel, I am simply pointing out that he got the answer previously but jumped on the comment trigger before reading anything linked. Is saying "Do you bother reading" considered offensive now?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]