Rand Paul's platform within his speech / 15 points worth debating

[Delta4Embassy]

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red.

And yet we keep spending money...

While dishonest politicians continue to win votes promising cutbacks which don't actually do anything.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Rand Paul once said Iran wasn’t a threat, he opposed foreign aid to Israel and he favored defense cuts; he’s flipped on all three.

 

[g5000]

For decades now, we have had manned helicopters with armed police on them flying all over America. For decades now, we have had fighter jets with missiles on them flying all over America.

An armed drone is not some new precedent. It is still piloted, just remotely. It is subject to the exact same rules of engagement as a fighter jet. In fact, drones will be a very valuable addition to domestic search and rescue operations as they are much cheaper and therefore will be more readily available for such needs.

We aren't shooting liquor store holdup men from helicopters or jets, and we won't be killing them with drones, either.

We use drone strikes overseas to minimize American deaths in a hostile theater with a hostile population because we can't send a cop to arrest the bad guys in a war zone. Duh.

Whining about a drone strike in a war zone as evidence it will happen here is like whining about A-10 Warthog strafing missions in Afghanistan being a reason to think A-10 Warthog strafing missions will happen here.

And that is why we aren't going to be dropping Hellfires on an apartment building in America. But Jesus H. Christ, Rand Paul would shoot up a fucking city block with a drone trying to take out a liquor store holdup man!

Rand Paul has been a complete fool on this matter.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here is what got Rand Paul's panties in a bunch:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If a terrorist is in the act of committing an act of terror, or about to, it might be necessary to kill him. Duh!

Maybe with a drone.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Rand Paul wants us NOT to kill a terrorist in the act of committing an act of terrorism. He wants them to be put on trial AFTER they have carried out their deed before we can execute them.

But if you are in the act of robbing a liquor store, THAT'S DIFFERENT.

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

And now the Rand Paul apologists should explain how executing a liquor store thief with a drone without a trial is okay while executing someone who is in the act of committing an act of terrorism is not okay.

You're a lying piece of dog crap, you are taking Rand completely out of context.

 

[RKMBrown]

For decades now, we have had manned helicopters with armed police on them flying all over America. For decades now, we have had fighter jets with missiles on them flying all over America.

An armed drone is not some new precedent. It is still piloted, just remotely. It is subject to the exact same rules of engagement as a fighter jet. In fact, drones will be a very valuable addition to domestic search and rescue operations as they are much cheaper and therefore will be more readily available for such needs.

We aren't shooting liquor store holdup men from helicopters or jets, and we won't be killing them with drones, either.

We use drone strikes overseas to minimize American deaths in a hostile theater with a hostile population because we can't send a cop to arrest the bad guys in a war zone. Duh.

Whining about a drone strike in a war zone as evidence it will happen here is like whining about A-10 Warthog strafing missions in Afghanistan being a reason to think A-10 Warthog strafing missions will happen here.

And that is why we aren't going to be dropping Hellfires on an apartment building in America. But Jesus H. Christ, Rand Paul would shoot up a fucking city block with a drone trying to take out a liquor store holdup man!

Rand Paul has been a complete fool on this matter.

Rand was talking about drone STRIKES on AMERICAN CITIZENS by ORDER OF the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for people SUSPECTED OF BEING A TERRORIST. Rand was talking about our nazi like dhs flying military equipment around the US looking for suspects and killing them via remote control. Just like was done when that teenager son of a muslim priest got murdered for merely being a son of a "suspect." A son of a guy who wasn't even arrested because they didn't have anything on him.

Our local police forces, killing a criminal in the act of committing a crime is a completely different thing, ya stupid piece of shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rand Paul once said Iran wasn’t a threat, he opposed foreign aid to Israel and he favored defense cuts; he’s flipped on all three.

Times change.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Rand Paul once said Iran wasn’t a threat, he opposed foreign aid to Israel and he favored defense cuts; he’s flipped on all three.

Times change.

yes that was in 2014 this is 2015 sorry....

 

[RKMBrown]

Rand Paul once said Iran wasn’t a threat, he opposed foreign aid to Israel and he favored defense cuts; he’s flipped on all three.

Times change.

yes that was in 2014 this is 2015 sorry....

Is ok, glad I could help.

 

[Statistikhengst]

My biggest problem with Rand Paul is that his principles are soft. His positions shift in the political wind. He is completely unlike his father in this respect. He has far more polish than his dad, but he is way too shifty for my liking. And so I just can't trust him.

There is a difference between being flexible, adapting to realities on the ground, and being a shifty poll watcher who takes a position based on what he thinks the people want to hear. Rand Paul is a poll watcher.

That is the biggest difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Cruz is immovable. He's a total maniac, but he sticks to his guns.

They are both similar in being demagogues, but have different styles.

ROFL... really? What did he "shift" on?

Drones, defense, taxes.

Instead of God, gays and guns?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here is what got Rand Paul's panties in a bunch:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If a terrorist is in the act of committing an act of terror, or about to, it might be necessary to kill him. Duh!

Maybe with a drone.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Rand Paul wants us NOT to kill a terrorist in the act of committing an act of terrorism. He wants them to be put on trial AFTER they have carried out their deed before we can execute them.

But if you are in the act of robbing a liquor store, THAT'S DIFFERENT.

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

And now the Rand Paul apologists should explain how executing a liquor store thief with a drone without a trial is okay while executing someone who is in the act of committing an act of terrorism is not okay.

Well now, that does seem to be kind of damning.....

 

[Statistikhengst]

Another thought that can be brought up is:

with so many very disparate personalities likely to jump into this race and with 2016 being a open-election (well, assuming that Biden does not get nominated, which I am willing to bet) I wonder how long it will take before Republicans start breaking Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You should probably listen to what he said again. Science and R&D belong in the private sector for the most part in my opinion. We end up spending way too much with no benefit with government handouts to political donors. Look no further than Solyndra

Okay, let's do that:
U.S. Expects $5 Billion Profit From Program That Funded Solyndra - Bloomberg Business

A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.

“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”

Yes let's do that. Your first failure is thinking government numbers are real world numbers. Anyone with the smallest amount of accounting skills would know they don't function under the same rules of loss/profit as the rest of us.

2nd is my favorite part that proves why these assholes should never be allowed to "invest" our tax dollars. Taxes run key government functions they should never be used for rolling the dice on your favorite donor.

The government’s loan guarantees are comparable to insurance, Aldy said.

“The whole point of insurance is that there should be claims against the insurance,” he said. “If we only go after projects we know are going to succeed, all we’re doing is subsidizing people for what they’d do anyway.”

Yeah! Don't fucking invest smart! Just throw a whole bunch of money out there and hope to hell you hit on one! If these fucking people could pick a good investment from a bad one they wouldn't be government employees playing with your money. They would be doing so on their own dime.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Here is what got Rand Paul's panties in a bunch:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If a terrorist is in the act of committing an act of terror, or about to, it might be necessary to kill him. Duh!

Maybe with a drone.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Rand Paul wants us NOT to kill a terrorist in the act of committing an act of terrorism. He wants them to be put on trial AFTER they have carried out their deed before we can execute them.

But if you are in the act of robbing a liquor store, THAT'S DIFFERENT.

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

And now the Rand Paul apologists should explain how executing a liquor store thief with a drone without a trial is okay while executing someone who is in the act of committing an act of terrorism is not okay.

Well now, that does seem to be kind of damning.....

Wait a minute. Isn't this the same Eric Holder that said a cop that shot a guy that strong arm robbed a store then tried to take his gun was a racist for shooting him and did all he could to get that officer prosecuted? Same guy right? Just so we're clear on the power the federal government wants here.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

mike leaves with gaping ass ..

Actually I left to go do a job and left there with more than filled wallet. It's called logging off and going to work you should try it. Much more challenging than seeing if you can muster up the energy to leave your mom's basement and see if the welfare check is in the mail box. BTW- What I made today would buy a whole fucking truck load of Hot Pockets your mom could make for you. But I'm not sharing with people like you.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

12:32 "Quit spending money we don't have" (fiscal restraint)

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red. So argueing for restraint is kinda redundant. Pay off the debt then you can talk about financial restraint. Time for restraint was 18 trillion dollars ago.

12:35 "We limit the President to two-terms, it's about time we limit the terms of Congress" - for congressional term-limits.

Agree.

12:35 He mentions his "read the bills" Act.

Not practical or even possible when bills can be a thousand pages long


He's for a flat tax as well I'm also in agreement with if 15%. Just because the wealthiest make more than the poorest doesn't mean they should be taxed more than the poorest.

Doesn't that kind of tell you bills shouldn't be thousands of pages long to begin with?

 

[jon_berzerk]

12:32 "Quit spending money we don't have" (fiscal restraint)

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red. So argueing for restraint is kinda redundant. Pay off the debt then you can talk about financial restraint. Time for restraint was 18 trillion dollars ago.

12:35 "We limit the President to two-terms, it's about time we limit the terms of Congress" - for congressional term-limits.

Agree.

12:35 He mentions his "read the bills" Act.

Not practical or even possible when bills can be a thousand pages long


He's for a flat tax as well I'm also in agreement with if 15%. Just because the wealthiest make more than the poorest doesn't mean they should be taxed more than the poorest.

Doesn't that kind of tell you bills shouldn't be thousands of pages long to begin with?

and perhaps in plain English and made available to the public

with time for feedback

 

[Missouri_Mike]

12:32 "Quit spending money we don't have" (fiscal restraint)

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red. So argueing for restraint is kinda redundant. Pay off the debt then you can talk about financial restraint. Time for restraint was 18 trillion dollars ago.

12:35 "We limit the President to two-terms, it's about time we limit the terms of Congress" - for congressional term-limits.

Agree.

12:35 He mentions his "read the bills" Act.

Not practical or even possible when bills can be a thousand pages long


He's for a flat tax as well I'm also in agreement with if 15%. Just because the wealthiest make more than the poorest doesn't mean they should be taxed more than the poorest.

Doesn't that kind of tell you bills shouldn't be thousands of pages long to begin with?

and perhaps in plain English and made available to the public

with time for feedback

They even tell you why they do it this way. Only a complete idiot would trust them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

12:32 "Quit spending money we don't have" (fiscal restraint)

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red. So argueing for restraint is kinda redundant. Pay off the debt then you can talk about financial restraint. Time for restraint was 18 trillion dollars ago.

12:35 "We limit the President to two-terms, it's about time we limit the terms of Congress" - for congressional term-limits.

Agree.

12:35 He mentions his "read the bills" Act.

Not practical or even possible when bills can be a thousand pages long


He's for a flat tax as well I'm also in agreement with if 15%. Just because the wealthiest make more than the poorest doesn't mean they should be taxed more than the poorest.

Doesn't that kind of tell you bills shouldn't be thousands of pages long to begin with?

and perhaps in plain English and made available to the public

with time for feedback

They even tell you why they do it this way. Only a complete idiot would trust them.

exactly they all need to be removed

sad part that guy was not even elected

 

[Missouri_Mike]

12:32 "Quit spending money we don't have" (fiscal restraint)

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red. So argueing for restraint is kinda redundant. Pay off the debt then you can talk about financial restraint. Time for restraint was 18 trillion dollars ago.

12:35 "We limit the President to two-terms, it's about time we limit the terms of Congress" - for congressional term-limits.

Agree.

12:35 He mentions his "read the bills" Act.

Not practical or even possible when bills can be a thousand pages long


He's for a flat tax as well I'm also in agreement with if 15%. Just because the wealthiest make more than the poorest doesn't mean they should be taxed more than the poorest.

Doesn't that kind of tell you bills shouldn't be thousands of pages long to begin with?

and perhaps in plain English and made available to the public

with time for feedback

They even tell you why they do it this way. Only a complete idiot would trust them.

exactly they all need to be removed

sad part that guy was not even elected

The worst of these people never are elected. They are simply appointed to make more "clarifications" of a 25 thousand page law that nobody ever read. And was written to be vague on purpose.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here is what got Rand Paul's panties in a bunch:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

If a terrorist is in the act of committing an act of terror, or about to, it might be necessary to kill him. Duh!

Maybe with a drone.

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Rand Paul wants us NOT to kill a terrorist in the act of committing an act of terrorism. He wants them to be put on trial AFTER they have carried out their deed before we can execute them.

But if you are in the act of robbing a liquor store, THAT'S DIFFERENT.

“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

And now the Rand Paul apologists should explain how executing a liquor store thief with a drone without a trial is okay while executing someone who is in the act of committing an act of terrorism is not okay.

Well now, that does seem to be kind of damning.....

Wait a minute. Isn't this the same Eric Holder that said a cop that shot a guy that strong arm robbed a store then tried to take his gun was a racist for shooting him and did all he could to get that officer prosecuted? Same guy right? Just so we're clear on the power the federal government wants here.

Sounds like an interesting topic for discussion..... all right, I'm game for it.

But first, I would like to know if Rand Paul and Eric Holder are one and the same person, because something appears to have gotten lost in the translation...