he has held both positions on a most important and significant issue
False. Rather, you cannot see past sound bites fed to you and fail to distinguish between subtle positions. "Non-interventionism" is not the same as "isolationism".
in case you aren't paying attention, he stood up and did this because he is running for president
That's pretty disingenuous, without merit, and without relevance. Paul has opposed these types of government intrusion and civil rights violations for a long time, long before he even entered politics. A passionate dislike for excessive government surveillance is just as likely a motivation for this as your biased viewpoint of him.
he was there for several other occasions when the patriot act was being debated, he did not filibuster any of those times
You are a victim of media manipulation. Here's your sign.
we do care about those things
but when they come out of the mouth of a guy who says:
"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
then you really have to come to the conclusion that he says what he says in order to get press exposure, because clearly his remarks have no ground in "integrity" or "honesty" or anything like that
Why? Do you think he lied? Because I have heard of them, too. I've even heard of ones that didn't even survive. Why do you focus on that out-of-context quote instead of his entire point? Are there no issues with vaccines? Should the government be mandating 200 vaccine shots for every citizen, regardless of outcome, and regardless of the pharmaceutical company immunity from any liability, but retaining all the profits from government-supported funding? Do you distrust Rand Paul more than pharmaceutical companies? Because that's an easy choice for me.
“There’s 400 headlines now that say ‘Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders,'” he continued. “That’s not what I said. I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”
I've seen quite a bit of coverage including major political sites like DrudgeReport
"Drudge Report"? How about NewsMax and jbs.org? Did you see it on those major political sites, too? Maybe a major political site like bible-prophecy.com?
Every post you make surprises me by your further decent into abject ignorance. There are PODCASTS with larger audiences than MSNBC, dude. You should really look for other sources of news.
If he was serious about getting into the oval office and serious about his libertarian ideals, he'd run as an independent.
HAHAHAHA. Okay. I thought your post was serious until then, but you gave away the gag.
But if that attention does not lead to action it didn't accomplish anything in the end.
That applies to about 99.9% of every effort to change things in Washington for the better. But 1000 of those actions just might.
it's in quotes because he's the little boy who cries wolf and everybody has stopped paying attention to him
Yea, because nobody gives a crap if the government is collecting all your information, reading your email, and listening to your phone calls. If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about, right? Who cares about the 4th Amendment, it's all antiquated and stuff. We just want our Facebook and our smart phones and the GPS on our cars so Big Brother knows where we are. Silly, to make an issue of NSA's actions.
What is the reason for the scare quotes on "filibuster"? Rand Paul's filibuster was, in fact, a filibuster, unlike the fake filibusters we have been subjected to over the last 40-odd years when the threat of a filibuster became a de-facto one, but without anyone actually having to stand in the chamber and talk for as long as they could stand to be there - ala "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".
Are we so desensitized now by phony parliamentary maneuvers that don't actually require any effort on the part of our representatives that when someone actually follows the traditional route of discussion and debate and puts up a rhetorical fight we have to use scare quotes to distinguish it from the backroom posturing that normally goes on?
I'm going to be honest, the more I read this discussion, the move I'm thrown back to old "debates" between advocates of rear projection and plasma TVs, and LCDs, all bemoaning the rise of the latter against such superior technologies as a TV that can only be viewed from one angle (and then not all at the same time), or a TV that requires all 4:3 content be shown in stretch-o-vision to avoid temporary burn-in issues. "But LCDs have a tiny bit of light visible when they're supposed to be black!" screams the videophiles, apparently oblivious to the fact that normal people rarely watch TV in rooms with no ambient light.
The resistive screen they're describing is clearly inferior to capacitive when applied to real world applications. Nobody in their right mind uses their cellphone to "paint" pictures. But everyone uses it to dial numbers, browse websites, and other activities that require a finger, or two, rather than a stylus.
But, hey, for the 0.01% of users who do actually use their cellphones more as an easel than a phone, I guess it might be useful.
Who'd you side with? Your paying customer or some shady business that does nothing for you except cause you work without compensation?
1. Does touch work, or is a stylus in practice mandatory?
2. Does multi-touch work?
Know how to hack SBCs? Be reasonable. How many are simply going to toss a random answer in to win something?
If the NSA relies on that kind of junk for data collection, their information level is worse than I'd have expected. And I don't expect anything good from them.
Your jurisdiction, unlike the traffic of the internet, is limited to your own country. And the countries you control. Which is a lot, I give you that, but by no stretch whatsoever it's all.
Also: Money trumps laws. Twice so if corporations are involved. If $evil_bastard_country wants to throw money at whoever sells them $supersecret_technology, corporations will not obey your law, they will race against each other to find the loophole. Which usually ends in the tech involved being developed abroad by those suspicious foreigners and then sold to the $evil_bastard_country.
The net effect for the US of such a ban is a loss of jobs, loss of knowledge and most of all valuable IT security information in the hands of whatever foreign country was smart enough not to be as stupid as you are, putting shackles on your own ITSEC industry.
Yeah, it's "on the interne"... erh... wait, can I start over?