Big mistake IMO

Big mistake IMO

 

That clinches it, then. I'm with the Senator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find humorous is some of the same ones that want the Patriot Act scrapped defend the ACA and it's overreaching and intrusive provisions to the end.

? Not on this site.

? Not on this site.

 

 

:stop: I am for scrapping the Patriot act, yet defend ACA.

What I find humorous is some of the same ones that want the Patriot Act scrapped defend the ACA and it's overreaching and intrusive provisions to the end.

 

And those that want the Partriot Act are the same ones that want the ACA scrapped.

 

Then there are the rare few of us, the ones that are right, that want both done away with.

Those that don't want the Patriot Act seem to be against one provision in the law. To scrap the entire law, they are throwing to baby out with the bath water. The law provides for much more that the data mining.

 

What I find humorous is some of the same ones that want the Patriot Act scrapped defend the ACA and it's overreaching and intrusive provisions to the end.

 

I think you will not find any defense of the ACA from me here.

 

My stance on that is that it is a form of feudalism that forces the surfs to pay a ransom to the king for protection. But that is another thread.

 

Government has plenty of tools to fight terrorism without blanket collection of data on its own citizens without warrants and due process. As stated - enforcing immigraion and border control and ejecting foreign nationals when their visas expire is the primary set of tools. But that would force them to deal with the overall breakdown of controlling immigration in general and they simply do not want to do that. So the alternative is to treat everyone as a suspect even if it leads to potential and real abuses of such massive power.

:stop: I am for scrapping the Patriot act, yet defend ACA.

 

Which means you are OK with the overreaching, intrusive acts of the ACA. Slightly double standard I would say.

I think you will not find any defense of the ACA from me here.

 

My stance on that is that it is a form of feudalism that forces the surfs to pay a ransom to the king for protection. But that is another thread.

 

Government has plenty of tools to fight terrorism without blanket collection of data on its own citizens without warrants and due process. As stated - enforcing immigraion and border control and ejecting foreign nationals when their visas expire is the primary set of tools. But that would force them to deal with the overall breakdown of controlling immigration in general and they simply do not want to do that. So the alternative is to treat everyone as a suspect even if it leads to potential and real abuses of such massive power.

 

Did you realize that border control is one of the aspects of the Patriot Act?

Which means you are OK with the overreaching, intrusive acts of the ACA. Slightly double standard I would say.

 

I don't see ensuring that our country's citizens are afforded access to healthcare they can afford as intrusive.

 

AND...I have changed my position on the Patriot Act from where I stood in the beginning. I was a "if you have nothing to hide..." person before. Over time, and with the way it evolved, I changed.

 

Who knows...maybe someday I'll feel differently about ACA. But not at this time. As I see more people I personally know benefit from ACA, I only continue to be more firm in my support.

Did you realize that border control is one of the aspects of the Patriot Act?

 

There was border patrol before the Patriot Act.

Did you realize that border control is one of the aspects of the Patriot Act?

 

Well....its not working....

 

Not unlike some of the features of ACA, that make people like it while ignoring its devastating overall impact, there are some good things in the PA that do not trample rights. That is why there was an alternative bill that overwhelmingly preserved the majority of the PA features while eliminating the phone record collection. That bill was overwhelmingly and bi-partisaningly (is that real word?) passed in the house. Now granted, Paul did not support even that and its the Senate that is the one in diss-array. Out Kentucky Senators look pretty bad, as does the Administration for not getting this all settled before this weekend.

I don't see ensuring that our country's citizens are afforded access to healthcare they can afford as intrusive.

 

AND...I have changed my position on the Patriot Act from where I stood in the beginning. I was a "if you have nothing to hide..." person before. Over time, and with the way it evolved, I changed.

 

Who knows...maybe someday I'll feel differently about ACA. But not at this time. As I see more people I personally know benefit from ACA, I only continue to be more firm in my support.

 

It's intrusive when I am forced to pay for someone else's.

 

I don't think ensuring all citizens safety through the Patriot Act is intrusive.

Well....its not working....

 

Not unlike some of the features of ACA, that make people like it while ignoring its devastating overall impact, there are some good things in the PA that do not trample rights. That is why there was an alternative bill that overwhelmingly preserved the majority of the PA features while eliminating the phone record collection. That bill was overwhelmingly and bi-partisaningly (is that real word?) passed in the house. Now granted, Paul did not support even that and its the Senate that is the one in diss-array. Out Kentucky Senators look pretty bad, as does the Administration for not getting this all settled before this weekend.

 

Paul is merely campaigning for 2016 with this grandstanding.

 

I don't think ensuring all citizens safety through the Patriot Act is intrusive.

 

How in the world do you figure that? Invading someone's privacy and gaining access to their personal records and information is about as intrusive an action as you can get.

 

Being against the ACA and for the Patriot Act is every bit as much of a double standard and hypocritical as vice versa.

Paul is merely campaigning for 2016 with this grandstanding.

 

Wrong. Paul has been against this long before there was every any thought of a White House run.