Rand Paul's Latest Speech About the PATRIOT Act: "Do we really want that kind of all-encompassing government?"

Here is the man who Matthew Yglesias thinks is a "lunatic," and who David Frum thinks is analogous to Lyndon Larouche, trying earlier this week to defend the 4th Amendment against Washington's worthless bipartisan political class:

Mike Riggs has been tracking Paul's uphill battle against the PATRIOT Act this week, and will be updating soon. Reason on Rand Paul here, and on the PATRIOT Act here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    But- lunch counters!

    ...and stuff!

  • T||

    Matthew Yglesias thinks

    I need some evidence for this.

  • ||

    I'm going to go ahead and say that Matthew Yglesias and David Frum together fairly represent "Washington's worthless bipartisan political class."

  • ||

    Dudes got more hot air than the Iceland Volcano I think.

    www.total-anonymity.eu.tc

  • OO||

    commerce clause says yes! to ron paul

  • ||

    Fourth Amendment? That train has left the station, and is rapidly gaining speed.

    Wave Bye-bye.

  • Sudden||

    You know who else used trains to get rid of undesirable things?

  • Solanum||

    Dianne Feinstein on Paul's plan to delay the Patriot Act's extension:

    “I think it would be a huge mistake,” Feinstein told reporters. “If somebody wants to take on their shoulders not having provisions in place which are necessary to protect the United States at this time, that’s a big, big weight to bear.”

    But, but Team Blue is so much better on civil liberties! Right, joe? Tony?

  • ||

    [crickets]

  • Tony and joe||

    We are principled people. We just prioritize party over principle.

  • Joe R.||

    Silly Solanum, civil liberties only count when they are being given to blacks and homosexuals, and being paid for by straight white males.

  • cynical||

    I've said it before. Leftists are civil egalitarians, not civil libertarians. As long as everyone is equally oppressed, they're happy.

  • Colin||

    Couldn't he at least comb his hair beforehand?

    Maybe that's why Yglesias think he's a lunatic.

  • a||

    You, Colin are what is wrong with America. No, not people like you. You. You watch your rulers on television and admire their pretty hair. You deserve the manacles you will soon be wearing.

  • Maddow||

    Maybe you haven't heard, but he hates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

  • a||

    I heard that he employs slaves in his opthamology practice to perform eye surgery.

  • a||

    op*h*thalmology. my spelling slave got it wrong.

  • jay||

    Maybe you haven't heard but that old ammo is getting old. Someone who stands up to the patriot act is clearly not a bigot. I wonder what that means for Obama and Reid...

  • Maddow||

    But he ENABLES bigots by protecting their property rights!

  • ||

    Yep, just like he enables terrorists by protecting their Fourth Amendment rights.

    Not that the people you're lampooning who see the wrongness with the one statement will understand that the second is the same.

  • Matthew Yglesias||

    Rand Paul's right about the PATRIOT Act. It's too bad that his opposition stems from a lunatic ideology that also leads him to oppose the Civil Rights Act. But he's doing good work on this issue and I don't understand why Matt Welch is pretending I disagree with him about it.

  • TDR||

    Nobody is "pretending" anything. The reason for contempt is simple: You go on acting like Paul's "good work" is an aberration and you keep defending Team Blue despite the fact that they stand for nothing that any decent American stands for.

  • T||

    You're not in any position to talk smack about 'lunatic ideologies', progressive.

  • prolefeed||

    Well, no, Rand Paul supports property rights, which includes the right to decide who you allow on your private property. And, while some odious people might want to sell stuff only to people with pale skin, it takes an odious ideology like progressivism to say that government must intervene there, must trample all over the right to be free (which of necessity includes the right to be a jerk), instead of letting private boycotts drive the bigots out of business.

  • marlok||

    Name-calling followed by a dishonest representation of Paul's position on the CRA.
    Go troll elsewhere.

  • What he said||

    Matt have you considered burning some processing time listening to Pauls rationale?

    I'm an idiot and I don't agree with Paul on many things but even I can understand that he has a valid cogent reason for believing as he does.

    You come off as a self centered bigot in these parts.

  • What he said||

    By matt I mean Iglesias not welch.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement