4 ms·

What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? If it's bullshit, then it's bullshit. Refusing to take a day to head down and see their presentation isn

What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? If it's bullshit, then it's bullshit. Refusing to take a day to head down and see their presentation isn't a principled stand, it's being concerned with your brand.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? Having the justification for a program of this nature be a secret is not compatible with democracy. So if they have something to say they should tell it to The Washington Post.
spenvo 11y ago
If politicians don't care about their brand, they've pursued the wrong career. The visible nature of a visit would be exploited. He'd be painted as guilty by association. Politics is petty... so much so that, in this case, a superPAC-funded negative campaign ad (running 24-7 in battleground states) would say: "Rand Paul visited the NSA 6 times since he's been a Senator, yet he preaches reform. So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?'" Let's keep in mind: there's no way if OP's story or sources are true --- maybe he has met with NSA -- and if he has, I'd hope he wouldn't go around blabbing about it, for the above reason ^^
- meepmorp 11y ago
  "Senator Rand Paul was invited 6 times to talk to the NSA about its anti-terror data collection programs. 6 times Senator Rand Paul refused to even listen to the patriots working to keep our country safe, yet he claims to know what's best for our national security. Is this someone we can really trust as president?" The bullshit can be written however. If you're taking the subject seriously (and it's a subject that ought to be taken quite seriously), it's your job to hear what the various parties have to say, even if you're sure you won't agree. It's his job as senator.
- krapp 11y ago
  >So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA? Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job. What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of making principled stands based on willful ignorance. If he intends to run the country, he can't simply pretend the parts of the government he doesn't like don't exist.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - Ironchefpython 11y ago
    > Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?
    - krapp 11y ago
      I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant. For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.
      - Ironchefpython 11y ago
        > I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

> What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? Having the justification for a program of this nature be a secret is not compatible with democracy. So if they have something to say they should tell it to The Washington Post.

spenvo 11y ago

If politicians don't care about their brand, they've pursued the wrong career. The visible nature of a visit would be exploited. He'd be painted as guilty by association. Politics is petty... so much so that, in this case, a superPAC-funded negative campaign ad (running 24-7 in battleground states) would say: "Rand Paul visited the NSA 6 times since he's been a Senator, yet he preaches reform. So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?'" Let's keep in mind: there's no way if OP's story or sources are true --- maybe he has met with NSA -- and if he has, I'd hope he wouldn't go around blabbing about it, for the above reason ^^

meepmorp 11y ago
"Senator Rand Paul was invited 6 times to talk to the NSA about its anti-terror data collection programs. 6 times Senator Rand Paul refused to even listen to the patriots working to keep our country safe, yet he claims to know what's best for our national security. Is this someone we can really trust as president?" The bullshit can be written however. If you're taking the subject seriously (and it's a subject that ought to be taken quite seriously), it's your job to hear what the various parties have to say, even if you're sure you won't agree. It's his job as senator.
krapp 11y ago
>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA? Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job. What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of making principled stands based on willful ignorance. If he intends to run the country, he can't simply pretend the parts of the government he doesn't like don't exist.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- Ironchefpython 11y ago
  > Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?
  - krapp 11y ago
    I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant. For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.
    - Ironchefpython 11y ago
      > I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.