Oh, yeah...I love it!
I don't know where it will lead, but I like the spirit of resistance.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Senator Rand Paul Sues Obama Administration
- Thread starter Reverend Rick
- Start date
I don't know where it will lead, but I like the spirit of resistance.
I'm surprised Utah is doing that, but I applaud their efforts.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Exactly...!!!
Here is how I see it, all of our freedoms have come under attack.
Progessives are afraid Row vs Wade will be challenged
Conservative are afraid the Second amendment will be challenged
Just about all of us have phones and don't deserve to be spied on.
I would have to think we all could agree with less intrusion in our lives.
Just think how strong the American people could be if we quit fighting among ourselves.
Screw the wedge issues, we need good paying jobs period.
To quote Bill Clinton, "It's about the economy stupid". Let's all agree spying on our phones is wrong and we need jobs and quit squabbling over things we disagree on and get something done.
I'm in substantial agreement with you, Rick.
If I have learned anything here at RF, I have found that there are good people on both sides of the political spectrum. If we ever combined forces on some common ground, that would be a great start.
If we used some common sense,(something not so common) we could reach a compromise.
Limit the amount of bullets magazines could hold in the future.
Limit abortion to the first trimester.
Limit who the NSA can track.
Start a path to citizenship including documentation of new arrivals and work permits.
Secure the borders and let folks in the front door instead of sneaking though the back.
Leave the minimum wage rate alone for new hires but give raises for long term employees.
Start making things in America again and limit imports. We need good paying jobs not minimum wage jobs.
Drill baby drill, legalise Pot, workfare not welfare. Line item veto, balance budget amendment......
If we used some common sense,(something not so common) we could reach a compromise.
Limit the amount of bullets magazines could hold in the future.
Limit abortion to the first trimester.
Limit who the NSA can track.
Start a path to citizenship including documentation of new arrivals and work permits.
Secure the borders and let folks in the front door instead of sneaking though the back.
Leave the minimum wage rate alone for new hires but give raises for long term employees.
Start making things in America again and limit imports. We need good paying jobs not minimum wage jobs.
Drill baby drill, legalise Pot, workfare not welfare. Line item veto, balance budget amendment......
You know, if you decide to run for Congress or the Oval Office, I'll be there to negotiate lap dances for a price.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I wish this was actually about the issues and he gave a damn rather than this being a political move to further his career.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I agree
There is "some" bipartisanship on this throughout the country. Not so much in Congress. I don't see magazine size as the real issue.
If we're striving for limited and less intrusive government then this is none of their business. There's nothing wrong with the current law. In fact..abortions are at a low in this country. The government needs to stay out of this as well as the fight dealing with contraception.
I agree.
I agree. The Senate bill has this. We really need to cut out the "pork spending" in the bill.
I agree. This is in the Senate bill as well. In fact, under this administration they've deported more illegal immigrants than ever before.
I strongly disagree. $10.10 is about where we should be if kept up with inflation. Although....a living wage is looking much better.....(not going to happen though).
Check this calculator out...Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator
I agree. The President had a (Make it in America) (Veterans Job Corps Act), an overall Jobs Bill that dealt with infrastructure building/repair and more...
http://www.democraticwhip.gov/content/when-we-make-it-america-america’s-families-will-make-it-too
American Jobs Act | The White House
President Obama
Where was Congress on these....Well they pretty much either never took up the bills or the ones they did take up they filibustered or voted them down.
We are. Keystone does nothing for the US long term. Short term it creates some shovel ready jobs. The project isn't going to take long. Long term you're only going to need a fraction of the people for support. We're producing more oil, natural gas and coil here in the US than ever before. Keystone, for instance, will bring tar sands oil out of Canada, into the US to be refined in the US and shipped overseas.
It's happening...as well as marriage equality that the majority of America supports.
Both are needed. Workfare more than welfare (See Jobs bill above). Put that in place along with the minimum wage hike and get more people off welfare. Wal-Mart workers work..yet many are still getting welfare.
What, letting the President have this power? I raised this question not too long ago here at RF. Since a President isn't a governor I doubt this would ever happen because of separation of powers.
Again, the federal budget is nothing like the states (who actually rely in part on the federal government to balance their books with federal dollars). The federal government dishes out tens of billions to the states for various programs (not solely on the safety net). We give out billions in foreign aid, farm subsidies and corporate welfare.
Are you saying this is his real (& disingenuous) motive?
Basis?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I find it strange that this is the first and only time he has attempted to sue a president for doing something illegal and I also find it a hard coincidence that it just so happens to be a political opponent that will gain him brownie points for his voter pool. Also he knows probably better than any of us that this court case will go absolutely no where and it is nothing more than a symbolic act rather than attempting to do something.
Its pretty easy to pick up. Do you honestly feel that his motivations are anything other than political?
My money is on his being sincere, since the move is very consistent with a long
held political philosophy.
Will it help him politically? Does he thinks so? I don't know.
But this raises a complementary issue....do those ostensible civil libertarians
who don't sue Obama over the surveillance have disingenuous political motives?
Do they remain inactive because they don't want to rock the party's boat.
Time for a Kurt Vonnegut quote (partial).
(Mother Night is a great book...wickedly funny & tragic.)
“We are what we pretend to be.....”
Last edited:
Suppose Hillary wins in 2016.
What do we think her policy will be regarding spying & privacy?
She holds forth....
Hillary Clinton goes mum on NSA, skirts surveillance fight - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
What do we think her policy will be regarding spying & privacy?
She holds forth....
Hillary Clinton goes mum on NSA, skirts surveillance fight - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
I think the stress is more than some members can bare that they might find themselves actually agreeing with a TEA party republican over Hillary Clinton, their candidate of choice.
I would like to take this time to point out Rand Paul does not walk lockstep with the republican party. Hillary has done this much better than Rand.
Seriously, will Progressives really vote for her? Have they not learned Obama was not the hope and change they wished for and Hillary will be much worse?
I would think Progressives would be much smarter than to vote any one party reguardless. If they do, they are no better than the folks they rail against.
Actually, I would like to vote Democratic again some day if they would run a decent principled candidate who would work with the other side.
We have become too polarised and is the reason we cannot get anything done any more.
If Hillary is elected, there will be an even bigger backlash and absolutely nothing will get done.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same only more extreme.
I would like to take this time to point out Rand Paul does not walk lockstep with the republican party. Hillary has done this much better than Rand.
Seriously, will Progressives really vote for her? Have they not learned Obama was not the hope and change they wished for and Hillary will be much worse?
I would think Progressives would be much smarter than to vote any one party reguardless. If they do, they are no better than the folks they rail against.
Actually, I would like to vote Democratic again some day if they would run a decent principled candidate who would work with the other side.
We have become too polarised and is the reason we cannot get anything done any more.
If Hillary is elected, there will be an even bigger backlash and absolutely nothing will get done.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for more of the same only more extreme.
Alceste
Vagabond
What's any of this got to do with Hillary Clinton?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Does Rand share the same anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-science stance that most of his fellow republicans hold? Those are deal breakers for me.
Dr. Paul is much more Libertarian than Republican. He does not vote lockstep with Republicans and thinks for himself.
No candidate is going to think exactly the way we would like, but if he was President, it would not be business as usual military complex theology of the past.
I'm not so sure anyone could say that about Hillary.
These won't address all your questions, but they're the best I found.
Political positions of Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm
I'd have problems voting for him, but if he ran against Hillary, I'd have to consider it.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
That didn't really answer the question.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Better than most republicans, sure, but I still don't think I could vote for him.