They're Here

[shockmonster]

There are quite a few on this fine forum who said for a long time that ISIS wasn't really a threat in America. This was in Syria, and Iraq but not here. Many backed Rand Paul who has not seen this threat coming (and avoids laws to combat terror here at home and overseas) and even Trump is slow to this party saying that we should let others combat what is happening in Syria. This has always been a cancer that has been spreading and people need to pull their heads out of the sand.

[DUShock]

They have been here all along and several of them are misguided natural born citizens.

[shockmonster]

Yes and Snowden, the ACLU, and Rand Paul have changed everything. We need to find new tools to fight terror.

[RoyalShock]

What does Rand Paul have to do with anything? Last I checked he is but one senator who is running for president. Why are you so fixated on him? He has little power to change anything in his current position, just a voice.

For the record, Paul is on my radar as a qualified candidate but for the past six months I have not necessarily agreed with him fully on foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But if you've been paying attention, he's also one who has been one of the most vocal about not letting more in via the Syrian refugee program.

[wufan]

Libertarians tend to be isolationists. Conceptually, I get it, but in practice it's a no go for me.

[shockmonster]

What does Rand Paul have to do with anything? Last I checked he is but one senator who is running for president. Why are you so fixated on him? He has little power to change anything in his current position, just a voice.

For the record, Paul is on my radar as a qualified candidate but for the past six months I have not necessarily agreed with him fully on foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But if you've been paying attention, he's also one who has been one of the most vocal about not letting more in via the Syrian refugee program.

He refused to find a compromise with the Patriot Act to reform the data collection that NSA was doing.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/05/27/christie-paul-snowden-patriot-act/

[shockmonster]

He refused to find a compromise with the Patriot Act to reform the data collection that NSA was doing.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/...n-patriot-act/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-21/edward-snowden-praises-rand-paul-s-anti-patriot-act-filibuster-

I don't disagree with Rand Paul on everything and he has modified some of his views as he has run for President.

[Play Angry]

Ehhh....just because you believe the NSA overreaches on its monitoring does not mean you have a "head in the sand" mentality vis a vis threats posed by terrorists.

It is a balancing test, and it's often difficult to achieve the right measure of preserving individual liberties vs. curtailing those liberties in the interest of security. I think it's a lot more nuanced than many on either side like to admit.

[RoyalShock]

He refused to find a compromise with the Patriot Act to reform the data collection that NSA was doing.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/...n-patriot-act/

You said Rand Paul (and others) changed everything. Please point out where that article says he changed anything.

I really fail to understand why people are so willing to give up their protections in the Constitution. I talked to a woman at work last week who said she wouldn't mind if the NSA listened to all her phone conversations in order to keep us safe. I was flabbergasted. How do you respond to something like that?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

You said Rand Paul (and others) changed everything. Please point out where that article says he changed anything.

I really fail to understand why people are so willing to give up their protections in the Constitution. I talked to a woman at work last week who said she wouldn't mind if the NSA listened to all her phone conversations in order to keep us safe. I was flabbergasted. How do you respond to something like that?

"well if you don't have nothing to hide" is probably the most given answer. Which is bullshit. I too will never understand that.

[Kung Wu]

"I’m not particularly interested in the eighteenth century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the eighteenth century can guide our behavior today, because the people in the eighteenth century could not foresee any of the problems of the twenty-first century."

- Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (who I might add swore to uphold the Constitution)

[RoyalShock]

"I’m not particularly interested in the eighteenth century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the eighteenth century can guide our behavior today, because the people in the eighteenth century could not foresee any of the problems of the twenty-first century."

- Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (who I might add swore to uphold the Constitution)

Someone should let him know about the amendment process designed in the 18th century to address such things.

[Kung Wu]

Someone should let him know about the amendment process designed in the 18th century to address such things.

He's not particularly interested in that.

[ShockTalk]

"I’m not particularly interested in the eighteenth century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the eighteenth century can guide our behavior today, because the people in the eighteenth century could not foresee any of the problems of the twenty-first century."

- Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (who I might add swore to uphold the Constitution)

Just one word: Ass.

[RoyalShock]

He's not particularly interested in that.

Not when he can legislate from the bench.