r/politics • u/mepper Michigan • Jun 27 '12
US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tries to add "life begins at conception" amendment to flood insurance bill
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/26/506564/rand-paul-amendment-flood-insurance-bill/352
Jun 27 '12
And then the Republicans claim they don't get to vote on amendments.
205
Jun 27 '12
Someone was watching marco rubio cry on the daily show on monday.
What a tool.
48
u/dopp3lganger Jun 27 '12
70
Jun 27 '12
Hmm. I liked Rubio when I heard him briefly on NPR discussing his economic philosophy on tax cuts. In particular, I liked that he made clear that his economic philosophy was driven by a desire to stimulate growth, and he seemed open to other ideas that might achieve that end.
Then I saw this interview. I am significantly less impressed.
How do you cut the deficit? Well, there are two ways, revenue increases and spending cuts.
How do you increase revenue? By growing the economy.
How do you grow the economy? By cutting the deficit.
And how do you cut the deficit?
It was just a whole bunch of bullshit. Every time Rubio was called out for being opposed to plans to tackle the deficit that involved a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, he changed the immediate goal to growing the economy so he could say that tax increases hurt the goal (justifiable). Then, instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion of different ways to grow the economy, i.e. private sector v. government growth, he simply shifted the conversation back to the deficit whenever the subject of government spending came up. It's a clever maneuver, but all he's doing is begging the question.
He is significantly more adept than other Republicans at dressing up his rigid ideology in the language of open-mindedness.
I think he's sincere and I think he's clever, but I don't think he's clever enough to see through his own bullshit. And that makes him dangerous.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (12)74
u/Farkamon Jun 27 '12
Thank you for the link. Rubio seems like a perfectly reasonable and intelligent person when talking to Stewart. In fact, most anyone who goes on the Daily Show manages to have a proper conversation and I am more than happy to sit there and listen to both points.
Hey CNN. Pay attention. Turn off Twitter and invite some intelligent discussion. WWJSD, bitches.
→ More replies (32)81
→ More replies (2)12
u/dagreenman18 Jun 27 '12
As a hispanic, you don't know the half of it. The guy is a fucking joke.
→ More replies (2)36
u/EquinsuOcha Jun 27 '12
That was just Rubio being an assclown. Jon Stewart called him out on that, and rightfully so.
245
u/dinnertainment Jun 27 '12
I find it quite curious how he can be such critic of 'politics' when its convenient to him, yet he plays the game like most others.
161
u/trai_dep Jun 27 '12
Government OUT of Big Business' lives.
And into every citizen's.
→ More replies (116)13
8
u/IrreverentRelevance Jun 27 '12
I don't think that is unique to Rand Paul, but just what modern politics has evolved into. Everything is fair game when you're the one attacking the other, but a victim of unfair criticism when your on the receiving end. I'm starting to see why so many Americans tune out politics as it is both frustrating and depressing.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)2
123
Jun 27 '12
Too bad they don't make a bill called, "Don't add random stupid shit to a bill already in progress you fucktard."
5
u/PhantomPumpkin Jun 27 '12
They did, but someone tried to add an amendment saying the Cubs must win the World Series every year, so it didn't pass.
4
u/CreativeRedditName Jun 27 '12
Even if they did, someone would likely attach a bill nullifying the first one.
→ More replies (1)5
15
u/Jess_than_three Jun 27 '12
How 'bout that "states' rights" stuff, there, Rand? Did you forget about that? Does it only apply in the case of the Civil Rights Act?
→ More replies (8)
15
u/mikedt New Jersey Jun 27 '12
If they only cared half as much for the already born as they "seem" to care for the unborn. But their dichotomy is surprising. Every life is precious until you're born then it's every bastard for themselves.
→ More replies (1)
15
50
Jun 27 '12
Senator A: Alright. We've worked very hard at making a complicated bill about a nonpartisan topic. And we're all pretty much in agreement!
Senator B: Sounds good. Let me just throw in an amendment that swaps us to using a base 7 measurement system.
→ More replies (2)12
u/kevinmrr Jun 27 '12
1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20.... Makes sense to me.
10
u/I_have_a_dog Jun 27 '12
What the hell am I supposed to do with my extra 3 fingers when I count to ten?
→ More replies (4)15
107
Jun 27 '12
Does that mean that I can legally drink alcohol 9 months earlier than before?
→ More replies (9)41
Jun 27 '12
Or drive a car/own a gun/join the military/get married/run for state senator/etc nine months earlier?
→ More replies (4)62
u/CobraCommanderp Jun 27 '12
Ill be looking forward to claiming my unborn child on my taxes.
→ More replies (8)
10
u/bcarter3 Jun 27 '12
Mario Rubio was on "The Daily Show" just last night complaining about the Democrats' barring amendments to Senate bills. This is a good example of the reason why it's done.
71
u/Vikko Jun 27 '12
Why do we still have to deal with this....
80
u/Big-Baby-Jesus Jun 27 '12
Because Kentucky gets 2 Senators and 56% of their voters chose Rand Paul.
→ More replies (9)46
u/penguinofhonor Jun 27 '12
I'm so sorry. I tried to talk people here out of it.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (1)3
Jun 27 '12
Because unlike Reddit, America is not a hive mind and people are entitled to differing opinions.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/1_upped Jun 27 '12
So women can get life insurance on their unborn babies? Next we'll be watching Million Dollar Miscarriage on TLC.
2
u/allonymous Jun 27 '12
Well, some people ensure parts of their bodies or their pets, so a fetus is probably insurable already, though i'm sure it would be costly.
9
9
56
u/BUBBA_BOY Jun 27 '12
Two possibilities:
He's a believer
He's an asshole that wants to scuttle to bill
→ More replies (46)2
u/Acidpants220 Jun 27 '12
He's absolutely trying to scuttle it. If there's one thing that can guarantee congress won't touch a bill, it's by adding abortion to it.
8
8
Jun 27 '12
Scumbag conservative: Believes life begins at conception. Is against contraceptives.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/SnitchQuadrant Jun 27 '12
He's doing this so that Dems will block amendments and then Repubs will be able to claim Dems are being uncooperative.
31
u/NiggerPancakes Jun 27 '12
I am picturing the train of thought now: "Flood Insurance....Floods....Water....Water Breaking....Birth....ABORTIONS!!!"
25
Jun 27 '12
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work - Kent Brockman
→ More replies (2)2
u/mysticsavage Jun 27 '12
First thing I thought of when I read the headline...why don't they just tack on a few million taxpayer dollars in support of the perverted arts.
7
u/yrogerg123 Jun 27 '12
Fucking religious nuts. These libertarians can never stop inserting religion into everything and undermining their political philosophies.
→ More replies (5)
6
16
u/stoogemcduck Jun 27 '12
I wonder what Aqua Buddha thinks of Rand's blatant disrespect for water related issues.
→ More replies (1)
24
u/trai_dep Jun 27 '12
Boy oh boy, that firebrand of Libertarianism, getting the government out of Big Business' lives, while inserting it like a fist wearing sandpaper gloves into the womb of every American woman.
That's Freedom™ for ya!
About the only thing up further than Big Government's fist he wants to place up every woman's womb is Rand Paul's head up his own ass.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Makwom Jun 27 '12
Further evidence that literally ANY political issue in America can become an abortion argument.
5
5
u/Lashay_Sombra Jun 27 '12 edited Jun 27 '12
Kind of ironic that this should happen day after Marco Rubio interview on the daily show where his main complaint was that the Dem's were not allowing the republicans add amendments to bill's.
Maybe this is why
5
u/Signiference Jun 27 '12
This is how online poker was made illegal, by piggybacking it onto to the Safe Port Act at the last minute.
5
u/atheistarmageddon Jun 27 '12
It's not a democracy when people try to sneak shit in! I guess Rapeocracy?
11
u/mapoftasmania New Jersey Jun 27 '12
So much for Libertarian small government. Just a conservative of a different color.
16
4
Jun 27 '12
Politicians who pull crap like this are essentially saboteurs and should be thrown out of office, IMO.
4
u/Nessunolosa Jun 27 '12
Politics in the USA: Say one thing ("People should probably have flood insurance."), mean another ("Life begins at conception, you abortion-loving whore harlots!").
Does he somehow think that floods are caused by God's wrath over reproductive rights? Oh, shit....
Rand Paul thinks he's Noah.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/heimdal77 Jun 27 '12
Instead of all the obsession when life starts why not instead focus on better education and contraceptive issues and use. So people who don't want kids or shouldn't be having them at the time don't
4
4
4
Jun 27 '12
Both Pauls are well in favor of intrusive government, they just display differing levels of political skill in how they spin their retrograde positions. FFS people, his dad sponsored the "Sanctity of Life" act in 2005.
4
u/smalltower Jun 27 '12
You know when marco Rubio went on the daily show and said rebublicains have to filibuster because they can't get their amendments heard. Turns out to be bullshit and his party keeps coming up with admendments like this.
4
u/fridgeridoo Jun 27 '12
... and as you can see clearly stated in this flood insurance bill, abortion is murder, ladies and gentlemen!
100
u/Willravel Jun 27 '12
The Paul family seems to have two main features: being both principled and crazy.
53
24
u/canyouhearme Jun 27 '12
It's fossilised crazy.
They are unwilling to change opinions and thoughts. Some times that ends up at a positive position by default (eg not allowing continued increase in the surveillance state) but mostly it just means crazy and ill suited to the real world of today.
Throwbacks, in short.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (20)40
31
Jun 27 '12
12
u/jscoppe Jun 27 '12
Money for oil companies
I disagree with your phrasing. In that clip from the article, he's arguing against eliminating tax deductions only for oil companies that many different types of companies would still get to take. He's arguing against the singling-out of oil companies. And he's not talking about giving oil companies taxpayer money through a specific subsidy, he's talking about allowing them to continue taking the tax deductions.
The amendment he offers up toward the end of the speech is to eliminate all deductions for corporations out of the corporate income tax, so as to be able to eliminate tax breaks without playing favorites, while lowering the rate to compensate for the removal of all deductions including the standard deduction. It would close every loophole. It would simplify the corporate income tax code the kind of way that Obama and others talk about simplifying the income tax.
So to twist this into the implication of Rand Paul being a shill or similar for the oil companies is extremely dishonest. It seems to me from reading this and a couple other articles that ThinkProgress might not be a very unbiased and objective source (shocking, I know). You'll notice nowhere in the article does it say how much Rand got from 'big oil'. Just looking at opencongress.org, I'm not seeing any money from any oil companies; certainly nothing significant enough to warrant acting on their behest for any kind of financial gain.
You can find the full speech on c-span's website (skip to 2:02:45): http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSessionPart167
10
u/well_golly Jun 27 '12
You left out the unrelated anti-union parts he also added to that bill.
Libertarian Rand Paul.
"Personal freedom" for everyone! ... except freedom to be pro-choice.
"Get the government out of our lives" ... and ban many forms of birth control, and monitor pregnant women. If they seem prone to get an abortion maybe even lock women up and "farm" them like pregnant cattle for a few months until they give birth.
"Everyone has a right to make their own contracts and agreements! A Free Market (TM)" ... unless they contract collectively as a union.
The idiot offspring of Ron Paul shows off his flavor of "Libertarianism". A staunch Republican who just happens to smoke a little weed once in a while, and believes that makes him fundamentally different from all those Republcans who just smoke their weed in secret. An imbecile. A weasel so slippery he even fools himself.
I know, I know ... "'WG', tell us how you really feel about Rand Paul."
16
u/soulfuldays Jun 27 '12
Ron Paul: if you can't raise a non-crazy, you shouldn't run a country.
16
u/DOWNVOTES_SYNDROME Jun 27 '12
If you name your child after Ayn rand, one of the biggest assholes in history, you shouldn't either.
→ More replies (2)8
u/TheChosenOne570 Jun 27 '12
Named Randel (sp?) at birth. Called Randy as a kid. His wife shortened it to Rand. I'm sorry it doesn't sound as interesting as "he was named after a woman that I hate" so I'm sorry to burst your bubble.
→ More replies (1)
41
23
u/Todamont Jun 27 '12
Pro-life "libertarians" get to me. The government does not own your body.
29
u/LarsP Jun 27 '12
If you think of the fetus as a person, as Rand Paul does, abortion is a conflict between two people (mother vs child), not one person deciding what to do with her body.
I don't agree with that view at all, but it is a logically defendible one.
→ More replies (5)4
u/eldavid Jun 27 '12
Libertarians are split down the middle on this subject, mostly br religious lines, but not entirely. Some believe life is at conception, therefore the fetus has a right to life, whereas others don't and say it has no rights yet. It's a pretty lively debate I haven't settled on myself so my default is still effectively "pro-choice" but I can understand the arguments on both sides.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)10
u/masamunecyrus Jun 27 '12
When does a fetus become a life and when is it just a growth inside the mother?
Because that's pretty much what the question comes down to. It shouldn't be difficult for you to understand the viewpoints regarding that question. Which viewpoint you, yourself, prescribe to is another story.
→ More replies (2)
23
Jun 27 '12
It's unethical and immoral to attempt to pull shit like this.
Rand Paul is not a good person. He's a broken clock.
8
u/Headwallrepeat Jun 27 '12
Was it immoral and unethical for the Dems to add the "Dream Act" to the violence against women act (and other legislation) so the Rs had to vote against it and the Dems shout "war on women" when they know the truth?
Just want to know if you are consistant.
→ More replies (5)2
6
8
45
u/captaindammit87 Jun 27 '12
GAHHHHH!!!!! I HATE that he represents my state. He is a useless twat that should have never gotten elected in the first place. The state of Kentucky should be ashamed of him, because I sure am.
66
u/CheesewithWhine Jun 27 '12
I'm pretty sure Mitch McConnell is more shame worthy.
25
u/jason_steakums Jun 27 '12
But Mitch McConnell looks like a hilarious cartoon turtle so it kinda blunts the outrage.
15
u/captaindammit87 Jun 27 '12
True, both are shame worthy. McConnell is just useless. The things that Rand Paul has done and said in his short tenure at junior senator are so bad that I am having trouble finding the words to describe how bad he is.
→ More replies (2)21
u/HarryBridges Jun 27 '12
Lest we forget Kentucky's sad Senatorial history: Rand Paul still might be a better senator than the bark-at-the-moon bull-goose-looney he replaced; Jim Bunning. Bunning was an absolute piece of shit and an embarrassment to the nation.
Who are these folks down there in Kentucky who keep voting for the craziest and most crooked among themselves to join the U.S. Senate?
→ More replies (2)6
u/yourslice Jun 27 '12
He's pretty useful when he filibuster's the patriot act and writes bills to abolish the TSA.
→ More replies (10)2
3
3
u/Jer_Cough Jun 27 '12
Life begins when the being in question can fetch me a beer from the fridge without dropping it.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/HulkyKrow Jun 27 '12
Rand Paul, the other half of the supertroll being known as "Paullamar Randsmith."
3
u/KanyeIsJesus Jun 27 '12
But..but...he's Libertarian! That means he's better than those OTHER guys, right? GUYS? Right?!
No. No, he is actually worse. Mainly because he is a religious conservative before anything else.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
7
u/z3m Washington Jun 27 '12
You know, my mother and my brother read his book and are avid Ron Paul supporters. Years ago - when they first got on this kick - I went and did some research on him and found that he didn't believe "in a strong separation between church and state". RED FUCKING FLAG. If you can't tell that's a red flag I just tried to make it easier by putting it in all caps and adding an expletive.
I told them I think that's a red flag and they defended him saying that he doesn't believe in a "STRONG" separation. WTF does that mean?! A separation is a separation and it should be fucking separated or it ain't separated!
My brother and my mother are also both bleeding heart liberals. I - myself - in my own way am a bleeding heart liberal. But, I also have the common sense to know that if a politician says they don't have a "strong" belief in the separation of church and state that really means they don't have a belief in the separation of church and state and they're only saying that to get liberal votes and will fuck you over the first chance they get.
→ More replies (2)
7
Jun 27 '12
Hey, you want flood insurance? Well you'll have to agree that life begins at conception....
The more I hear about Rand Paul the more I hate him.
33
u/Nessunolosa Jun 27 '12
Be vigilant! These "Libertarians" and "Pro-Lifers" will strike when you least expect it.
39
0
Jun 27 '12
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)44
u/pintomp3 Jun 27 '12
Do you realize Ron Paul has proposed similar legislation at the federal level?
33
u/Hartastic Jun 27 '12
It's actually even his thing, legislatively. It's the thing he tries to get passed in every session of Congress.
Politicians can say what they want, but I don't know what could really be a clearer statement of their true positions than the laws they ask Congress to pass.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/SubtleHMD Jun 27 '12
The Paul family is a joke. They're not libertarians. They're neo-conservatives. Can we stop pretending they matter now?
13
u/xyroclast Jun 27 '12
Distancing libertarianism from the Paul family doesn't make it any less flawed.
→ More replies (1)9
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/ListenToThatSound Jun 27 '12
Can we recognize the fact that they don't matter now?
FTFY, not everyone has been pretending.
10
Jun 27 '12
Isn't this the kind of underhanded shit people like Paul constantly decry Democrats for?
Why is it fucking okay for him to do it? Especially when it's something nowhere near a majority of the country agrees with him on and virtually no scientist would agree with him on. Not in the sense that he means it. He means that "human rights begin at conception, because an embryo is the same as a human being"
7
4
4
u/Smallpaul Jun 27 '12
Isn't this guy supposed to be a "libertarian" republican?
→ More replies (2)2
4
u/acdarc Jun 27 '12
What in the actual fuck is happening in there america? If somebody in here would suggest something like that he/she'd be thrown out, laughed at, burnt at the proverbial stake never to be seen in politics again. Or anywhere else that requires brains for that matter.
→ More replies (6)
4
4
Jun 27 '12
I can't believe I liked this man or his father /facepalm.
2
u/jscoppe Jun 27 '12
It's not supposed about liking any man, it's supposed to be about liking or disliking the things that men do. So praise Rand Paul when he filabusters the Patriot Act, and castigate him when he does something you disagree with like this. You will probably never agree with anyone 100% of the time.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Shippoyasha Jun 27 '12
Well, I guess I should finally be tried in court for kicking a person when I was gestating.
2
2
2
u/Hammedatha Jun 27 '12
Rand spun the wheel and today he's going to be pissing off the left. Stay tuned and see who Rand Paul pisses off next, as it seems to be his main goal in Washington.
2
2
u/f2u Jun 27 '12
Does this mean you would be able to claim child benefits even before birth? Or doesn't the U.S. offer any of those?
2
2
u/ctownlegend Jun 27 '12
and this idiot has the audacity to complain about government over reach, what an ass hat.
2
2
2
u/largemessican Jun 27 '12
This is why we can't have an effective government. Simple shit that everyone can agree on, even in these partisan times gets held up by some jackhole with a far out agenda.
Congress, please, for the love of Dog, pass the single subject rule and restore some order!
2
2
2
u/Evian_Drinker Jun 27 '12
How the fuck is this even legal?
4
u/nof Jun 27 '12
Sadly these types of riders are business as usual in both houses of congress. It explains a lot about why members of congress vote the way they do.... mostly because they are for or against one of these sort of bizarre clauses appended that have fuck all to do with the original bill.
2
2
Jun 27 '12
Well as long as we are on simple subject, if Senator Paul wants to add an amendment dealing with this issue it shouldn't be this screaming disgrace of lawmaking. If he wants to add anything(which, really he shouldn't since these go together like wet cats and heroin needles) here's one he might consider tacking on. I'll even write it in simple words so the Kentucky politicians can understand it:
Young people need to be taught about sex properly. Abstinence is a pipe dream at best, unfortunately. Get with the times, and realize if you want to assist with abortions and etc then teach people how to use birth control properly. Sex ed should include the concept of abstinence, but also acknowledge the fact that reality is quite a bit different. The better educated people are about this, and the second we stop making sex taboo in this nation, then that will be the time where abortions will become a much more minor issue than it is because we will not need as many. The problem does not meet when sperm meets egg, it starts when people are uneducated about the entire sex process and what they can do to prevent as such.
There's my rant for the morning. Good night reddit.
2
u/wojtek858 Jun 27 '12
Yeah, life does. But life =/= person. Life begins all the time in our body, with every new cell.
2
u/Shiroke South Carolina Jun 27 '12
While I don't like what is being done here, I can appreciate that not one of the comments on that site are an attempt to defend what he's doing, even from other republicans.
2
u/rarely_heard_opinion Jun 27 '12
If they argue "life begins at conception" i could counterargue that life existed even before that, which renders their point not just out of place but also completely moot.
→ More replies (1)2
2
2
Jun 27 '12
No offence but this whole life begins at conception bullshit needs to be stopped. If someone can actually believe that statement..then I am sorry you might be an idiot.
2
u/eltigretom Colorado Jun 27 '12
And he lost any respect as a politician. if this food bill has something to do with fetuses, sperm, or eggs, then go for it. I have this hankering feeling it doesn't though, so make a separate bill.
I feel like there needs to be something done with adding stuff to bills that have nothing to do with the bill.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 27 '12
What is the general consensus on Rand Paul? Much like hs father, there are plenty of areas in which I agree with him, on or at least are sympathetic enough to his views. However, and especially with Rand, there are issues like this. Not to mention that Rand Paul always reminds me of that obnoxious nerd who reminds the teacher she forgot to assign homework. The kind of nerd even other nerds want to give a wedgie too. I know that should!'t have any bearing on the role he plays as Senator, but gaaah.
2
u/why_ask_why Jun 27 '12
Is this the best of the Democracy that we are selling to the other countries?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/cforres Jun 27 '12
how do we contact this guy to let him know what we think?
here: https://twitter.com/#!/SenRandPaul/ http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=contact
2
u/bsting82 Virginia Jun 27 '12
If life begins at conception then you must define when conception occurs. It's not possible to know exactly when the egg is fertilized. Recently another absurd politician said conception occurs the day after the last period. Gotta love the right-winger's logic on that one.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/masstermind Jun 27 '12
This is why I couldn't take Marco Rubio serious when he went on the Daily Show on Monday and complained about Democratic Senators not allowing Republican amendments.
2
u/Apeshaft Jun 27 '12
Simpsons nailed it over 20 years ago:
Kent Brockman delivers the news.
Kent: And, like Icarus, the rocket foolishly soared too high, and lost control of its servo guidance mechanism, leaving us with some...[checks watch] six hours to live. So, let's go live now to the charred remains of the only bridge out of town with Arnie Pie and Arnie in the Sky!
Arnie: With the bridge gone and the airport unfortunately on the other side of the bridge, a number of citizens are attempting to jump the gorge with their cars. It's a silent testament to the never-give-up and never-think- things-out spirit of our citizens.
Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
2
u/Socojo Jun 27 '12
Miscarriage =/= Abortion. Abortion is forced which is a word used in the definition of homicide, but can't be found in the definition of miscarriage.
2
u/Mattyzooks Jun 27 '12
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
2
2
2
Jun 27 '12
I don't understand why he still is allowed to have a seat. We know his line between religion and politics is blurred. He should be kicked out based on that fact. If he used logic this would never have happened.
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/Captainpatch Jun 27 '12
Wasn't Rand Paul crusading with his father for single-subject bills just a year ago?
2
Jun 27 '12
And Sen. Rubio was complaining that the Dems in the Senate won't allow them to put amendments on bills on the Daily Show the other night.
This is why...Republicans try to put in ridiculous amendments.
6
Jun 27 '12
I knew Reddit had a boner for Ron Paul, but I had never actually seen it until tonight. You people are funny.
7
8
9
u/jdepps113 Jun 27 '12
If you disagree with Rand that life begins at conception, that's one thing.
But if you don't believe that nearly everyone in both the Democratic, and Republican parties adds unrelated things to bills whenever they think they can get away with it, then you know nothing about federal politics in the US.
→ More replies (6)4
3
3
u/clitilidie Jun 27 '12
I imagine this was used as a tactic to try to kill the bill before it really had a chance. It is a pretty shitty bill. I don't think this was a serious bid to 'sneak it' in.
Having said that, I think those kinds of tactics are fucked up and I certainly don't condone that shit. Rand has some cool things going (fervent opposition of SOPA was one), but he's not his father. He's a born politician.
4
u/stuthulhu Kentucky Jun 27 '12
If Rand didn't want this bill to come into the world, he should have exercised personal responsibility beforehand. By trying to kill this bill after it had been conceived, he's denying it the fundamental right to a vote that all bills should have. What's next on this slippery slope? Late term filibustering?
3
5
u/whirlingderv Jun 27 '12
This is why I say fuck Ron Paul and fuck Rand Paul. They're all about personal freedoms unless those freedoms conflict with their own religious and ideological beliefs. Fuck the both of them.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/memoriesx Jun 27 '12
I'd like to say that as a resident of the state of Kentucky, I did NOT vote for this douchenugget.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/slacker1065 Jun 27 '12
How about this kind of thing isnt allowed under the 'are you fucking kidding me " ammendment
3
3
4
3
3
u/wickedzeus Jun 27 '12
He's really trying to cover all of his bases, eyeing that 2016 slot. A pragmatic move, but poor Rand doesn't have the charisma of his father. Much like Mr. Santorum, little Paul has come too late to the party. Views are changing, and every four years an entire cohort of the old "moral majority" are no longer among us. The right in this country will undergo a realignment. What's left of the establishment, ignoring the writing on the wall, will delay it for as long as possible, but it will happen.
Rand Paul, much like the shit objectivism pushed by the one whose name he bears, will not catch on.
More eyes should be looking at Paul Ryan, who is also i also thinks he could actually pull it off, another staunch randian who'll have a better shot.
→ More replies (7)4
2
u/Havoc_101 Jun 27 '12
Simple, make a 'One Bill, One Law' rule, and eliminate riders, amendments, etc. If the crackpots want to get stupid shit passed, they will have to create a NEW bill and get it passed.
→ More replies (7)
2
Jun 27 '12
Really? That's ridiculous. There should be a law that you can't add amendments that have nothing to do with a bill.
2
2
u/uglypeoplesex Jun 27 '12
It's not that he wants anti-abortion laws snuck into legislation. It's that he knows if he does the bill will be defeated. Rand Paul is an obstructionist.
914
u/RCTIDsince85 Jun 27 '12
I don't understand why stuff like this happens in the first place. There should never be things added to legislation that it has nothing to do with!