Rand Paul grandstanding

[christiefan915]

What the heck is wrong with this guy? I guess it's okay for death and damage to occur in the name of smaller government and Paul's "philosophical opposition".

(AP) WASHINGTON — The only senator opposed to a bill to toughen federal safety regulation of oil and gas pipelines said Wednesday he's willing to work with Senate leaders to schedule a debate on the measure, but he's still blocking expedited passage.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is philosophically opposed to federal regulation, also blamed Democratic leaders for the Senate's failure to act on the measure, saying they could have scheduled a debate and vote on the bill at any time...

But a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Paul of "a classic tea party stunt."

"The simple fact is that if Sen. Paul stopped blocking this bill, it would sail through with overwhelming bipartisan support," spokesman Adam Jentleson said...

The bill has wide, bipartisan support and is backed by industry and safety groups. It was approved without opposition by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in May. Paul is the only senator opposing an effort by the bill's Democratic sponsors to pass it swiftly using "unanimous consent" procedures that eliminate the need for a time-consuming debate...

The pipeline bill is, in part, a response to a series of pipeline accidents over the past year and a half, including a gas explosion last year that killed eight people and heavily damaged a suburban subdivision in San Bruno, Calif., near San Francisco. The bill would authorize more federal safety inspectors, and pipeline companies would have to confirm that their records on how much pressure their pipelines can tolerate are accurate...

...Paul's actions show he is "blinded by ideology" and "indifferent to the overwhelming evidence that self-regulation of the gas industry is a prescription for further death and injury," Speier said in a statement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/28/ap/congress/main20112897.shtml

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

what is wrong with debating the measure? afraid of something like obamacare?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Are you saying bills should be passed without discussion?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

This is exactly why I donated to Rand Paul. Reason, logic, knowledge instead of rhetoric and emotional sensationalism.

 

[christiefan915]

what is wrong with debating the measure? afraid of something like obamacare?

What's to debate, whether we should have fewer regulations even if it means loss of life?

The other 46 repubs didn't find fault with it.

Are you against the measure?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

What possible benefit could be gained by debating this bill?


Do we need another deadly gas explosion to highlight the pointlessness of this publicity stunt?


This is from GOPUSA:


Paul, a tea party ally who shares with his father, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a desire to shrink the role of the federal government, won't discuss his role in stymieing the bill.


But industry lobbyists, safety advocates and Senate aides said he is the only senator who is refusing to agree to procedures that would permit swift passage of the measure.


A deadly gas pipeline explosion near San Francisco last year - along with other recent gas explosions and oil pipeline spills - has created consensus in Congress, as well as in the industry, that there are gaps in federal safety regulations.


The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the bill in May without opposition.


It would authorize more federal safety inspectors, and pipeline companies would have to confirm that their records on how much pressure their pipelines can tolerate are accurate.


Under the bill, federal regulators could order that automatic shutoff valves be installed on new pipelines so leaks can be halted sooner.


And it directs regulators to determine whether mandatory inspections of aging pipelines in densely populated areas should be expanded to include lines in rural areas.


It would be paid for by industry fees.


The bill is supported by the industry's major trade associations - the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the American Gas Association and the Association of Oil Pipelines - as well as the Pipeline Safety Trust, a safety advocacy group.


The measure is "a balanced solution to the very important issue of improving the safety of pipelines," said Martin Edwards, the interstate gas association's top lobbyist.



Officials familiar with Paul's objections said he has told lobbyists and company officials that he's not opposed to any specific part of the bill, just to the notion of additional federal regulation.



Support for the measure from Kentucky companies hasn't budged Paul.



Maybe getting voted out of office will budge this egotistical asshole.


http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/09/27/rand-paul-blocks-pipeline-safety-bill-on-principle/

 

[christiefan915]

"Republican Sen. Rand Paul's opposition to the bill hasn't wavered even after a gas pipeline rupture last week shook people awake in three counties in his home state of Kentucky."

I hope they remember this when he's up for re-election.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What's to debate, whether we should have fewer regulations even if it means loss of life?

The other 46 repubs didn't find fault with it.

Are you against the measure?

that you don't think there is anything to debate is proof it needs to be discussed. every bill, no matter what the bill "claims" it will need, must be debated, unless it is an extreme emergency like a massive hurricane and that bill should only address that specific hurricane so that there really is no need for debate.

i don't know everything that is in the measure, so at this point i can't say whether i'm for or against it. i bet dollars to pesos you don't either, but you're running around criticizing someone for wanting a little more time to discuss the issues. you're using logical fallacies and appealing to emotion.

 

[christiefan915]

that you don't think there is anything to debate is proof it needs to be discussed. every bill, no matter what the bill "claims" it will need, must be debated, unless it is an extreme emergency like a massive hurricane and that bill should only address that specific hurricane so that there really is no need for debate.

i don't know everything that is in the measure, so at this point i can't say whether i'm for or against it. i bet dollars to pesos you don't either, but you're running around criticizing someone for wanting a little more time to discuss the issues. you're using logical fallacies and appealing to emotion.

I have no say-so in the matter, just an opinion. So why don't you use some of that indignation and call the 46 repubs who support the measure, and ask them why they didn't feel the need to debate?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I have no say-so in the matter, just an opinion. So why don't you use some of that indignation and call the 46 repubs who support the measure, and ask them why they didn't feel the need to debate?

have you called rand paul?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

What's to debate, whether we should have fewer regulations even if it means loss of life?

The other 46 repubs didn't find fault with it.

Are you against the measure?

So debating the measure automaticaly means people will die? That's the kind of emotional sensationalim I'm talking about.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So debating the measure automaticaly means people will die? That's the kind of emotional sensationalim I'm talking about.

No, but it increases the likelihood.

Why is Paul stalling?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

why are legion and christie afraid of one afternoon?

"I believe legislation should have open debate and votes. It need not take weeks. Certainly we could spend an afternoon for the people's elected representatives to discuss whether they got massive new regulations," Paul said in a statement.

how long as the bill taken, and you two can't wait one afternoon to have a more open government?

 

[Damocles]

why are legion and christie afraid of one afternoon?

"I believe legislation should have open debate and votes. It need not take weeks. Certainly we could spend an afternoon for the people's elected representatives to discuss whether they got massive new regulations," Paul said in a statement.

how long as the bill taken, and you two can't wait one afternoon to have a more open government?

No, currently the argument is how much we need "less democracy"...

Not kidding.

You get NC Governor trying to just dismiss the constitution, later defended as a "joke"... Only the true hackstains believe that rubbish.

You get stories like this one:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy

And before somebody tries to tell people that Peter Orszag is some righty... He was part of the Clinton Administration (Special Assistant, later as Senior Economist) and the Obama Administration as the dude that writes the never-passed and rejected by his own party as fiscally irresponsible budgets.

And they can't wait one afternoon, because when people find out what is in the bill they lose the "consent of the governed", a consent they no longer seem to want to even pretend to seek...

 

[Rune]

No, currently the argument is how much we need "less democracy"...

Not kidding.

You get NC Governor trying to just dismiss the constitution, later defended as a "joke"... Only the true hackstains believe that rubbish.

You get stories like this one:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy

And before somebody tries to tell people that Peter Orszag is some righty... He was part of the Clinton Administration (Special Assistant, later as Senior Economist) and the Obama Administration as the dude that writes the never-passed and rejected by his own party as fiscally irresponsible budgets.

And they can't wait one afternoon, because when people find out what is in the bill they lose the "consent of the governed", a consent they no longer seem to want to even pretend to seek...

Maybe we need to change to simple majority, and strip the ability of a single senator from bypassing the constitutional process of legislating.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Maybe we need to change to simple majority, and strip the ability of a single senator from bypassing the constitutional process of legislating.

Part of the legislating process is actually allowing DEBATE on the bills should anyone desire it. Reid could have scheduled a debate on the issue providing a forum for the objections to the bill and the ability of each Senator to make their case. Even if it is just ONE Senator who desires it.

 

[christiefan915]

have you called rand paul?

Are you a complete idiot, or what?

I know what Rand Paul wants, there's no reason for me to call him.

How neatly you're trying to sidestep the FACT that 46 Republicans are on board with the measure. Why aren't you questioning their decision, instead of criticizing my opinion? Why don't you get on the blower and ask the 46 to stand behind Paul?

Must. Defend. Republicans.

View attachment 1312

 

[christiefan915]

So debating the measure automaticaly means people will die? That's the kind of emotional sensationalim I'm talking about.

I didn't say that. I said that fewer regulations of a dangerous enterprise could result in loss of life. That's fact, not emotion.

 

[Rune]

Part of the legislating process is actually allowing DEBATE on the bills should anyone desire it. Reid could have scheduled a debate on the issue providing a forum for the objections to the bill and the ability of each Senator to make their case. Even if it is just ONE Senator who desires it.

If this is truly resolved in a day (which remains to be seen) you have a point.
How many times has one senator or rep held up legislation? Can you say Trent Lott?

My actual point though is the the super majority is bullshit.

 

[christiefan915]

Part of the legislating process is actually allowing DEBATE on the bills should anyone desire it. Reid could have scheduled a debate on the issue providing a forum for the objections to the bill and the ability of each Senator to make their case. Even if it is just ONE Senator who desires it.

Maybe Paul should have used his energies in getting more senators to demand a debate, instead of focusing on Harry Reid. Two other senators were on the fence about this, and they decided to go with the majority, instead of standing with Paul. Wonder why they weren't swayed by Paul's argument?