It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul voted against the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
www.senate.gov...

Sixty votes were needed for it to pass but it only received 58. Many thought Rand Paul was going to vote YEA so why didn't he? Surely he would be for any restrictions placed on Big Brother?

Sen. Paul Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act



Nov 18, 2014
Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension and offered the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”


I wish he got into the specifics of what exactly the key provisions are. The Patriot Act is alive and well and will continue to be so. Every time it's up for renewal everyone is in favor of it, except for Rand of course, so having this legislation not pass does it even matter since the PA shows no signs of going away?

I like Rand but I need more info about his decision yesterday to understand why he did it.

If he runs in 2016 I wonder if we'll see this being thrown around in the mud slinging?




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

So just to be clear, the no vote was a vote to extend it correct?
Cause if so how can he vote no and then give that little speech that is all about getting rid of it?
Or am I just missing something here



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

He won't cross his masters. I'm quite sure he wants the approval of the shadow government to be the GOP candidate. So he needs to behave until he gets vetted. Sure, he made up some BS about it not going far enough.

I'm pretty sure the controllers are nearly ready to abandon the theater of ying and yang presidential elections altogether. Please realize, they completely control the vote counting and generation of turnout statistics because of their intercept and surveillance of the internet backbone.

Having it all open up a huge national debate during the next POTUS cycle will be absolutely excruciating for them.

The first rule of the shadow government is that you don't discuss it. oops



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Apparently this legislation would have somehow extended portions of the Patriot Act. What exactly is still unclear but Paul is an avid opposer of the Patriot Act so it does make sense he would oppose anything that would somehow empower it.

But as seen already, the PA isn't going anywhere so voting this down did it really help America or hurt America, the people that is.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

I think the proposal didn't go far enough to be honest.


Best way to sort all this out is define exactly what a terrorist actually is under the law.

Next thing is to only allow NSA spying to be conducted ONLY on terrorists/ National security threats and hostile foreign governments and FORBID them to use there powers for normal LEO use.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Ok good deal, and ya the PA is here to stay, the emotion that got it passed will always be brought back up when it is in any sort of threat of getting thrown out.

I still find this strange because of how the party lines voted, I know it's all bs but they usually stick to their parts in the play.
All the R's were against extending portions of the PA?

I mean old man mcain is on there in the Nay list, seems to be Paul is doing some CYA for flip flopping.
edit on thWed, 19 Nov 2014 16:13:43 -0600America/Chicago1120144380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

I found this....


Nov 18, 2014


Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension and offered the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”


Source



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Rand agrees with you that it did not go far enough. So it didn't go far enough and also empowered the PA.

Does he have any legislation in the works to further oppose Big Brother, or no?
edit on 19-11-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

You didn't see that posted in the op?



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Politics is politics. What we are told and shown on the main stage can and will be completely different behind their closed doors.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: seeker1963

You didn't see that posted in the op?


It confused me to be honest......

I was like what? I was thinking in opposites for some reason.
edit on 19-11-2014 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

From what I've read the no vote was needed to kill the bill because it extended certain provision until 2017 and if not passed those provisions would need to be reintroduced into a new bill.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
www.senate.gov...

Sixty votes were needed for it to pass but it only received 58. Many thought Rand Paul was going to vote YEA so why didn't he? Surely he would be for any restrictions placed on Big Brother?

Sen. Paul Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act



Nov 18, 2014
Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension and offered the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”


I wish he got into the specifics of what exactly the key provisions are. The Patriot Act is alive and well and will continue to be so. Every time it's up for renewal everyone is in favor of it, except for Rand of course, so having this legislation not pass does it even matter since the PA shows no signs of going away?

I like Rand but I need more info about his decision yesterday to understand why he did it.

If he runs in 2016 I wonder if we'll see this being thrown around in the mud slinging?



I see stories many times where it says "so-in-so didn't vote for "X" bill when it is exactly what they supposedly stand for.
Something you need to understand about voting or passing a bill.

When a bill comes up for vote....lets say it's a bill to provide money for something that's really, really needed and someone who is really pro whatever the bill is votes it down and people can't understand why.

Lets say for arguments sake that money is very much needed for repairing the rainbow that arches over the white house. Everybody wants it, we need it and suddenly the guy is very Pro white house rainbow repair votes against it.

Your thinking WTH?!?!!? What was he thinking?!?!! Why did he flip flop???

Most likely because the 38,000 page bill included a basket of money for the rainbow repair.....AND money for this project and that project and this entitlement and that one and that senators pockets get lined and this one does too.

Your not voting against the initial repair but all the pork they stuffed into the bill. The rainbow repair was going to cost 2.3 million and now there is another 85 million in pork added to the bill so you have to vote against it.

I have always thought instead of bundling everything together to get crap passed in secret most the time that EVERY SINGLE bill should be submitted on it's own, no sticking 3-100 different things into one spotlighted bill.
edit on 19-11-2014 by mwood because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I'm not a Rand Paul fan by any stretch but the real problem here is tying the NSA reforms to Patriot Act provisions. How the fk are people supposed to tell their Reps and Senators to vote when the choice is between chains and chains?

1 issue per Bill is how it should be, no add-ons.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
That rotten UNCONSTITUTIONAL Patriot Act WILL get repealed if people like me have anything to say about it--and there are many of us!

I agree with the posters who are against these ridiculous, thousands-of-pages-long bills! DownsizeDC.org created the "One Subject at a Time Act". They are worth following , imo, and have many good ideas. The problem is getting enough people to demand these ideas get implemented.



posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Getting ready for when the bottom falls out. They know what's up. The tooled for it on the tax payers dime. I used to be optimistic but now I'm pessimistic. I see the machine getting ready to squeeze.

Massive D.U.M.B's

Militarized police

Freedoms in question

Big mergers

The Prophets of Doom.




posted on Nov, 19 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills
I don't know. I haven't kept track of this one, but if they have to use intentional imprecision and emotion-arrousing words to sell it to us, then it probably isn't very good. I bet the Freedom Act is about as freeing as the Patriot Act is patriotic. It may look pretty, but what is hidden within?



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I think Rand is Establishment.

Even his Dad has distanced himself from Rand's stances.

And remember Rand and Ron are different people, Rand would be much more easily scared of threats considering his age.

Rand is just another distraction.



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
I'm not a Rand Paul fan by any stretch but the real problem here is tying the NSA reforms to Patriot Act provisions. How the fk are people supposed to tell their Reps and Senators to vote when the choice is between chains and chains?

1 issue per Bill is how it should be, no add-ons.


While that's nice in theory it doesn't really work in practice. The way congress works is that votes are bought by putting riders on legislation to give money, contracts, etc to constituents of whatever congressmans vote they want. These riders are for the most part ignored, but they're what makes local government work. Every few years the debate on earmarks comes up and that's what this is over.

If we removed those earmarks members of congress would strike deals to vote with each other, in exchange for voting on the local legislation as well. Except that far fewer would be in support of the earmarks. Those extra issues on bills are what gets congress to vote for something. For the most part members of congress don't give a damn about federal issues, they're not even smart enough to understand them. They care about serving their area of the country and the best way to do that is to attach your own funding bills to legislation that you want to pass.

Democracy, particularly in a Republic is an ugly process.
edit on 20-11-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
"Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017."

Probably a good thing.
Has anybody seen the bill?
What exactly are the provisions they are trying to extend?

-that is the only relevant question at this point. The rest is partisan bs.

Ron Paul is a little old school, but I don't think he is a punk for the machine. imo
Rand I'm still on the fence about, he has a too good to be true vibe, but hopefully I'm wrong.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join