9 ms·

Obama and Rand Paul Face Off Over the Patriot Act

70 points by randomname2 11y ago

purephase 11y ago
I can't believe I'm supporting Paul over Obama on anything, let alone this. Given it's his last term, I'm surprised that Obama is at this so much. It could be the pivotal cause that sinks the Dems in 2016 and Paul's filibuster only bolsters his own campaign. Feel dirty supporting a tea-partier.
- api 11y ago
  The push for surveillance is clearly something that is a "must have" from Washington's point of view -- to the point that it trumps ordinary political concerns.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- msandford 11y ago
  The tea party was a ground-swell movement that got co-opted by the Kochs to promote very little more than the Republican status-quo in terms of political ideology. Once they got involved in funding things it turned from libertarian (anti-war, pro personal liberty) into something much different. The tea party is probably only as dirty as the Koch's money. Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO.
  - nyolfen 11y ago
    the tea party has never been untainted by koch money, it was funded fully by them from the very start and existed as their explicit political project long before obama was elected.[0] it's 100% astroturf and always has been [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-te...
  - georgemcbay 11y ago
    "a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO" Maybe not dirty, but terribly naive. Not in the sense that I think people are inherently evil, but I do believe they are inherently greedy (naturally as greed serves an important evolutionary function as long as we live in a society with scarcity) in a way that makes them perfectly willing to bend and break the rules to increase their personal wealth and power as long as they don't get punished for it and nobody that they have to actually see (and thus empathize with) gets hurt by their greed (though some have such advanced systems of self-denial that even this bit is negotiable). This is why unregulated capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism for now, current humans can't be trusted to live in any system without external checks and balances (and even with those the best we can hope for is that the system mostly works for most people).
    - tracker1 11y ago
      I don't think any libertarians want true anarchy and unregulated capitalism... so much as a more even playing field that ensures competition. IP protections have been expanded to the point of insanity in favor of corporations... this expansion has been voted up by both Republicans and Democrats alike... Removing corporate taxes, and in the same vein reducing both the rights of corporations to that of "non-living entities" (no freedom of speech, etc), as well as driving out tax shelters and loopholes in favor of encouraging either reinvestment/growth or paying dividends which are taxed... Most libertarians I've known are not in favor of crony corporatism, which is very different from allowing or encouraging free markets to work.
  - strlen 11y ago
    For what it's worth, Kochs are themselves anti-war and pro personal liberty (at least as far as beliefs go: one can argue that removing social insurance may cause a net reduction in personal liberty, but this isn't the place to argue this). While their beliefs are controversial, they are no more controversial than beliefs of other libertarian-leaning groups and individuals. (I don't know if they belief in goodness of individuals, however: in fact, one can easily argue a pro-liberty stance coming from innate evil of individuals as well.) What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul. None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.
  - eropple 11y ago
    > Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. This is an extremely generous characterization and one that I do not feel is borne out by the vigorous "fuck you, I've got mine" platform that's dressed up as a defense of personal liberty. American conservatism had degenerated to this point before the Tea Party, but rarely was it stated so barefacedly. The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all. And, either through malicious advocacy or through desired inaction, the Tea Party was about that from day one. I was there. (I look rather poorly on historical hagiography, regardless of who the halo's being painted onto.)
    - itbeho 11y ago
      I hear this often, but there is actually quite a bit of evidence to refute your "fuck you, I've got mine" reference in regards to conservatives. I see it anecdotally in my own family, which is pretty evenly split ideologically. Donated money to charity? Republicans 54%, Democrats 45% Volunteered for a cause? Republicans 33%, Democrates 24% [1] "...households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals" [2] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=...
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Take tithing to their own churches out of that, and rerun the numbers. Why take the churches out? Because you're implying that donating to a "charity" means they're doing good for their local community. Churches seldom do much good compared to dedicated social benefit organizations.
        irishcoffee 11y ago
        I am no fan of church, for the record. It would be more convincing if you backed that claim up with evidence. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foun... I honestly have no idea of their affiliation, I can only assume this website is right-wing because of the story, but there are at least links to a W2, which seems impartial enough. I lost faith in non-pro's a while ago because of stories like the above. The idea is sound, the reality seems shaky at best.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deelowe 11y ago
  Ehh. I see him more as a true libertarian. I know he's come out in support of the tea party recently, but that's not really his roots (unless you consider the tea party to be libertarians as well. The definition has changed a bit over time). Generally speaking, I think most people would get behind libertarianism if they could get past the nut job conspiracy theories. Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs). Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. This is no more realistic than it is to say democrats want a perfect utopia complete with killing people off once they reach retirement age.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. Many do (more so the former than the latter, since public safety is definitely one of the near-universal agreed-upon functions of government), but any reasonable libertarian is well aware that that kind of thing shouldn't happen overnight. When people have relied upon a government service for years, grown up expecting it, and grown up paying for it, it would be the height of irresponsibility to dismantle it without a clear transition plan and a way to make sure people got value for the money they put in.
  - bcheung 11y ago
    Libertarians still count education and security as values, they just think there are ways to do it that don't involve centralized government control. Just because someone is against tax funded public school doesn't mean they are against education.
    - judk 11y ago
      You can't be pro poor-people's education without being pro taxation to spend on education.
  - 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- joelrunyon 11y ago
  I wrote this below, but here it is again: > Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves. I'm glad you're able to evaluate the situation based on it's own merits & come to your own conclusions, but the polarization & villainization of opposite sides of the spectrum is what is killing real political debate.
  - purephase 11y ago
    Oh, I agree 100%. My comments are directed solely at what drives most politicians, and that is their own or their party's electability. Rand Paul is a politician as much as any other, and the tea party are nutters. Obama hardly has a stellar record in office and all of the incumbents are, IMO, laughable at this point. I'd say that politicians, and their monied interests, are killing real political debate.
adam74 11y ago
I am so disappointed in Obama. I voted for that liar twice.
- cryptoz 11y ago
  If you're disappointed in Obama over the USA PATRIOT Act, that's your own fault - he was very clear about his opinions on USA PATRIOT from long before he ran for office, as early as 2003 (or 2006?). Obama has voted in favour of expanding/extending the USA PATRIOT Act's powers from the earliest possible time that he had US lawmaking influence. There are many reasons to be disappointed in Obama perhaps, but he was clear about this from Day 1: He supports unchecked US domestic spying. Citation: http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    Then again, so did his (non-third-party) opponents. Not a lot of choice available.
    - cryptoz 11y ago
      There were some options during the primaries (like Dennis Kucinich), and this is why the primary elections are so important. None of the No-to-USA-PATRIOT options made it past the primaries, so we were left without much real choice.
    - Doji 11y ago
      > non-third-party You're imprisoned in a cage of your own making.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        More like a cage of Duverger's law.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        I frequently vote third-party. I'm not under the illusion that they have any hope of winning.
irishcoffee 11y ago
This seems very curious. Is there any information out there as to why Obama is supporting this?
- adventured 11y ago
  Surface statements: he believes it makes America safer. Reality: Obama believes in a large, powerful, intrusive central government. These spying powers are an immense source of power and ultimately control. Supporting vast domestic surveillance is consistent with his overall ideology.
  - judk 11y ago
    You say that, but really why does President want control? Once you are elected president, you are set for life with millions of dollars of "speakers fees" and free favors forever. Some people have plans to conquer the world like Hitler or Stalin, but Obama is just sort of plodding along. Why does he care about getting all this power? What will he do with it?
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  I'm not sure why it would seem curious or even mildly surprising. Obama is a self-proclaimed Marxist and has been from the start. Creating a centralized, unchecked position of power is what Marxists do; you know, for the good of the people.
  - innocentoldguy 11y ago
    And down voting those truths people don't like to hear is exactly why he made it into office . . . twice.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      I down voted you because of the wildly inaccurate use of the term "Marxist". Most of Obama's policies have very little to do with what Marx wrote about; at best, you could call him a socialist on a handful of issues, moderate/mild-conservative on other issues, and a pro-establishment Democrat overriding everything. Words have specific meanings, and you shouldn't label all of your political opponents "Marxist" (or "communists", "reds", or even "fascists", "neocons", etc) just because some of those labels may have fit some political opponents in the past.
pekk 11y ago
Establishment Republicans should have a harder time than they do distancing themselves from the PATRIOT Act.
- joelrunyon 11y ago
  Really disappointing to see someone complaining about one side "distancing" themselves from something instead of talking about the issues based on their merits. "Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves. On top of that, Paul's first term was in 2009. I don't understand why he can't establish his own views on this.
  - bcheung 11y ago
    Not sure what you mean. Paul's views on the NSA are quite contrarian from the mainstream Republican party.
    - joelrunyon 11y ago
      I know. The parent comment was implying that "republicans started it" - so no self-identifying republican should be allowed to have a different opinion. That's a terribly naive point of view and strips the conversation of any nuanced debate if we simply shove candidates in boxes labeled with their political affiliation.
fourply 11y ago
What a disappointment from someone who ran, in part, on his record as an educator on Constitutional law.
- ChrisAntaki 11y ago
  Russ Tice, a Bush-era NSA whistleblower, claims Obama's phones were tapped by the NSA starting in 2004 [1]. If true, questions would be raised. Could they have some leverage on him? That's just speculation though, and wouldn't give Obama an excuse for supporting the illegal [2] NSA programs. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-ns...
jkestner 11y ago
Great discussion here, amazingly for politics on the Internet. Thank you all. I understand the value of using labels to mean something specific, but it's also clear that it holds libertarianism back. Like Catholics or Yankees fans, I suspect there are degrees, but the majority are not extreme in their beliefs. The two big parties at least have the benefit of established social groups that make you feel like you're swimming with the tide. Libertarians don't yet have a central narrative that can withstand the marginalization by the media and polite society, and specifically, viable libertarians run under the name of a major party, compromising or muddying that message. I like the call here to talking about ideas rather than teams. And I like the point that no one's calling for change overnight. I call myself a (civil) libertarian, but that's an inclination, not a manifesto. I'm not extreme in most of those beliefs. Yet third parties get pinned to the most extreme conclusions of their tenets, while the fringes of R and D are understood to be fringes. We have to overcome that institutional inertia with an occasional bout of critical thinking. Take party affiliations off the ballot.
- judk 11y ago
  Libertarians should be fishing to win back the conservative wing of the republican party. Libertarian vs Liberal is reasonable debate to have in society and government.
  - jkestner 11y ago
    That would be awesome, because it would mean we've moved past social conservatism. I am specifically not tying libertarians to conservatism because plenty of us weight the social side of things heavier, where there's more in common with liberals.
eiphau 11y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro
randomname2 11y ago
Obama started the bulk collection by executive order. He could have easily ended it by executive order as well, yet hasn't done so, and instead blamed Congress for not killing it.
jugad 11y ago
Anyone else remember the "Big Brother" episode from "Yes Minister"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqmmdIuZJA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqmmdIuZJA If you have not seen, you are in for a treat. I can't believe that us/america/world would go down this path after we have been clearly warned about these things so many times. When will the govt get it once and for all that overarching warrantless surveillance is illegal and stop trying for it?
chrismcb 11y ago
Obama swore to uphold the constitution, he did not swear to keep Americans safer.

70 points by randomname2 11y ago

I can't believe I'm supporting Paul over Obama on anything, let alone this. Given it's his last term, I'm surprised that Obama is at this so much. It could be the pivotal cause that sinks the Dems in 2016 and Paul's filibuster only bolsters his own campaign. Feel dirty supporting a tea-partier.

api 11y ago
The push for surveillance is clearly something that is a "must have" from Washington's point of view -- to the point that it trumps ordinary political concerns.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
msandford 11y ago
The tea party was a ground-swell movement that got co-opted by the Kochs to promote very little more than the Republican status-quo in terms of political ideology. Once they got involved in funding things it turned from libertarian (anti-war, pro personal liberty) into something much different. The tea party is probably only as dirty as the Koch's money. Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO.
- nyolfen 11y ago
  the tea party has never been untainted by koch money, it was funded fully by them from the very start and existed as their explicit political project long before obama was elected.[0] it's 100% astroturf and always has been [0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-tea-party_b_4136722.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/final-proof-the-te...
- georgemcbay 11y ago
  "a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. That isn't terribly dirty IMO" Maybe not dirty, but terribly naive. Not in the sense that I think people are inherently evil, but I do believe they are inherently greedy (naturally as greed serves an important evolutionary function as long as we live in a society with scarcity) in a way that makes them perfectly willing to bend and break the rules to increase their personal wealth and power as long as they don't get punished for it and nobody that they have to actually see (and thus empathize with) gets hurt by their greed (though some have such advanced systems of self-denial that even this bit is negotiable). This is why unregulated capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism for now, current humans can't be trusted to live in any system without external checks and balances (and even with those the best we can hope for is that the system mostly works for most people).
  - tracker1 11y ago
    I don't think any libertarians want true anarchy and unregulated capitalism... so much as a more even playing field that ensures competition. IP protections have been expanded to the point of insanity in favor of corporations... this expansion has been voted up by both Republicans and Democrats alike... Removing corporate taxes, and in the same vein reducing both the rights of corporations to that of "non-living entities" (no freedom of speech, etc), as well as driving out tax shelters and loopholes in favor of encouraging either reinvestment/growth or paying dividends which are taxed... Most libertarians I've known are not in favor of crony corporatism, which is very different from allowing or encouraging free markets to work.
- strlen 11y ago
  For what it's worth, Kochs are themselves anti-war and pro personal liberty (at least as far as beliefs go: one can argue that removing social insurance may cause a net reduction in personal liberty, but this isn't the place to argue this). While their beliefs are controversial, they are no more controversial than beliefs of other libertarian-leaning groups and individuals. (I don't know if they belief in goodness of individuals, however: in fact, one can easily argue a pro-liberty stance coming from innate evil of individuals as well.) What is controversial is the Kochs' tactic of backing republican politicians who are themselves pro-war and opposed to personal liberty (along side candidates who oppose wars and support personal liberty, of course): sometimes the "lesser" of two evils is still... evil; even worse, one may be mistaken about what is lesser. This wasn't always this way: Kochs once supported the Libertarian Party and represented its more liberal (in the conventional sense) wing, oddly enough in opposition to its more radical wing led by Ron Paul. None of this is a defense of libertarian ideas per-se, my own views have evolved on this. Of course that's besides the point of TFA: civil liberties are a core point of classical liberalism, the foundation conservatism, liberalism, and libertarians; this isn't a matter of arguing whether or not healthcare should be socialized (or not), one would hope Rand Paul would be speaking for the majority of senate (across both parties) and not as a maverick.
- eropple 11y ago
  > Remove that and you've got a bunch of people who basically believe in the goodness of individuals. This is an extremely generous characterization and one that I do not feel is borne out by the vigorous "fuck you, I've got mine" platform that's dressed up as a defense of personal liberty. American conservatism had degenerated to this point before the Tea Party, but rarely was it stated so barefacedly. The liberties of poverty--say, to die rather than impoverish your family when you get cancer, or to doom another generation to subsistence due to the factors in which they are raised--are no liberty at all. And, either through malicious advocacy or through desired inaction, the Tea Party was about that from day one. I was there. (I look rather poorly on historical hagiography, regardless of who the halo's being painted onto.)
  - itbeho 11y ago
    I hear this often, but there is actually quite a bit of evidence to refute your "fuck you, I've got mine" reference in regards to conservatives. I see it anecdotally in my own family, which is pretty evenly split ideologically. Donated money to charity? Republicans 54%, Democrats 45% Volunteered for a cause? Republicans 33%, Democrates 24% [1] "...households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals" [2] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=...
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Take tithing to their own churches out of that, and rerun the numbers. Why take the churches out? Because you're implying that donating to a "charity" means they're doing good for their local community. Churches seldom do much good compared to dedicated social benefit organizations.
      - irishcoffee 11y ago
        I am no fan of church, for the record. It would be more convincing if you backed that claim up with evidence. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foun... I honestly have no idea of their affiliation, I can only assume this website is right-wing because of the story, but there are at least links to a W2, which seems impartial enough. I lost faith in non-pro's a while ago because of stories like the above. The idea is sound, the reality seems shaky at best.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deelowe 11y ago
Ehh. I see him more as a true libertarian. I know he's come out in support of the tea party recently, but that's not really his roots (unless you consider the tea party to be libertarians as well. The definition has changed a bit over time). Generally speaking, I think most people would get behind libertarianism if they could get past the nut job conspiracy theories. Generally speaking, liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business, anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs). Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. This is no more realistic than it is to say democrats want a perfect utopia complete with killing people off once they reach retirement age.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. Many do (more so the former than the latter, since public safety is definitely one of the near-universal agreed-upon functions of government), but any reasonable libertarian is well aware that that kind of thing shouldn't happen overnight. When people have relied upon a government service for years, grown up expecting it, and grown up paying for it, it would be the height of irresponsibility to dismantle it without a clear transition plan and a way to make sure people got value for the money they put in.
- bcheung 11y ago
  Libertarians still count education and security as values, they just think there are ways to do it that don't involve centralized government control. Just because someone is against tax funded public school doesn't mean they are against education.
  - judk 11y ago
    You can't be pro poor-people's education without being pro taxation to spend on education.
- 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joelrunyon 11y ago
I wrote this below, but here it is again: > Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves. I'm glad you're able to evaluate the situation based on it's own merits & come to your own conclusions, but the polarization & villainization of opposite sides of the spectrum is what is killing real political debate.
- purephase 11y ago
  Oh, I agree 100%. My comments are directed solely at what drives most politicians, and that is their own or their party's electability. Rand Paul is a politician as much as any other, and the tea party are nutters. Obama hardly has a stellar record in office and all of the incumbents are, IMO, laughable at this point. I'd say that politicians, and their monied interests, are killing real political debate.

adam74 11y ago

I am so disappointed in Obama. I voted for that liar twice.

cryptoz 11y ago
If you're disappointed in Obama over the USA PATRIOT Act, that's your own fault - he was very clear about his opinions on USA PATRIOT from long before he ran for office, as early as 2003 (or 2006?). Obama has voted in favour of expanding/extending the USA PATRIOT Act's powers from the earliest possible time that he had US lawmaking influence. There are many reasons to be disappointed in Obama perhaps, but he was clear about this from Day 1: He supports unchecked US domestic spying. Citation: http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Then again, so did his (non-third-party) opponents. Not a lot of choice available.
  - cryptoz 11y ago
    There were some options during the primaries (like Dennis Kucinich), and this is why the primary elections are so important. None of the No-to-USA-PATRIOT options made it past the primaries, so we were left without much real choice.
  - Doji 11y ago
    > non-third-party You're imprisoned in a cage of your own making.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      More like a cage of Duverger's law.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      I frequently vote third-party. I'm not under the illusion that they have any hope of winning.

irishcoffee 11y ago

This seems very curious. Is there any information out there as to why Obama is supporting this?

adventured 11y ago
Surface statements: he believes it makes America safer. Reality: Obama believes in a large, powerful, intrusive central government. These spying powers are an immense source of power and ultimately control. Supporting vast domestic surveillance is consistent with his overall ideology.
- judk 11y ago
  You say that, but really why does President want control? Once you are elected president, you are set for life with millions of dollars of "speakers fees" and free favors forever. Some people have plans to conquer the world like Hitler or Stalin, but Obama is just sort of plodding along. Why does he care about getting all this power? What will he do with it?
innocentoldguy 11y ago
I'm not sure why it would seem curious or even mildly surprising. Obama is a self-proclaimed Marxist and has been from the start. Creating a centralized, unchecked position of power is what Marxists do; you know, for the good of the people.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  And down voting those truths people don't like to hear is exactly why he made it into office . . . twice.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    I down voted you because of the wildly inaccurate use of the term "Marxist". Most of Obama's policies have very little to do with what Marx wrote about; at best, you could call him a socialist on a handful of issues, moderate/mild-conservative on other issues, and a pro-establishment Democrat overriding everything. Words have specific meanings, and you shouldn't label all of your political opponents "Marxist" (or "communists", "reds", or even "fascists", "neocons", etc) just because some of those labels may have fit some political opponents in the past.

pekk 11y ago

Establishment Republicans should have a harder time than they do distancing themselves from the PATRIOT Act.

joelrunyon 11y ago
Really disappointing to see someone complaining about one side "distancing" themselves from something instead of talking about the issues based on their merits. "Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas themselves. On top of that, Paul's first term was in 2009. I don't understand why he can't establish his own views on this.
- bcheung 11y ago
  Not sure what you mean. Paul's views on the NSA are quite contrarian from the mainstream Republican party.
  - joelrunyon 11y ago
    I know. The parent comment was implying that "republicans started it" - so no self-identifying republican should be allowed to have a different opinion. That's a terribly naive point of view and strips the conversation of any nuanced debate if we simply shove candidates in boxes labeled with their political affiliation.

fourply 11y ago

What a disappointment from someone who ran, in part, on his record as an educator on Constitutional law.

ChrisAntaki 11y ago
Russ Tice, a Bush-era NSA whistleblower, claims Obama's phones were tapped by the NSA starting in 2004 [1]. If true, questions would be raised. Could they have some leverage on him? That's just speculation though, and wouldn't give Obama an excuse for supporting the illegal [2] NSA programs. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama_n_3473538.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-ns...

jkestner 11y ago

Great discussion here, amazingly for politics on the Internet. Thank you all. I understand the value of using labels to mean something specific, but it's also clear that it holds libertarianism back. Like Catholics or Yankees fans, I suspect there are degrees, but the majority are not extreme in their beliefs. The two big parties at least have the benefit of established social groups that make you feel like you're swimming with the tide. Libertarians don't yet have a central narrative that can withstand the marginalization by the media and polite society, and specifically, viable libertarians run under the name of a major party, compromising or muddying that message. I like the call here to talking about ideas rather than teams. And I like the point that no one's calling for change overnight. I call myself a (civil) libertarian, but that's an inclination, not a manifesto. I'm not extreme in most of those beliefs. Yet third parties get pinned to the most extreme conclusions of their tenets, while the fringes of R and D are understood to be fringes. We have to overcome that institutional inertia with an occasional bout of critical thinking. Take party affiliations off the ballot.

judk 11y ago
Libertarians should be fishing to win back the conservative wing of the republican party. Libertarian vs Liberal is reasonable debate to have in society and government.
- jkestner 11y ago
  That would be awesome, because it would mean we've moved past social conservatism. I am specifically not tying libertarians to conservatism because plenty of us weight the social side of things heavier, where there's more in common with liberals.

eiphau 11y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro

randomname2 11y ago

Obama started the bulk collection by executive order. He could have easily ended it by executive order as well, yet hasn't done so, and instead blamed Congress for not killing it.

jugad 11y ago

Anyone else remember the "Big Brother" episode from "Yes Minister"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqmmdIuZJA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqmmdIuZJA If you have not seen, you are in for a treat. I can't believe that us/america/world would go down this path after we have been clearly warned about these things so many times. When will the govt get it once and for all that overarching warrantless surveillance is illegal and stop trying for it?

chrismcb 11y ago

Obama swore to uphold the constitution, he did not swear to keep Americans safer.