Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Why wasn't Rand there?

  1. #1

    Why wasn't Rand there?

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt..._address_.html

    I can't see the text of this at work, just the headline...
    http://www.iycki.org

    Pro-life conservative Constitutionalist libertarian.


    I stand with Rand.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    here is a good part because i am not copying the whole thing
    However, Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley pointed out that her boss had heard Netanyahu speak Monday night while attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, adding that Paul’s decision not to attend had more to do with a dispute with Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over the Patriot Act extension.

    “This is about the PATRIOT Act and Reid not yet keeping his agreement on amendments,” Bagley said.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt..._address_.html

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by BamaFanNKy View Post
    He hates Jews.
    Unless they are of the austrian variety?

    edith wait, that can't be it cuz the article says he was at the big pro-jew AIPAC conference the night before.
    well there goes that theory, maybe he just hates statist madmen?
    Last edited by specsaregood; 05-24-2011 at 11:27 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Unless they are of the austrian variety?

    edith wait, that can't be it cuz the article says he was at the big pro-jew AIPAC conference the night before.
    well there goes that theory, maybe he just hates statist madmen?
    He was there as a mole.


  7. #6
    He remained the only senator on the Senate floor during the speech.
    If the senate was still considered "In Session" could he have presented, and voted on issues being the ranking member on the floor?

  8. #7
    Reid had hoped to recess the Senate during the speech and count that toward the cloture clock, but Paul stayed on the Senate floor, kept the chamber open, and was able to stop the cloture clock.
    After cloture is invoked, debate is only limited to 30 hours. Rand basically stopped the clock so that there is time to consider his amendments to the PATRIOT Act.

  9. #8
    //
    Last edited by specsaregood; 04-10-2012 at 06:20 AM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Reid had hoped to recess the Senate during the speech and count that toward the cloture clock, but Paul stayed on the Senate floor, kept the chamber open, and was able to stop the cloture clock.
    After cloture is invoked, debate is only limited to 30 hours. Rand basically stopped the clock so that there is time to consider his amendments to the PATRIOT Act.
    fantastic, where did you get that?

    edit: i see that in the article now, I dn't think that was there originally when I first read it.
    Last edited by specsaregood; 05-24-2011 at 11:46 AM.

  12. #10
    Politico has reached a new low. It's obvious that Rand Paul is taking the opportunity to seize the empty Senate floor to protest Reid's duplicity on the Patriot Act.

    Anyone with a modicum of skepticism toward Politico can see that this propaganda by Reid et al to smear Rand Paul for outmaneuvering Harry Reid and taking advantage of the empty Senate floor.

    Instead of calling it like it is they do what Beltway outlets exist to do: Push the propaganda of the powerful.

    How despicable is this? Politico gets direct response from Paul on the matter:
    “This is about the PATRIOT Act and Reid not yet keeping his agreement on amendments,” Bagley said.
    And what do they propagate for their DC masters? This disgusting smear:
    "Still, Paul’s decision to engage in a likely futile procedural exercise rather than attend Netanyahu’s speech was telling. Earlier this year, Paul came under fire from both Democrats and Republicans after proposing cutting all U.S. foreign aid, including the $3 billion the country spends on military assistance for Israel each year."
    Despicable doesn't begin to describe this.
    "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack...that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." "Attack Libya UPDATE 8/13: and Syria"

    "We can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties.... the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can." "Need to murder UPDATE 8/13: and track citizens" ~ Barack H. Obama



Similar Threads

  1. Rand Paul to Christie: 'That wasn't very nice'
    By Anti Federalist in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-27-2015, 04:12 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-18-2014, 01:18 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-28-2011, 06:32 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 08:53 PM
  5. Why RP wasn't on Fox
    By heath.whiteaker in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 08:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •