Rand Paul F*cked us all on the Immigration bill

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,970
Reaction score
2,154
The Apple fell far from the tree.

Rand Paul [COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)]F*[/COLOR]ed us all on the immigration bill. The original Senate immigration bill is already enough to make anyone concerned about privacy and civil liberties vomit. It would create a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID. It would mandate all employers to look up every new hire in the database and verify that they match their photo. It therefore sets the precedent that you need permission from the government to work, and your activities can be restricted by failing to appear in the database.
As the heir to Ron Paul’s political machine, Rand is supposed to be the staunchest defender of our civil liberties in the U.S. Senate, but as the immigration bill was debated and amended, all we heard from him on the subject was concerning border “SECURITY”
Rand Paul could have, and should have, spoken out against the bill on civil liberties grounds. His father did, and if Rand had stood for liberty just like Ron, he could have peeled off support for the bill from Democrats trying to cover their civil libertarian flank.
Rand Paul could have, and should have, spoken out against the bill on fiscal grounds. The bill spends $46 billion dollars on border security and is packed with special interest giveaways like a youth jobs program and a waiver for Alaska fishing workers. And if he opposed the spending in the bill, the entire Tea Party wing of the GOP, which he now basically leads, would have stood right beside him.
Establishment Republicans would have opposed the bill anyway for lack of border security and the immigration bill would have died long ago.
But since Rand Paul decided to focus on SECURITY, trying to appeal to xenophobic, old, white conservatives as he campaigns for 2016, there was NOBODY in the conversation calling for LIBERTY. And with the one person in the Senate who was supposed to be the voice of liberty, calling instead for security, what we got was a loss of our liberty in the name of security.
We got the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the immigration bill that calls for 20,000 more border patrol agents, 700 miles of border fencing, surveillance drones, and infrared sensors. Lindsey Graham praised it for creating “an almost militarized border”. This amendment bought off 15 senate Republicans with a giveaway to the Military-Industrial complex. Democrats are still marching in lockstep behind it because they don’t give a shitabout civil liberties. Police statists in the GOP get everything they wanted, and it now has enough votes to pass the Senate, with a good chance in the House as well.
On immigration, Rand Paul committed the cardinal sin that Ben Franklin warned us about. He surrendered liberty for security./QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
I seem to recall saying that he was nothing but a rank and file GOP stooge a couple of years back when I pointed out that under his stewardship the tea party had been completely neutered.

I also remember the less than pleasant response I received for pointing that fact out.

A lesser person might be tempted to gloat, but the truth is, as far as politics goes I wish I was wrong.

Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk 4
 
the_leander said:
I seem to recall saying that he was nothing but a rank and file GOP stooge a couple of years back when I pointed out that under his stewardship the tea party had been completely neutered.

I also remember the less than pleasant response I received for pointing that fact out.

A lesser person might be tempted to gloat, but the truth is, as far as politics goes I wish I was wrong.

Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...

Are you confusing Ron Paul with Rand Paul? I've always had my reservations about Rand Paul. Even still, he has mostly been better than the establishment Republicans at least in appearances. It looks like he is gearing up for a presidential run in 2016 and is trying to morph himself into an establishment Republican.
 
redrumloa said:
Are you confusing Ron Paul with Rand Paul? I've always had my reservations about Rand Paul. Even still, he has mostly been better than the establishment Republicans at least in appearances. It looks like he is gearing up for a presidential run in 2016 and is trying to morph himself into an establishment Republican.
Click to expand...

No, although the reaction didn't come from you either. Under Ron the tea party was a growing, vibrant ground roots movement (arguments could be made either way about how well informed it was, but not its energy), as soon as Rand became involved it quickly got squelched under the illusion of getting republican support whilst in actuality cranking up the hate and divisions. I said it then and this confirms it - Rand is nothing but a toady for the GOP and will support or reject whatever they tell him to. Guy doesn't have an original thought in his head.

Doesn't surprise me that he'll take a run in the election though.

Sent from my ARCHOS 80G9 using Tapatalk 4
 
http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-plans-abandon-gop-stars-083902786.html

The tea party is a loosely knit web of activists, and some are hoping to rekindle the fire with 2014 primary challenges to wayward Republicans. But many more say they plan to sit out high-profile races in some important swing states next year, a move that GOP leaders fear could imperil the re-election prospects of former tea party luminaries, including the governors of Florida and Ohio.
Click to expand...
one can only hope. for the sake of the good people living in those States
 
redrumloa said:
Are you confusing Ron Paul with Rand Paul? I've always had my reservations about Rand Paul. Even still, he has mostly been better than the establishment Republicans at least in appearances. It looks like he is gearing up for a presidential run in 2016 and is trying to morph himself into an establishment Republican.
Click to expand...
Those morphings are always problematic. For a recent example - look what happened when the Democratic Centrist, if not conservative Obama, took on liberal trappings by taking on the charge to get out of Iraq. He got lots of liberal support. But, the other issues liberals are concerned about were dropped. The results of Obama have been out of Iraq and the rest is best summarized as a 3rd Bush Term.
 
Something's definitely up with the Republicans and Tea Party in MN. First, the local RNC is still, for all purposes, economically bankrupt. (RNC was served an eviction notice for failing to pay rent. Said they're over $1million in debt. -- This was the end of 2012. It's not like 2013's non-election year brings in donations.) Second, Bachmann, a Tea Party Leader, is not running for reelection.

IMO - The Koch Bros are assessing their laborers. Michelle B has authored basically nothing that's passed Congress. In the meantime she won by a couple % points, by having to spend 10:1 above her Dem challenger. The Kochs are wise businessmen. A quick look at that relationship tells me they could have the rubber stamp that MB has been in place for less money.

I wonder what 2014 will bring. IMO, if the Republicans want power they have to bring some issues. Voting 40 times against Obamacare just shows how worthless and reactionary they've become. The party's energy is focused on voting against Obama instead of bringing their own legislation. I think Boehner said it well when he talked about how we should measure the Republicans not by what laws they bring but by what laws they repeal. That's their focus. (Oh and BTW the # of laws repealed by Republicans is ZERO!)
 
The reason they are lame ducks relies, for the most part, in their current leadership.

Now the GOP news is airing a possible drive to a Government shutdown? I wouldn't expect the Geezer Old Party to email or text but telephones are nearly 200 years old. They should be able to pick one up and call ole Newty G and see how well that strategy worked the last time.
 
the_leander said:
No, although the reaction didn't come from you either. Under Ron the tea party was a growing, vibrant ground roots movement
Click to expand...

But Ron wasn't leading the Tea Party, never did and what we call the Tea Party has nothing to do with Ron Paul. Ron held some "tea parties" before there was a "Tea Party" but the Tea Party was created to drain off the popular support for outside voices like Ron Paul. It was created by the right wing elites to neutralize those people calling for the protection of personal rights and the end to expensive and criminal foreign policy. The Tea Party was created to fight Ron Paul.
 
the_leander said:
Rand is nothing but a toady for the GOP and will support or reject whatever they tell him to. Guy doesn't have an original thought in his head.

Doesn't surprise me that he'll take a run in the election though.
Click to expand...

To take a run at an election he has to show the party bosses that he isn't as "unreasonable" as his dad. He can still take some of his stands but he has to show that he is willing to deal else he will get shut out like his dad. I think that Ron's approach was infinitely more honest and principled but in the end being honest and principled and having sufficient popular support to make a good run for the President was not sufficient as the party bosses simply changed the rules out from under him and went so far as running conferences against their own rules, manipulating the voting and simply disallowing votes that went against them. Rand seems to be taking a more "pragmatic" stand and I disagree with that though understand it. Pragmatism means going along to get along and that is basically legitimizing that with which you are going along. If he is ever allowed anywhere near the top then once he starts stating his own mind he will be reviled as a traitor and if you think he looks bad in the press now, you just wait and see how he is portrayed when they turn on him for real.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
To take a run at an election he has to show the party bosses that he isn't as "unreasonable" as his dad.
Click to expand...
A Christian Libertarian - there's an oxymoron if there ever was one. One cannot follow the words of Christ and follow the selfishness that Libertarian represents. Heck if they actually read Ayn Rand, she points the unreasonableness of that herself. Fortunately, for Rand most of the GOP haven't read the Bible past the Old Testament nor Ayn Rand, and therefore will find that a 'reasonable' approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top