So many liberal women are liberal simply because it's the default setting and the choice of those with the vague sense that liberalism is the ideology of compassion. "I'm caring and compassionate; therefore I'm a Democrat." Etc. 

My wife was "liberal" in this sense when we began dating, but it was clear she had conservative values even if she would've NEVER identified them as such at the time. I figured that in time -- with a soft touch on my part -- she'd likely share my politics. And now she does. (In fact she might be to my right.)

Plus she was hot.  :)   (And still is.).

So now we know Docjay's secret identity. Was this scene from earlier in the night, "Doc"?

The Arab Spring is demonstrating that in the Muslim world, their passions might very well always forge their fetters -- of one sort or another. Are the Iranians different? Hope so, but I'm just not sure.

Visit lots. The words will come, and quiet visits are fine too. Very sorry. One day at a time.

Fantastic, healing, feel-good post. Except that mac salad with high veggie content -- but no onions -- is far superior to potato salad of any sort.

Cute and spot on! -- because this Epstein guy has always been lukewarm on liberty.

I've offered plenty of argument and evidence. It's all I've been doing, at times in the face of much fact-free hysteria.Check my archive of the past couple days. And I'll add (only because you're so confrontational here) that I'm now enjoying sweet vindication as right-leaning legal scholar after right-leaning legal scholar concurs with me. Good night.

???

He neither said nor implied any such thing. He said only that they have a good track record for safeguarding, which they do, and he even allowed for the possibility of abuse despite the fine record: "None of us who defend the current program would remain indifferent to evidence of systematic invasions of privacy for private gain if they came to light." Etc.

Truly a well delivered line, Prawn.

However, keep in mind that those of us on the lonely other side have endured a fair amount of motive questioning ourselves. Much more, in fact, I'd say. And during the Stand-with-Rand drone wars a while back? Oy, it got tiresome. 

Thank you, Bereket. I always figured that was the context, but it's nice to know for sure.

We'll have to link to your post whenever it's misused in the future at Ricochet -- which should be any minute now.

I don't have a question. I just wanted to pass along thanks in advance for talking sense, and leaving the hyperbole, distortions, and emotions out of it.

Hopefully people here (if not Rand Paul) are starting to come around to a more informed, less hysterical approach to this issue.  

... but not examining those records w/o suspicion. That's why there's no extraordinary leap here, imo. NSA's merely collecting and preserving them to ensure that examination is possible in the future, in some extraordinary, judicially-reviewed circumstance.

At the absolute worst, it's a gray area, not meriting Paul's un-thought-out legislation and hyperbole, which is making calm, rational discussion difficult because so many Americans now think -- falsely and thanks to Paul and Rush and Beck, etc. -- that the gov't has a free hand to pour through their private correspondence. It doesn't. 

Exactly. Once we accept that they "should be paid", then we've accepted the minimum wage argument.

And what's "getting paid" mean precisely? Is it one penny per hour? Well, that can't be right. How about one dollar? $7.50? And so here we are, literally advocating a minimum wage.

So long as both parties enter the arrangement voluntarily, it's perfectly fine. No need to add a third party, gov't, into the mix. Conservatism 101.

As McCarthy explains, this would turn basic law enforcement on its head: We've been examining phone records to establish probable cause for as long as we've had phones. Law Enforcement 101, of which Paul appears to be entirely ignorant.

And it's further exposing that ignorance which is the point of that last paragraph you quoted, but you've omitted the opening sentence, which provides the context: "To give such third-party business records constitutional status, Senator Paul would have to get the judges to invent a newer, more expansive Fourth Amendment", not "restore" some past that never was, as his act's title implies.

An aside: It's funny, Prawn, how two intelligent people of good will can have such differing takes on an article. To me, McCarthy had so eviscerated Paul, so exposed his nakedness, that I felt sorry for the senator. Oh well.

You're right, of course, that lawbreakers could abuse the system, just as lawbreakers at the post office or FedEx -- or Gmail, I suppose --could peak at our private correspondence.

Again: Trade-offs, always trade-offs. As a conservative, I have zero expectation that a perfectly lawbreaker-proof system can be created. Utopia is not for this world. The best we can do is to deter abuse by punishing lawbreakers to the fullest extent.