If you were wondering who was really on the NSA’s case, it isn’t Rand Paul.
Posted: Saturday, August 17th, 2013 at
4 Comments »
Oh lord, just kill me now.
There is no Republican, NONE, that support civil liberties.
You could ask Brett, “dear Brett, is the forfeit of all other civil liberties worth trading for a guaranteed plinking gun (and CRUCIALLY, a guaranteed supply of .177 ammo!) you could shoot in your back yard?”
And he would say, “the plinking gun I use to hole cans in my back yard guarantees all other civil liberties! Therefore, the answer is emphatically yes!”
And then he votes, like a machine, for the Rand Paul look-alike nearest him. And so dies liberty.
Now I am really off to a weird American city.
That’s really funny, Russell. Under Obama’s administration, “the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has said that the executive branch’s implementation of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has circumvented the spirit of the law”, “the executive branch has declined to address this concern”, and it’s all Brett’s fault for having refused to vote for him because “guns”. Sunday morning comics at it’s finest!
You have an obsession with Sen. Rand Paul. I can’t prove it but I think it’s because you’re afraid he might be our next president. Only you know what’s going through your own head, Dr. Kleiman.
However, I think it’s indisputable that from the perspective of anyone who cares about civil liberties, Rand Paul’s instincts with regard to the NSA are better (closer to Wyden and Udall’s) than President B. Obama’s. Presidents Bush and Obama have been bad for individual rights and good for the growth of a hypertrophic and unaccountable surveillance state.
Although I consider them far from perfect, I wish all Democrats were at least as strong on civil liberties as Sen. Wyden and Udall.
On the plus side, a Rand Paul presidency would provide a definitive answer to questions about God’s existence.
The Reality-Based Community