|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/rand-paul-newt-gingrich/
| Quote: |
Rand Paul Mocks Newt Gingrich: �He Has More War Positions Than He Has Wives�
Potential GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich has been in hot water lately after ThinkProgress caught him flipping his position on the Libyan war rapidly over the span of just a few weeks, indicating that his positions on foreign policy are more driven by politics than principle. Last night, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke at the Congressional Correspondents Dinner. At one point, Paul referenced these flip-flops by Gingrich to criticize both his politically driven foreign policy positions and his infidelity to his wives. Paul also poked fun at Fox News, saying that it is having a hard time deciding what it likes more, bombing the Middle East or attacking President Obama, in deciding its opinion on Libya:
PAUL: I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don�t know. I think he has more war positions than he�s had wives. [...]
There�s a big debate over there. Fox News can�t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It�s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can�t we do both? Can�t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work? |
I like it. |
Yes, this was cute. You miss the irony though. Our boy Rand is glossing over his own flip flop on Libya. On March 1 he voted to back the No Fly Zone and now he's jumping up and down while gnashing his teeth about how Obama didn't get congressional approval. I think Lawrence O'Donnell is the only one who noticed.
For the take-down: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42350498 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Budget cutting done the way it is being supported in this thread is irresponsible governing. Each program needs to be debated on its merits and funded on its merits. Just taking a meat cleaver to the budget in the way both parties are doing is an abrogation of responsibility.
Isn't there some way we could draft good legislators from around the world and put them in charge? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| On March 1 he voted to back the No Fly Zone and now he's jumping up and down while gnashing his teeth about how Obama didn't get congressional approval. |
Are you being obtuse? The vote for the No Fly Zone was by the Senate only. And it was not binding.
| Quote: |
| The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. posture toward Libya is uncertain. |
Rand Paul can be for the war and lament that it lacks official Congressional authorization. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be liberal to think these stances were contradictory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| On March 1 he voted to back the No Fly Zone and now he's jumping up and down while gnashing his teeth about how Obama didn't get congressional approval. |
Are you being obtuse? The vote for the No Fly Zone was by the Senate only. And it was not binding.
| Quote: |
| The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. posture toward Libya is uncertain. |
Rand Paul can be for the war and lament that it lacks official Congressional authorization. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'd have to be liberal to think these stances were contradictory. |
Ron Paul is in the Senate (more's the pity) and had a chance on March 1 to voice his opinion for and against the No Fly Zone. He (and any senator who had an objection) kept silent, allowing the resolution to pass unanimously.
Perhaps you think that if the resolution were given a new name and the exact same 100 senators were told this time around it would be binding, then the ones who object would vote differently. Forgive me for failing to see the logic of that. Is it libertarian practice to vote yes on a non-binding resolution and then turn around and vote no on the exact same resolution that is binding?
As for the House. That craven horde of posers spent a week debating whether or not to defund NPR. If they were serious about having a say in the Libyan situation, they could do so. They have so far failed to act because they don't want to act. Posing is much better than actually doing work.
If the Senate and House want to exercise power in foreign affairs, all they have to do is step up to the plate and act. However, it is much more politically useful to do nothing in order to keep your hands clean so you can complain later when things go wrong. Craven cowards.
PS: The War Powers Act is highly controversial. No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the President's behavior by passing legislation saying he has 60 or 90 days to do something. Congress is claiming superiority over a co-equal branch.
Hogwash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
double post
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
triple post 
Aside from the fact that the kindest possible thing anyone anywhere could have to say about Rand Paul is that he has an 'interesting' haircut and even more 'interesting' voice, how could a state that sent the great Henry Clay to the congress for 40 years stoop so low? If Ron Paul is not the poster boy for devolution, no one is.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rand Paul isn't just being hypocritical about Obama's method, saying Obama got us into Libya without Congress having a say since Paul voted 'yes' to the NFZ on March 1, he is also objecting to the war:
"We are currently involved in two wars right now and I don't think we really need to be involved in a third war," said Senator Rand Paul, a fiscal hawk and founding member of the Tea Party caucus in the Senate, referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/rand-paul-obama-hypocriti_n_844023.html
Granted the man is not a flaming orator--he's only minimally articulate. But he did come out against the war after voting for the war. I do think people can change their mind, but in 3 weeks...? The man is not a serious senator. He is however a media 'woman of easy virtue'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rand Paul wants to criminalize free speech
| Rand Paul wrote: |
| But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison. |
| Glenn Greenwald wrote: |
[T]he First Amendment not only protects the mere "attending" of a speech "promoting the violent overthrow of our government," but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court's unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech. |
This is really sad. I suppose as you do so many talk shows, the odds of putting your foot in your mouth increases, until eventually its inevitable that you say something stupid.
Then again, this is pretty stupid and inconsistent with Rand Paul's message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The man gives me the impression that he is from the authoritarian wing of the right. I couldn't point to anything specific before, but this supports my feeling. To be polite, he's an odd man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an interesting take on the Rand Paul-toss-'em-in-the-pokey-if-they-listen-to-a-radical-speech view of civil liberties:
"...Rand Paul attended, even spoke at, a rally where militia members holding assault rifles advocated the violent overthrow of the government and execution of liberal journalists."
http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2011/05/rand-paul-calls-for-putting-himself-in.html
Hoisted on your own petard, anyone?
There was another comment I ran across that seems undeniable. Rand is not just an ideologue, he's not a particularly smart one.
If that weren't enough to warm the cockles of the heart, there is the Twain quote I'd never read before: "I want to be in Kentucky when the end of the world comes, because it's always 20 years behind." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Rand Paul wants to criminalize free speech
| Rand Paul wrote: |
| But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison. |
|
There is a syntactic ambiguity in that statement. The referent could be the speaker or the attendee.
| Quote: |
This is really sad. I suppose as you do so many talk shows, the odds of putting your foot in your mouth increases, until eventually its inevitable that you say something stupid.
Then again, this is pretty stupid and inconsistent with Rand Paul's message. |
Yes. He probably just misspoke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Weekly Standard
Rand Paul�s Balancing Act
Matthew Continetti Matthew Continetti � Tue May 31, 3:32 pm ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 016, Issue 35 - 05/30/2011 � I was interviewing Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on February 17, in his temporary office in the Russell building on Capitol Hill, when his chief of staff Doug Stafford entered the room. |
Nice article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20110531/cm_weeklystandard/randpaulsbalancingact_1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ What a breath of fresh air to see! Thanks.
Can this possibly be like the 60's again? Can a popular anti-war sentiment actually prevail now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
^ What a breath of fresh air to see! Thanks.
Can this possibly be like the 60's again? Can a popular anti-war sentiment actually prevail now? |
Well, the Vietnam War lasted until 1975. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
