It doesn't. However Rand is not a strict constitutionalist.

He advocates that inconsistently. He wants to obey the constitution when it fits his ends. Other times he doesn't give a damn about it. He is no less hypocritical on his interpretation of the constitution than most other politicians, he just makes a bigger deal about it and fewer people are willing to call him out on it. Being as slashdot in particular is overrun with members of Rand's father's cult, he has nearly a guaranteed friendly audience here.

Try reading the full constitution before attempting to lecture on its contents. Then go find an actual definition of fascism before pretending that Rand is not one. Then come back and we can try this discussion again.

Please rephrase your anger in the form of a question in written English so I can respond to it.

I have not seen a single proposal from them that moved decision making from the federal government to the states that would be able to enhance personal liberty across the board. I have seen plenty from each of them that would enhance liberty for the most elite economic echelon at the expense of the rest, but that again is only enhancing the power structure.

You could reach that conclusion only by not paying attention to anything they have proposed, ever.

Wow, look at you. Trying to be rational, and use definitions in a political discussion here on slashdot. You must be new here.

Wrong. Fascism does not require a bigger federal government, in fact a larger government is generally the opposite of fascism. Fascism requires more power in the hands of fewer people. There are many ways to de-centralize power - including growing the federal government. Centralizing power - such as aspiring to the "government you can drown in a bathtub" principle - is a giant step towards fascism.

And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.

Pretty much everything either of them have ever supported supports my statement of them being fascists - particularly if you use a definition of fascism that makes sense rather than just one that is used as a generic label and put-down for anyone who you disagree with.

Wow, I'm sorry I have insulted you to such a degree that you feel justified in using profanities.

I challenge you to think about the meaning of fascism, here. Fascism refers to the extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people. Indeed the Patriot Act could qualify along those lines, and I am no fan of it.

However, the Ron Paul cult has been champions of fascism for a long time. The cult has favored restructuring power in many ways to exclude many people. Rand Paul fighting the Patriot Act renewal is just window dressing to encourage people to not pay attention to their driving motivations.

"Revolution" was a term that was popular with the cult that Rand's father Ron ran for many years. The fact that we see it used here suggests that Rand is becoming even more popular with those cult members, some of whom felt Rand was drifting philosophically too far away from his father. In the end Rand Paul is just another fascist conservative running under the "libertarian" banner even though his notion of liberty is quite twisted.

The Patriot Act was in the end largely an expansion of existing government powers. This did not create the CIA, FBI, or NSA. They will still exist even if the Patriot Act is not extended at all, and they will still have a lot of power to spy on Americans. In the end, this is a great move of political posturing, but it doesn't really help us as much as a certain presidential candidate wants us to believe.

The Patriot Act didn't create surveillance from nothing. Much of what was in there was an expansion of what was being done before. There was plenty of awful and scary new shit in there, but the shit that came before it is what we get now and it wasn't that great either.

While there are certainly people who are running chrome on different unlinked devices, this measurement is probably still a lot more meaningful than when facebook says it has 12 billion users. Similarly, I'm not sure how meaningful the measurement of 900 million gmail accounts is; I have more than one myself.

... you might be doing it wrong.

If only google could install some competence in the people who approve the summaries here. Turning that around would be almost a miracle.

Every pool game I have ever played was played on what was essentially a two-dimensional surface.

We are constantly told that facebook is the greatest thing in the history of the universe, even though it doesn't actually make money. Why are we holding android to a different standard?

I'm not aware of anyone else who has had this problem but I haven't seen the pollbooth on the front page for a couple years now. When I'm logged in, I don't see it. If I'm in a new browser (and hence not logged in yet) I see it - but then it goes away when I log in. My settings are configured to show it and yet it never shows.

Now after having not seen the pollbooth for some time I see an irrelevant poll on the front page, posing as a story. WTF? I care about as much about the new Mad Max film as I do the color of Taco's socks. Is it good bad, or somewhere in between? I don't care.