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

[SwimExpert]

Rand Paul is tough when it comes to our liberties...

Armed drones over America BAD!



Rand Paul is also tough on crime...

Killing liquor store holdup man with armed drones GOOD!

I'd hurry up and copyright that if I were you. Some campaign out there will surely pay top dollar to make that their anti-Paul TV ad.

 

[g5000]

[URL='http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/10/08/123377/contradicting-pledge-paul-defense/']Rebuking Pledge To America, Rand Paul Says Cutting Defense Spending ‘Has To Be On The Table’[/url]


Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending

 

[bendog]

[URL='http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/10/08/123377/contradicting-pledge-paul-defense/']Rebuking Pledge To America, Rand Paul Says Cutting Defense Spending ‘Has To Be On The Table’


Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending

[/URL]

Yep, that's the thing. Paul's simply a liar. What he says is great, but he just talks the talk. Which is a pity, because we desperately need leadership, and are imo nearing the tipping point in terms of debt.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rand Paul is tough when it comes to our liberties...

Armed drones over America BAD!



Rand Paul is also tough on crime...

Killing liquor store holdup man with armed drones GOOD!

ROFL so you can't tell the difference between (A) the President of the USA using a military drone to kill a US citizen who is "suspected" of being a terrorist, aka. a targeted killing authorized by the President (Aka. assassinations and murder in less authoritative groups) and (B) a local police department using a remotely piloted drone to shoot a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime, for example shooting hostages.

Rand isn't waffling, you're just a democrat that makes judgments without fully understanding basic facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rebuking Pledge To America, Rand Paul Says Cutting Defense Spending ‘Has To Be On The Table’


Rand Paul Proposes Boosting Defense Spending

In the first reference Paul says cutting the defense budget has to be on the table when you are cutting spending.
In the second reference Paul is proposing a budget that has an 8% increase in defense spending this year with another next year.
These two references are not waffling or in contrast with each other. Apparently you don't understand the phrase on the table, nor do you appear to understand the phrase submitting a proposed budget.

 

[Conservative65]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

The only idiot is the one that addresses frisking then the issue was incarceration. Incarceration involves having proven the person actually did something. If they are incarcerated, that's been done. Seems your answer is to not address black crime because it might hurt their feelings.

 

[bendog]

He's a liar, and he's saying he's cutting and raising.

 

[rightwinger]

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 or adaptable to realities on the ground and being a shifty poll watcher. 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.

I think Rand Paul is serious about being President......Cruz isn't

Cruz wants to be crowned leader of the Conservative movement. He knows that won't win the Presidency. Paul is softening his rhetoric and moving to the center in anticipation of the primaries

heh... When was Rand's rhetoric hard? He gets a lot of hardballs thrown at him but for the most part Rand has always been more to the center than the hard line conservatives like Cruz. Rand has never been his dad and never will be. Rand shares some views with his dad, but has never been a full out libertarian like his dad.

Rand has still toned down some of his libertarian rhetoric lately and adopted a more hawkish view of foreign policy

Rand is willing to differ from conservative dogma which can be to his advantage

 

[RKMBrown]

He's a liar, and he's saying he's cutting and raising.

No, you just don't know english.

 

[Conservative65]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

So your excuse is to claim something the numbers don't support exists? I thought your side supported legalization of marijuana. Now you want people arrested for something you say should be legal.

 

[RKMBrown]

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 or adaptable to realities on the ground and being a shifty poll watcher. 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.

I think Rand Paul is serious about being President......Cruz isn't

Cruz wants to be crowned leader of the Conservative movement. He knows that won't win the Presidency. Paul is softening his rhetoric and moving to the center in anticipation of the primaries

heh... When was Rand's rhetoric hard? He gets a lot of hardballs thrown at him but for the most part Rand has always been more to the center than the hard line conservatives like Cruz. Rand has never been his dad and never will be. Rand shares some views with his dad, but has never been a full out libertarian like his dad.

Rand has still toned down some of his libertarian rhetoric lately and adopted a more hawkish view of foreign policy

Rand is willing to differ from conservative dogma which can be to his advantage

Yes, he's changed his "tone" a bit, but he's still Rand. Hawkish? Neither he nor his father are against defending our country. They were and both still are against nation building.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul is tough when it comes to our liberties...

Armed drones over America BAD!



Rand Paul is also tough on crime...

Killing liquor store holdup man with armed drones GOOD!

ROFL so you can't tell the difference between (A) the President of the USA using a military drone to kill a US citizen who is "suspected" of being a terrorist, aka. a targeted killing authorized by the President (Aka. assassinations and murder in less authoritative groups) and (B) a local police department using a remotely piloted drone to shoot a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime, for example shooting hostages.

Rand isn't waffling, you're just a democrat that makes judgments without fully understanding basic facts.

ROFL, you can't tell the difference between Rand Paul saying very expliciting he doesn't want armed drones over America, and then saying he would be okay with blowing away an American citizen with an armed drone over America.

 

[g5000]

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul staged the longest talking filibuster in recent Senate memory from Wednesday into early Thursday, railing with his colleagues for more than 12 hours against what they called the danger of drone strikes to U.S. citizens on American soil.

“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.”

Flip!

Flop!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

Rand Paul is tough when it comes to our liberties...

Armed drones over America BAD!



Rand Paul is also tough on crime...

Killing liquor store holdup man with armed drones GOOD!

ROFL so you can't tell the difference between (A) the President of the USA using a military drone to kill a US citizen who is "suspected" of being a terrorist, aka. a targeted killing authorized by the President (Aka. assassinations and murder in less authoritative groups) and (B) a local police department using a remotely piloted drone to shoot a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime, for example shooting hostages.

Rand isn't waffling, you're just a democrat that makes judgments without fully understanding basic facts.

ROFL, you can't tell the difference between Rand Paul saying very expliciting he doesn't want armed drones over America, and then saying he would be okay with blowing away an American citizen with an armed drone over America.

Nah, your just a lying ass hole, well that or a moron, you pick. He's drawing a distinction between predator drones being flown by the DOD acting on command from the commander in chief for thought crimes, and a local law enforcement agency acting on physical crimes in progress.

Being in support of law enforcement is not the same as being in support of military maneuvers by our military taken on American soil to kill Americans at the command of the president.

 

[SwimExpert]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

The only idiot is the one that addresses frisking then the issue was incarceration. Incarceration involves having proven the person actually did something. If they are incarcerated, that's been done. Seems your answer is to not address black crime because it might hurt their feelings.

Wow, how can you be so stupid and still breath without a ventilator?

 

[Conservative65]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

The only idiot is the one that addresses frisking then the issue was incarceration. Incarceration involves having proven the person actually did something. If they are incarcerated, that's been done. Seems your answer is to not address black crime because it might hurt their feelings.

Wow, how can you be so stupid and still breath without a ventilator?

You're the one that talked about frisking when the issue was incarceration.

How do you breath with your head up your ass?

 

[SwimExpert]

If 90% of the people in a high crime area are black then 90% of the people to be frisked in that area should be black.

You don't expect them to go to a low crime area, where it's mostly white, to frisk just to prove they are being fair would you? That's like airports searching old ladies for weapons at an airport.

Then again White Suburbia is one of the highest crime areas in the country. Cops just don't bother as much with those teenagers smoking pot and drinking underage.

Then again, you still have missed the point, which is no surprise since you're a fucking idiot. The main problem is subjective intervention by police.

The only idiot is the one that addresses frisking then the issue was incarceration. Incarceration involves having proven the person actually did something. If they are incarcerated, that's been done. Seems your answer is to not address black crime because it might hurt their feelings.

Wow, how can you be so stupid and still breath without a ventilator?

You're the one that talked about frisking when the issue was incarceration.

How do you breath with your head up your ass?

You think convictions just fall out of the air like fairy dust?

 

[SwimExpert]

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

And yet we keep spending money...

 

[g5000]

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.