Paul: "I’m not going to take it anymore"

The Hill ^ | May 31, 2015 | Jullan Hattem

[sargon]

He seems to be a one trick pony, not much depth there. He is proving to be a lightweight.

Yes, so "shallow" of him to fight for the Fourth Amendment.

What about the "lightweights" who support the Patriot Act?

[sargon]

There are far more egregious, clear and present violations of our liberties than what threats the Patriot Act poses

I don't know about your priorities, but obliterating the Fourth Amendment is pretty damn egregious...

[INVAR]

Can you name one person or group whose 4th Amendment rights were directly violated by the Patriot Act?

I can think of a lot more direct and pressing violations of every one of our rights that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act and Congress has been either complicit or silent on those violations.

You are cheering a shell game being put on for your placation.

[Theophilus]

Abolish the DHS and TSA next please.

[Theophilus]

- if a few more people die, so be it.

An attack on the magnitude of 9/11 could happen in the U.S. every day and I would not surrender our Constitution. I would demand that every Muslim city in the world be nuked before I would yield on one jot or tittle of the Constitution.

[sargon]

Can you name one person or group whose 4th Amendment rights were directly violated by the Patriot Act?

Any person whose data was obtained without a search warrant, based on probable cause, had their Fourth Amendment rights violated.

The possibility that that information could be used against them is violation enough. That's how Liberty works.

If the government wanted to include an exclusionary rule for such data collection, such that it could never be used for criminal prosecution, they could have done that, and it woiuld have alleviated some of the concern.

But they have put no such safeguard in. Why not?

So, my question to you is: can you name one person or group whose 4th Amendment rights weren't directly violated by the Patriot Act?

Totalitarianism isn't a valid solution to terrorism, or any other problem.

The blanket collection of personal data without warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Period. And I believe that even the Courts are starting to reluctantly come to that conclusion.

How many other Amendments are you willing to compromise on? All in the name of fighting the War on Terror, of course. How about the Second? The First? The Fifth?

[Awgie]

Post #8 does the best job of illustrating RP’s lightweight and inconsistent nature. In addition he wears too much eyeliner, maybe he's a Johnny Depp fan, and his oratory skills are slightly less annoying then Hillary.

In my opinion RP is all negative downside. He has already given dems several talking points. He will never win. He will do far more damage then good before he is done.

[INVAR]

Look, I’m not a fan of the NSA or using the federal beast to become Big Brother, was not my point.

My point is that there are far more egregious and overt acts of tyranny being decreed and enacted as policy on a near-daily basis now, and Rand Paul has been largely silent or limited to spouting only rhetoric about them.

[SaraJohnson]

What he is doing is brave. Ted Cruz should be with him. Not surprised Rubio is MIA. I would vote for him if he’s nominated.

I hope Cruz plans to dismantle the patriot act. I am tired of having a homeland war machine and DOD abusing us and slandering us as their enemy terrorists all the time kissing islamic jihadist butt and leaving the border wide open for criminals and jihadists.

Watch our Federal government allow a terrorist attack if they don’t get the power they want out of Congress; then blame Rand Paul and his “terrorist” supporters. We are dealing with a sick puppy in Federal land.

[Carthego delenda est]

“Watch our Federal government allow a terrorist attack if they don’t get the power they want out of Congress; then blame Rand Paul and his “terrorist” supporters.”

Bingo. It’s all in the script, and Paul is very well aware of the role he is playing.

[INVAR]

This is all grandstanding by Paul.

Paul acknowledged that the spying authority he worked to expire will be reauthorized just as soon as the USA Freedom Act is passed.

For a guy who is supposedly so worried about the government collection of unauthorized phone data without consent of the user - his campaign has no trouble buying unauthorized phone data collected from carriers and search engines without consent of the user.

Paul’s answer to the hypocrisy is that “campaigns can’t put people in jail”.

Really? So the whole outrage over being spied on and having your phone records, purchase patterns and electronic data of constituents data mined and used is okay by Rand Paul if that is all being used by political campaigns and non-government sources.

[Awgie]

Game-Set-Match! INVAR is the Winner!