"Common sense in politics" has to mean stripping away the freedoms of the American people and turning us into a society where the NSA is for all intents and purposes the KGB? Sorry, but there's gotta be a better way than sacrificing what it means to be an American.

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

I will speak for you Papa!!!!

"Common sense in politics" has to mean stripping away the freedoms of the American people and turning us into a society where the NSA is for all intents and purposes the KGB? Sorry, but there's gotta be a better way than sacrificing what it means to be an American.

 

Your statement is disingenuous at best, not to mention melodramatic.

 

The NSA is not acting like the KGB. They are not reading your texts or listening to your phone calls. They could care less. They are looking for numbers to known terrorists being called on a repeated basis. They are not kicking down your doors and dragging you out in the street.

We can't let fear run our laws. That is what the Patriot Act is. I belive most the people who created this law had good intentions , just like Obama did with Obama care. But good intentions doesn't equal protecting freedom .

 

Rand Paul 2016

 

Fear does not run our laws. This law is a common sense law. Why let that get in the way of a little fear mongering though.

 

Again, this law has helped keep us safe for 14 years. I would call that common sense. It has not been judged to be un-constitutional.

 

Let's face it, Rand Paul is running for POTUS. He is just grandstanding and playing politics.

Fear does not run our laws. This law is a common sense law. Why let that get in the way of a little fear mongering though.

 

Again, this law has helped keep us safe for 14 years. I would call that common sense. It has not been judged to be un-constitutional.

 

Let's face it, Rand Paul is running for POTUS. He is just grandstanding and playing politics.

 

The Patriot Act is in direct violation of the the 4th ammendment. I'm just not in the camp of the end justifies the means when it comes to freedom.

 

The government has no right to mass collect Metta data or have the ability to search through all information on electronics with out a warrant. It's insane to me people don't care about personal freedoms.

I do find these debates funny though.

 

Liberals will call out conservatives for not being consistent on small government , which has some merit. But Liberals can't see that Conservatives use the same argument as they do on Obamacare.

 

The end justifies the means. Same argument , two different laws, and two different ideology.

 

I'm against both because when a decision needs to be made I try to land on the side of individual freedom.

I do find these debates funny though.

 

Liberals will call out conservatives for not being consistent on small government , which has some merit. But Liberals can't see that Conservatives use the same argument as they do on Obamacare.

 

The end justifies the means. Same argument , two different laws, and two different ideology.

 

I'm against both because when a decision needs to be made I try to land on the side of individual freedom.

 

In case you missed it, 3 of BGP's Looney Liberal club are standing WITH Sen. Paul on this one.

In case you missed it, 3 of BGP's Looney Liberal club are standing WITH Sen. Paul on this one.

 

Know I know what and I wasn't calling anyone looney. My point is liberals are on the side of freedom here and conservatives on Obamacare. All each side does is switch the exact same argument on the topics

Disagree with his efforts entirely.

 

The Patriot Act has help keep us safe for the last 14 years. Once again, ideology trumps common sense in politics.

 

This is the new debate. How much do we give up in the name of terrorism protection?

Know I know what and I wasn't calling anyone looney. My point is liberals are on the side of freedom here and conservatives on Obamacare. All each side does is switch the exact same argument on the topics

 

I think what is missed, is that in either case, no one is 100% aligned to a "party line". I like that. That means we (collectively) are looking at issues each on their own merit and making our own decisions. Much better than parroting party-speak.

Fear does not run our laws. This law is a common sense law. Why let that get in the way of a little fear mongering though.

 

Again, this law has helped keep us safe for 14 years. I would call that common sense. It has not been judged to be un-constitutional.

 

Let's face it, Rand Paul is running for POTUS. He is just grandstanding and playing politics.

 

The law hasn't prevented one single terror attack, so you're actually 100% incorrect. Even the FBI admitted so.

 

FBI admits Patriot Act snooping powers didn't crack any major terrorism cases - Washington Times

 

Also, I thought terrorists were killing us for our freedoms, no?

 

You want me to concede my privacy rights to the government so they can in return protect me from the terrorists who are wanting to kill me and rob me from my freedoms.

 

That's some whacky logic -- or lack thereof.

Edited May 31, 201511 yr by mcpapa

This is the new debate. How much do we give up in the name of terrorism protection?

 

That debate already happened in 1791.

 

The 4th amendment sets the balance between liberty and security. The politicians need to follow it, and voters need to do their job and vote those out who violate it.

The law hasn't prevented one single terror attack, so you're actually 100% incorrect. Even the FBI admitted so.

 

FBI admits Patriot Act snooping powers didn't crack any major terrorism cases - Washington Times

 

Also, I thought terrorists were killing us for our freedoms, no?

 

You want me to concede my privacy rights to the government so they can in return protect me from the terrorists who are wanting to kill me and rob me from my freedoms.

 

That's some whacky logic -- or lack thereof.

 

Irony at its finest.

The Patriot Act is in direct violation of the the 4th ammendment. I'm just not in the camp of the end justifies the means when it comes to freedom.

 

The government has no right to mass collect Metta data or have the ability to search through all information on electronics with out a warrant. It's insane to me people don't care about personal freedoms.

 

I don't recall the Patriot Act being declared un-constitutional by the SCOTUS.

 

I care about personal freedoms. I am also not in the "sky is falling" camp when it comes to the Patriot Act. It is insane to me that people want to get rid of a law that has helped keep us safe for 14 years.

The law hasn't prevented one single terror attack, so you're actually 100% incorrect. Even the FBI admitted so.

 

FBI admits Patriot Act snooping powers didn't crack any major terrorism cases - Washington Times

 

Also, I thought terrorists were killing us for our freedoms, no?

 

You want me to concede my privacy rights to the government so they can in return protect me from the terrorists who are wanting to kill me and rob me from my freedoms.

 

That's some whacky logic -- or lack thereof.

 

Again, show me where the SCOTUS has declared the Patriot Act un-constitutional.

 

And.......

 

Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots - The Washington Post

 

So, I guess I am not 100% incorrect.