Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not make things up as we go and I am a Ron Paul wacko nutty old fart.
Rand Paul was not in Congress(senate) when the Patriot Act was signed by GW. Bush. His dad Ron was in Congress(house) and did not vote for it.
Rand Paul voted against every extension of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Rand was in the Senate, when NDAA came through Harry Reids hands. He voted NO.
What's the difference between voting NO and voting against it?
I didn't see who has brought a bill to the Senate floor to extend it.
A search I find nothing. Help a curious mind out, will ya.
Is this an actual extension bill, or something that is suppose to come up as a bill that is in the works now?
USA PATRIOT regularly comes to the floor to be extended. It must be periodically renewed, by design.
In fact only weeks ago Cruz chided Paul for his recent vote against an NSA reform bill, that Rand voted No on for the specific reason that the same bill extended USA PATRIOT.
I didn't see who has brought a bill to the Senate floor to extend it.
A search I find nothing. Help a curious mind out, will ya.
Is this an actual extension bill, or something that is suppose to come up as a bill that is in the works now?
I didn't say they are advertising a bill. I would expect them to pass an extension with as little media coverage as possible. Paul has opposed it in the past, and I wonder what he will do now that he is officially running. It's easy to oppose such things in Congress, but as a CIC you have to balance it with desire to ensure the nation is safe from terrorists.
Let's face it, the Patriot Act is an intrusion to privacy, but it also seems to have provided information which have led to terrorists being arrested. Would Paul pull the plug from it?
"Libertarians, in general, are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, with a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. His father, Ron Paul is a “libertarian cult figure†who had tremendous appeal to young Republicans. Rand Paul is clearly marketing himself as the heir apparent to those supporters — the one candidate with a chance of expanding the Republican base."
I DO believe Paul still has a chance. Him vs Hilary Clinton. Him vs. Jeb Bush seems easy choice for me.
I'll respond to the major points of the article:
Libertarians can be against abortion. Libertarians aren't against laws, they think government should limit itself to necessary laws. Since to all libertarians think exactly he same, what the means can change a bit, but no libertarian is pro-murder, which means someone who considers abortion morally wrong would probably be against it.
I think his views on same sex marriage are being taken out of context here. But the important thing to know is this: it won't matter. Even if Paul wanted to, and I'm skeptical that he does, he realistically couldn't reverse the same sex marriage legalization trend. At best, he'd slow it for 4-8 years, but he won't stop it completely and won't reverse it.
Defense spending is pro-Republic rhetoric. He needs to say something that a Republican wants to hear in order to get their support. That's what this is. As with the drone bit.
I'd consider lesser charges for possession of marijuana to be a win, so I'm fine with that. If we can't have legalization, let's go with the next best thing.
That last point is interesting. I don't think that was meant to be heard as literally as it's being used. I think he's making a general point more than asserting what should be happening.
I still think he's a better candidate than Hillary or round 3 of Bush.
I didn't say they are advertising a bill. I would expect them to pass an extension with as little media coverage as possible. Paul has opposed it in the past, and I wonder what he will do now that he is officially running. It's easy to oppose such things in Congress, but as a CIC you have to balance it with desire to ensure the nation is safe from terrorists.
Let's face it, the Patriot Act is an intrusion to privacy, but it also seems to have provided information which have led to terrorists being arrested. Would Paul pull the plug from it?
It's resulted in nothing of the sort. You would be hard pressed to attribute any safety benefit from the PATRIOT Act.
What you write here is why I've been looking to him, but now I'm done. All politicians pander to an extent, but "gay marriage leads to bestiality" is a deal breaker for me, whether he means it or not.
That's old news. And that is not what he said anyways:
"Beck argued that changing marriage laws allows for new definitions of the institution, such as polygamy.
Paul questioned if lawmakers should use their moral beliefs when drafting bills but went further saying: “And I think this is a conundrum…If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further—does it have to be humans? You know?"
The senator’s office said he was being sarcastic.
Paul told NPR the same thing, but added the comments are being misunderstood and that people should listen to the recording again."
"Anti-terror" legislation
The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode "constitutional and statutory due process protections" and would "authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations."
Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John ******** sent up was my bill," he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as "the Democratic Party's de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism."
So.....essentially, on everything except the NSA (and his stance on that is still dubious) he is a big government far right conservative lol
I'm a Libertarian of the Libertarian Party and no he is not. It's a no brainer.
But if I was a Republican, or a Dem, or an Independent, I would vote for
him over all others running. Why? Because he is the closest thing to a Libertarian that we can
get in this point in time. If he can only articulate the war on drugs (marijuana/incarceration) is not
working and a non knee jerk foreign policy of intervention, that would be enough to get this country
on the right track, not to mention talk of dismantling the IRS. Is he perfect, by no means.
Is he his father, no way.
Will I vote for him??? I'm a member of the Libertarian Party so it is only a remote possibility.
For everyone else, Go boldly where no man has gone before .... I thought Rand gave a good speech.
Libertarians can be against abortion. Libertarians aren't against laws, they think government should limit itself to necessary laws. Since to all libertarians think exactly he same, what the means can change a bit, but no libertarian is pro-murder, which means someone who considers abortion morally wrong would probably be against it.
I think his views on same sex marriage are being taken out of context here. But the important thing to know is this: it won't matter. Even if Paul wanted to, and I'm skeptical that he does, he realistically couldn't reverse the same sex marriage legalization trend. At best, he'd slow it for 4-8 years, but he won't stop it completely and won't reverse it.
Defense spending is pro-Republic rhetoric. He needs to say something that a Republican wants to hear in order to get their support. That's what this is. As with the drone bit.
I'd consider lesser charges for possession of marijuana to be a win, so I'm fine with that. If we can't have legalization, let's go with the next best thing.
That last point is interesting. I don't think that was meant to be heard as literally as it's being used. I think he's making a general point more than asserting what should be happening.
I still think he's a better candidate than Hillary or round 3 of Bush.
I'm a Libertarian of the Libertarian Party and no he is not. It's a no brainer.
But if I was a Republican, or a Dem, or an Independent, I would vote for
him over all others running. Why? Because he is the closest thing to a Libertarian that we can
get in this point in time. If he can only articulate the war on drugs (marijuana/incarceration) is not
working and a non knee jerk foreign policy of intervention, that would be enough to get this country
on the right track, not to mention talk of dismantling the IRS. Is he perfect, by no means.
Is he his father, no way.
Will I vote for him??? I'm a member of the Libertarian Party so it is only a remote possibility.
For everyone else, Go boldly where no man has gone before .... I thought Rand gave a good speech.
I hear ya!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....
I thought Rand gave a good speech.
