Happening NOW: Rand Paul has been holding the Senate floor to keep them from passing the Patriot Act

page: 4
209
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Why are you lying, when to OP was correct? You looked up the wrong info, which was the vote record for an earlier bill.
Current news


Reid put the legislation in a House message received by the Senate after the chamber voted 74-13 to table the bill. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada joined 10 senators who caucus with the Democrats to vote against the motion. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted present.


And your math stinks, how can over a hunder Senators vote "no"? There aren't even that many people in the Senate. You posted results from a House vote from February and are passing it off as current event to discredit the OP and the Paul's by association.
Fail.
edit on 25-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
And what is Ron Paul's amendment.



Burden-Shifting Suspicious Activity Report Amendment: Requires law enforcement to initiate requests for suspicious activity reports (SARs). Shifts the burden for generating suspicious activity reports to law enforcement, requiring FBI/other law enforcement to initiate requests for SARs, rather than requiring financial institutions to automatically generate these reports.


I guess if you want to hide your money in off shore accounts or do some shady dealings with large sums of money you will like Ron's amendment.


Or, if you ever do a wire transfer over $5,000 to pay off a credit card. So basically anyone who is a millionaire is going to be considered highly suspicious by the set standards.



“Good Faith Standard” Suspicious Activity Report Amendment: This amendment would implement a reform that was previously proposed by the Financial Services Roundtable. This reform will help reduce the high number of “defensive filings” submitted by financial institutions due to their fear of being penalized for failure to file a suspicious activity report (SAR). It codifies a “good faith standard” to ensure that if a financial institution has established a SAR decision-making process, has followed existing policies, procedures, and processes, and determines not to file a SAR, the bank or credit union would not be penalized for its failure to file the SAR unless the failure was accompanied by evidence of bad faith.

And the banks will love this part when they don't have to tell on shady business and can't get in trouble for it.

Rememver Bank of America and all the drug money from South America. No problem after this bill. Thanks Ron and Rand.

Exactly. The patriot act has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. It is used to wage a war on drugs that kills tens of thousands of lives. If all drugs were legalized, we all damn well know the number of people destroyed due to drugs them self would be a tiny fraction of that. Go on and celebrate your holy war on drugs all you want, but your process of taking away people's personal choices and expanding the nanny state to baby us adults along destroys lives and results in over ten thousand deaths per year across the globe.

Rand Paul introduced several amendments. You seem to have picked and chosen one single one of the multiple amendments you most disagree with and then chosen that as grounds to trash the whole package. I'm glad the overwhelming majority of people on this thread are very positive and happy about Rand Paul's huge accomplishment with the "patriot" act.
edit on 25-5-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The sad thing is this something that should have happened long before Obama came into office.

When the Patriot Act was first conceived all those years ago, I literally cringed at the mere thought of our civil rights and liberties being chiseled away. Now we're here nearly a decade later still trying to get this mess rescinded.
edit on 5/25/2011 by maria_stardust because: can't spell


It's because we do not march, enmass, upon the Congress and DEMAND their resignations for TREASON and other crimes that we should be filing charges against them for and putting their sorry arses in jail and then going after the Federal Reserve board and others, WE need to clean house, no one is going to do it for US.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by JBA2848
And what is Ron Paul's amendment.



Burden-Shifting Suspicious Activity Report Amendment: Requires law enforcement to initiate requests for suspicious activity reports (SARs). Shifts the burden for generating suspicious activity reports to law enforcement, requiring FBI/other law enforcement to initiate requests for SARs, rather than requiring financial institutions to automatically generate these reports.


I guess if you want to hide your money in off shore accounts or do some shady dealings with large sums of money you will like Ron's amendment.


Or, if you ever do a wire transfer over $5,000 to pay off a credit card. So basically anyone who is a millionaire is going to be considered highly suspicious by the set standards.



“Good Faith Standard” Suspicious Activity Report Amendment: This amendment would implement a reform that was previously proposed by the Financial Services Roundtable. This reform will help reduce the high number of “defensive filings” submitted by financial institutions due to their fear of being penalized for failure to file a suspicious activity report (SAR). It codifies a “good faith standard” to ensure that if a financial institution has established a SAR decision-making process, has followed existing policies, procedures, and processes, and determines not to file a SAR, the bank or credit union would not be penalized for its failure to file the SAR unless the failure was accompanied by evidence of bad faith.

And the banks will love this part when they don't have to tell on shady business and can't get in trouble for it.

Rememver Bank of America and all the drug money from South America. No problem after this bill. Thanks Ron and Rand.

Exactly. The patriot act has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. It is used to wage a war on drugs that kills tens of thousands of lives. If all drugs were legalized, we all damn well know the number of people destroyed due to drugs them self would be a tiny fraction of that. Go on and celebrate your holy war on drugs all you want, but your process of taking away people's personal choices and expanding the nanny state to baby us adults along destroys lives and results in over ten thousand deaths per year across the globe.

Rand Paul introduced several amendments. You seem to have picked and chosen one single one of the multiple amendments you most disagree with and then chosen that as grounds to trash the whole package. I'm glad the overwhelming majority of people on this thread are very positive and happy about Rand Paul's huge accomplishment with the "patriot" act.
edit on 25-5-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)


It was used to wage a war on drugs? are you really really positivity sure it was used to wage war on "drugs"? I really think you should read up on whats the USA Patriot Act of 2001... www.google.com is your friend buddy



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MilzGatez
It was used to wage a war on drugs? are you really really positivity sure it was used to wage war on "drugs"? I really think you should read up on whats the USA Patriot Act of 2001... www.google.com is your friend buddy


Ok, first web search result for "patriot act leads to drug busts":
seattletimes.nwsource.com...

I would guess that isn't simply the needle in the haystack.

I don't get why you throw so much support to Google. They are not the only search provider out there you know.
edit on 25-5-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Pha3drus
 

These are sad times for the American people when we have so many politicians in Washington but only a handful of them will stand up and fight for what is really wanted by the people they supposedly represent! How different the world would be if the politicians elected to office actually DID what the people elected them to do!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I think Rand Poul's approach to governing is an absolute, and utter, disaster and mistake .... but this I applaude wholeheartedly.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DOUGH3914
I just called both of my senators and left some long messages! Thx for the heads up


Applause and star for you for taking positive action. That's what needs to happen. Too many people come here to complain but do absolutely nothing.

If I could give you 100 stars I would.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The sad thing is this something that should have happened long before Obama came into office.

When the Patriot Act was first conceived all those years ago, I literally cringed at the mere thought of our civil rights and liberties being chiseled away. Now we're here nearly a decade later still trying to get this mess rescinded.
edit on 5/25/2011 by maria_stardust because: can't spell


It's because we do not march, enmass, upon the Congress and DEMAND their resignations for TREASON and other crimes that we should be filing charges against them for and putting their sorry arses in jail and then going after the Federal Reserve board and others, WE need to clean house, no one is going to do it for US.


HA! I agree 100% with that, if something like this ever gets organized and somebody can offer me a ride to the march I'll be there! That is exactly what needs to be done, at least as a start



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Thank You, I called Sen. Reid's office but I do not think they wanted to hear what I said about PATRIOTS. Senator Paul's office at least said thanks. Nice to see someone is still standing up in the senate. Good Post. To think I had to vote for Reid to make sure Angle did not get in!!!!!!!!!! Scary.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Rand takes a better than nothing action on this issue. That's alright, but he has a long history of pro-corporate stances that should not be ignored. As I see it, the kabuki dance continues. All we have in government are demagogues, charlatans and the people that applaud their criminality. Let go of the republicrat team sport mentality. They are playing good cop bad cop with us while the main agenda goes through unoppossed. What has the federal government done for YOU that makes up for the lost liberties and the horribly long list of taxes that we are fleeced with? We are not republicans or democrats. We are human beings that do not deserve this # any longer!
edit on 25-5-2011 by Snoopy1978 because: It is my will.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
If we actually had a Judicial Branch in our Federal Government they would have ruled the Patriot Act illegal the second after it was passed.


The sole purpose of the "Patriot Act" is to protect those that truly run America.

If the Patriot Act was intended to protect America maybe they would have found those 12 million illegals who got mortgages post-the 2005 decision to start giving them mortgages. Those illegals bought and sold homes between themselves then fled america with Trillions. Never to be seen again.

Or what about the year 2000 brilliant idea to start letting illegals getting new auto loans? Only a little money down and a utility bill and they got a shiny new SUV...then fled south of the border never to pay for it. They hocked them all south of the border for whatever they could get.

We've been conned out of the National Wealth of the nation. The "Patriot Act" is only there to protect the elite from us lowly peasants who realized their scams



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It's all theater, just like Donald Trump and the BC issue. Notice how he went away and never followed through after the fraudulent BC was released? He created the build-up then the BS BC was released and then he went away. That was all staged to take the focus off the BC issue.

This too is nothing but a ruse and I can guarantee you the PATRIOT act will be renewed. I PROMISE. Our country isn't governed...it's dictated. Any semblance of being a limited republic is an illusion.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Rand Paul quoting Ayn Rand.


How long before Rand Paul and Ron Paul are quoting from this book by Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand – THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS
marsexxx.com...
Kind of goes along with the Republicans new idea of take from the middle and lower class and reward the rich. They think the rich have the right to be Selfish and if others lose out its just because they were not good enough.

And how about Ron Paul saying how much he liked her. He says her book is number two in the world? Maybe in Ron and Rand's eyes.



And how about Glenn Beck using her book as a reference to how big a bill is.


www.atlassociety.org...



Objectivism is the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand (1905–1982), the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, and other works. It is a philosophy of reason, individualism, respect for achievement, and freedom.


And don't forget she thinks religion is whats wrong with America and the Conservatives.


But I guess thats just the Russian in her. She hated growing up in Russia but she just can't give it all up.
That sounds familiar. Who else Started in Russia but says they hate Russia but can't give up the ideas they learned there?

Orly Taitz queen of the birthers.
Fred C. Koch founder of Koch Industries.

And Atlas Shrugged the mind control trailer.



Read some of the stuff about Objectivists who follow her teachings.

en.wikipedia.org...(Ayn_Rand)



Based on their political philosophy, Objectivists do not consistently follow typical "conservative" and "liberal" political positions. Rand advocated the right to legal abortion.[82] She opposed involuntary military conscription (the "draft")[83] and any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornography.[84] Rand opposed racism, and any legal application of racism, and she considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[85] As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed "the best kindergarten of communism possible."[86] More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights.[87] Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives,[88] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[89] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[90] Objectivists have opposed the environmentalist movement as being hostile to technology and, therefore, to humanity itself.[91] Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws,[92] public education,[93] and child labor laws.[94]


"oppose public education"

And here is another part that is confusing. But is the same ideas that Ron Paul has and promotes.

en.wikipedia.org...:_The_Unknown_Ideal



Rand applies her philosophy of Objectivism to the subject of politics. When Rand talks of capitalism, she means laissez-faire capitalism, in which there is a complete separation of state and economics "in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state." Rand says, "Objectivists are not 'conservatives'. We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish."

Rand says that most people do not know what capitalism is, which is why it is "the unknown ideal."

[edit] What is capitalism?As understood by Rand, capitalism is the system that emerges among a group of free individuals, each applying time and reason to sustain his or her own life, each the owner of the means to do so, freely trading among themselves.

Rand regarded a mixed economy as a dangerous and unstable combination of freedom and controls which tends to develop into ever increasing statism.

[edit] Reason and valuesRand held capitalism to be the only moral social system, that is, one consistent with an objective theory of value and ethical individualism. The creation of wealth, according to Rand, is a fusion of mind and matter, and she argued that reason is the most fundamental tool of survival for human beings. However, rational thought is rendered inoperative under conditions of compulsion, coercion or, as she puts it, the initiation of physical force. Whether it is the force of an armed robber or the force of a law, an actor's own judgment is rendered irrelevant to his actions by a threat of force, compelling him to act on the judgment or will of another, thus neutralizing the source of wealth and survival itself. Only voluntary trade can ensure that human interaction is mutually beneficial, and an analysis of history shows that only economic and political freedom has worked to create significant growth and economic development, precisely by liberating the rational faculties of ever wider numbers of individuals, according to Rand.

[edit] Individual rightsIn its most basic form, the right to life (as understood by Rand) is the right of each human to do any and all activities necessary to sustain his or her own life. Rand further argued that one's selfish interests can never rationally entail the use of physical force or violence against the person or the property of another. Rand saw humans as thriving only as independent beings, reason being a faculty of the individual, with each freely expending his own time, effort and reason to sustain his own life.

Rand suggested that through the division of labor, specialization and voluntary trade, other people are of enormous value to an individual. Moreover, knowledge, skills and interests vary from human to human. One person may be better at shaping flint into arrowheads, another may have acquired the skill to turn mud into pottery. If the first wants a pot to cook in, he may trade an arrowhead for a pot. The central feature of free trade is that each participant judges that he or she has gained from the transaction.

When physical force is banned, according to Rand, persuasion alone can organize or coordinate human activity, and, consequently, the use of reason is both liberated and rewarded. The technological innovation which characterizes capitalist systems is thus directly related to conditions of economic freedom. A producer profits and becomes wealthy only by satisfying the voluntary choices of other market participants and in direct proportion to the value those participants find in transactions with that producer.

In this way, individuals who themselves could have never invented, for example, the light bulb or the steam engine can none the less benefit from the creativity of others – but this can be only ensured when both the innovator and the consumer are free to refuse the proposed trade. This, according to Rand, is the mechanism behind America's rapid economic development, its liberation of human reason.

Freedom being the primary condition for the practical use of reason, the role of government in protecting individual rights is therefore fundamental, according to Rand, and it is equally fundamental that the government itself be limited to its role of protecting rights, for only by rendering all human interaction voluntary, i.e., free from the initiated coercion of criminals and laws, can the market operate to radically improve the lives of everyone. To the extent that it has been permitted to operate, this is what a free market has done, argued Rand.

Thus, she held, "a free mind and a free market are corollaries."



But how do you say pure capitalism is the way to go where every thing will be perfect. No cops to rule over you and no criminals to steal from you. How does that work? Capitalism will make crime disappear some how? And the barter and trade thing does not seem to really work unless your dirt poor and living off the land. Tradeing a home made arrow head for a clay pot that you made. Ok I guess that works. But what guy builds a car for me to trade a clay pot to him. He has to need a clay pot for something. Or who builds a computer in a neanderthal way of life. Except that way of thinking does work if you go back to the 1400's or earlier where you had the royal kings and knights and Lords of the land. And all the rst are just peasants who mean nothing and deserve nothing. Let them eat cake I tell ya.

I guess the problem is Ayn Rand/Ron Paul/Rand Paul have a thought of a Utopia if they can just get rid of everything. And they get this idea from Ayn Rand's fiction novels. Reminds me of Scientology based on L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer.

And how about that funeral for Ayn Rand.
en.wikipedia.org...


Rand's funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan. A six-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.[85] In her will, Rand named Leonard Peikoff the heir to her estate.


And what about this guy Leonard Peikoff.
en.wikipedia.org...



Peikoff's supports laissez-faire capitalism, arguing that the role of government in society should be limited to minarchist conceptions of protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud. He opposes taxation, public education, welfare, business regulations, etc. He also opposes laws regulating pornography, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. He is a supporter of abortion rights but criticizes defenders of abortion who label themselves "pro-choice", arguing that the term ignores the deeper philosophical issues involved.[24]

He also continues Rand's opposition to libertarianism, remaining sharply opposed to any description of Objectivist political philosophy as "libertarian" and to any collaboration with most libertarian groups. He has been critical of American foreign policy, including both neoconservative and libertarian views as self-sacrificial. He objects to the terms "isolationist" or "interventionist" to describe his foreign policy views, stating that the only "intervention" the United States should enact is war and "only and when it is in self-defense."[25]


"He opposes taxation, public education, welfare, business regulations, etc. He also opposes laws regulating pornography, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc."
So he wants no more schools? No more Social Security or Medicare? No more laws protecting people from businesses like the Gulf oil spill? Nuclear power plant in Japan three mile island. Just let them eat cake I tell ya!!!

And how about the Koch Brothers and there pushing of Ayn Rand.
www.thefinaledition.com...



The David and Charles Koch Spring Festival at Lincoln Center got off to a glittering start last night with the world premiere of Pendleton Dottard’s “Hayek” at the Metropolitan Opera and the American premiere of Ignatz Graustark’s “Atlas Shrugged,” danced by the New York City Ballet. (See reviews by Thomas Anthonissini and Sylphide LaTippito)




“I want to thank you all for coming,” Mr. Koch told the appreciative crowd at the gala last night. “My brother Charles wanted to be here but he’s in Washington planting a bomb under IRS headquarters.” The audience chuckled but Mr. Koch looked puzzled. “Why are you laughing?” he said. “I didn’t make a joke.”


Is this what the Universities that take money from the Koch Brothers have to look forward to?

www.thefinaledition.com...



David Koch's Scintillating Ballet Based On Work Of Ayn Rand Draws Plaudits


Seems they bring you things Russian and Communist and say its not Russian and Communist its new and improved.
edit on 25-5-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The sad thing is this something that should have happened long before Obama came into office.

When the Patriot Act was first conceived all those years ago, I literally cringed at the mere thought of our civil rights and liberties being chiseled away. Now we're here nearly a decade later still trying to get this mess rescinded.
edit on 5/25/2011 by maria_stardust because: can't spell


The paid off puppets in the house and senate are not about to go
against what their puppet masters want.

Hillary has clearly said who is really in charge.



For those who do not know it, the CFR is not part of the government is a Rockefeller org.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


whatever. this big rant is all over the place and seems to be more of an attack on the author An Rand than a debate about the OP's post. you should move it to the rant section where it belongs.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Tonosama because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Burn the books! *rabble* *rabble* *rabble*


I think your problem is with Ayn Rand's philosophy but the 'argument' you've made against it is all over the place. I say; Good for Mr. Paul.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Here come the disinfo agents. You clearly misrepresent/distort Paul's ideology and positions. I wonder your relation to the new Director of Progressive Media and Online Response position is.

White House Adds New Position to Deal with Unfavorable Online Media



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Is this still going on?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


Why are you lying, when to OP was correct? You looked up the wrong info, which was the vote record for an earlier bill.
Current news


Reid put the legislation in a House message received by the Senate after the chamber voted 74-13 to table the bill. Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah and Dean Heller of Nevada joined 10 senators who caucus with the Democrats to vote against the motion. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted present.


And your math stinks, how can over a hunder Senators vote "no"? There aren't even that many people in the Senate. You posted results from a House vote from February and are passing it off as current event to discredit the OP and the Paul's by association.
Fail.
edit on 25-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)


That WAS the last vote!!! The current one you are talking about HASN"T TAKEN PLACE YET...if you had read a little bit farther in the link you yourself gave me you would've found "The Senate is scheduled to vote on the motion to inboke cloture on the motion to concur with the House message by Thursday morning. " What day is it today?.....oh thats right....its WEDNESDAY ,,,,and the OP never said SENATE.....what is going on IS the SENATE.....What happened in February was the HOUSE vote....The OP couldn't be telling us that only 5 Democrats voted in the vote COMING UP ON THURSDAY....now could he?.....so.......he was probably talking about the one in FEBRUARY......If there was some other vote then let me know...and tell me how many Republicans voted no too....just in case there was a third vote that somehow happened It really doesn't mean much if you only give one side of the story...and by and large the Democrats have been FAR LESS in favor of the Patriot BIll than the Republicans in every vote I can find...so if you can find one different feel free to share! ...



new topics
top topics
 
209
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join