Rand Paul: I'll filibuster the hell outta the Patriot Act, fellow Americans US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has said he will filibuster to prevent any renewal of the controversial Patriot Act, several provisions of which expire on 1 June. Among the most notable is the ability to create a legal basis for surveillance activities by the NSA. "We will be filibustering [and] we will be trying to stop it," …
Answer? Ignore the US and their demands and move Internet activities to a sovereign state that is not under US juridiction (easy) nor "in bed with the Americans" (harder; though with the EU laws on data privacy one could follow this up a lot better than the secret secrets nonsense on the US end).
The benefit here is that America is founded upon capitalist principles. Whining about what laws apply where will have little effect. Hitting their bottom line via a move out of US-involved operations? That might get noticed.
I think heyrick kinda said that when he mentioned the company 'bottom line'.
I got the impression he meant using non-us companies, not just getting them to open data 'centers' in europe.
Of course none of this actually stops the relevant nations from handing it over when asked as in the recent german debacle.
This post has been deleted by its author
Iceland is jumping on it at the moment: "free" geothermal, lots of cold in winter, plenty of otherwise unattractive real estate for satlinks and datacenters, good possibilities for cable landings, and a stable government that puts the "L" in Libertarian.
They've got a good shot at it, methinks.
"If it weren't for that pesky bloody great fault that is the meeting-place of two tectonic plates, Iceland would be perfect!"
I guess geography isn't your strong point? Meeting place, as in the tectonic plates are coming together there? Actually Iceland would be the ideal place if you wanted to expand your data centre, but only if your expansion plans were VERY long term.
Pretty sure he's not into getting rid of all it. Plenty of it I'm sure that his corporate backers are quite pleased with.
Given the lack of consensus to repeal it entirely, Sen. Paul would be branded a fool by everyone (not just his critics) for attempting your suggestion at the present moment.
I suggest that, if you have concerns about corporate backing of government officials, then you should start looking at those whose pockets are already quite well lined. In the grand scheme of things, Sen. Paul is quite poor compared to his colleagues.
> "And on the horizon, a Bush/Clinton presidential race..."
Somebody has been watching NBC again. My money says that neither of those two will get the nomination. Jeb has no support outside of his paid supporters and the old guard east coast Reps, and Hill is irrelevant to the typical voter, plus she has a very ugly record of service. Ain't gonna happen, regardless of how much money they have.
I hope you weren't being serious. If the dems nominate Bernie Sanders it'll be the Mondale/Dukakis days all over again where they fall in a landslide to any decent republican candidate and would lose even to an extremist like Scott Walker. Eastern liberals (worse a self described socialist in Bernie's case) do not have a chance in US elections, no matter how much liberal democrats may wish they did. It is the same extremist fantasy that keeps republicans talking about people like Palin or Walker.
The only viable alternative the democrats have is Elizabeth Warren, but it is unclear if she'll even run. Since it has been fait accompli that Hillary would win the nomination easily, there's been no attention on anyone else in the democrat ranks who might have otherwise been in the news and started to make a name for himself like previous unknowns like Rubio did for the republicans.
Hillary is almost certain to win the nomination, and the democrats have no one to blame but themselves for assuming that for so long that no one else wants to even challenge her. If the religious right sends an extremist against her, she'll win despite her baggage. If the republicans have some sense and go for someone the people in the vast middle ground of voters can relate to, they'll likely beat her.
Bernie is Hillary's trained monkey. He's practically on strings. Compared to him, she isn't quite so dreadful, and she can now quash all talk of 'coronations' later on by saying Bernie gave her a really tough fight. Meanwhile he's going really really easy on the 'attacks' he's essaying against her.
A tough fight indeed.
At the moment:
Martin "I setup the riots in Baltimore" O'Malley
Elizabeth "Liawatha" Warren
Joseph "Plugs" Biden
Although my money is on the sudden appearance of Jerry "Moobeam" Brown to save the party from its infighting. He'll bill it as "fresh from saving Kali" because they've announced a surplus on the budget.
Good man. This does run counter to the 'republicans' wanting to make the illegal actions legal. There are many shades in both the democrats and republicans, I just hope the democrats can convince a varied group to run as the republicans have. Otherwise there will be Hillary or one of many republicans.
Filibusters are used by the minority to stop the majority. If you look at something in hindsight, social progress is going to be held back by the minority before they no longer can, and eventually that minority becomes the majority.
It is easy to look at trying to stop integration in 1965 as "evil" from your seat in 2015. If you could look at what the fights will be over in 2065 you might find yourself on the side of the filibusterers, just like someone in 1965 would likely find themselves on the side of those trying to prevent gay marriage in 2015 (some of those who were alive in 1965 and against it then have changed their opinion, just as some who were against integration in 1915 changed their mind by 1965) "Evil" in the sense you use it is relative. Society evolves and changes, but not all at once.
Not being able to vote for him is not the only reason Rand Paul has no interest in the rest of the planet.
Some of his co-religionists think "Outside the USA" is somewhere near Canada.
Some of them think it is the sandy area where the terrorists live.
Perhaps there are even some who just do not believe in the existence of "Outside the USA" and think that those troops supposedly sent there are being used for some nefarious liberal purpose...
Rand Paul is not from the religious nutter wing of the republican party - though he has "adjusted" his views to be a bit more in alignment with them since it is unfortunately necessary to fool them into thinking he's on their side to win the republican nomination.
He supported defense cuts and greatly reducing the scope of foreign intervention. Not complete isolationism, but much closer to that than the current US strategy of "engagement". He's changed his tune on that recently - because it is necessary to placate the mostly war-monger conservative wing of the party that votes in primaries - but I don't think he'd lead that way if he was elected because it isn't what he truly believes in.
I think the rest of the world would much rather have him as President of the US than Hillary, whose foreign policy would be indistinguishable from that of Obama, whose foreign policy has been indistinguishable from that of Bush.
It's gotta be simply killing the supporters of both major parties that the one guy who, at least in this instance, is doing the right thing* by the American citizens... is the kind of guy who most supporters on both sides would openly mock.
* He's talking the talk, which isn't much but is still more than anyone else seems willing to do.
He's a big of a kook, but this mass surveillance issue is one of my key points of decision in backing a candidate, so it looks like I'll be sending Rand a contribution, and I normally stay away from politicians altogether. Hopefully Rand will at least make enough noise to get the Republicans to advocate scaling back state surveillance in their election platform.
(And its not like the other people running for Prez are monuments to stability and good judgment)
you mention Rand Paul "making enough noise". well it is interesting to note how mainstream U.S. news organizations are doing their best to starve his campaign of the oxygen of publicity. it's almost as if they think he will go away if they ignore him.
you can sense the entire political and business "establishment" (Democrat AND Republican) becoming increasingly unsettled by Paul and his rather fresh thinking on everything from marijuana to reigning in the military and stopping the insane militarization of the police.
This clown, shill, and third party wanabe is a joke! He has no plans to do anything but help the Libertarian movement create another party. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER PARTY! WE NEED TO END THE PARTY SYSTEM! He will get right in line once he's made his grandstand and the other two establishment's will provide cover. Its all a shell game. We need independent Conservatives with courage to stand and STOP these stupid bills from ever leaving committee. We need a George Washington to toss the whole table cloth and start over without parties.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
