Rand Paul grandstanding

[Cancel 2016.2]

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?

It matters not. There is a reason that one senator can hold up a bill if they wish a debate. THAT Senator (like the others) is supposed to be voting on behalf of what is in the best interests of his/her constituents. If ONE Senator doesn't feel the bill has been discussed or feel that their questions/objections have been answered, they have the RIGHT and quite frankly the RESPONSIBILITY to hold up the bill until they are met.

If it was a matter of Reid allowed a debate and Paul didn't like the outcome, that would be a completely different story. But every single Senator has the RIGHT to request a debate on bills.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bottom line, he need not use his energies to get more Senators to demand a debate. Procedure allows him to do so on his own. He can then address ALL Senators (who attend) at the SAME time rather than going to individuals or small groups of Senators and having to repeat himself over and over again.

 

[Bonestorm]

The Senate is a dysfunctional institution and needs a major revamping of the rules. That a bill that would otherwise pass by a large majority can be held up buy one dumbass is stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Senate is a dysfunctional institution and needs a major revamping of the rules. That a bill that would otherwise pass by a large majority can be held up buy one dumbass is stupid.

LOL.... that the leadership should be able to pass a bill without a debate when one of its members wants a debate... THAT 'dumbass'.... his name is REID. He could have opened it up for debate, let Paul have his say, then voted. But Reid didn't. WHY? Because REID is a dumbass.

 

[Crashk]

It matters not. There is a reason that one senator can hold up a bill if they wish a debate. THAT Senator (like the others) is supposed to be voting on behalf of what is in the best interests of his/her constituents. If ONE Senator doesn't feel the bill has been discussed or feel that their questions/objections have been answered, they have the RIGHT and quite frankly the RESPONSIBILITY to hold up the bill until they are met.

If it was a matter of Reid allowed a debate and Paul didn't like the outcome, that would be a completely different story. But every single Senator has the RIGHT to request a debate on bills.

Problem is who are his constituents? The people of his state or the oil companies paying for his campaigns? Looks like big oil wins again over the lives of Americans.

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL.... that the leadership should be able to pass a bill without a debate when one of its members wants a debate... THAT 'dumbass'.... his name is REID. He could have opened it up for debate, let Paul have his say, then voted. But Reid didn't. WHY? Because REID is a dumbass.

The only way the Senate gets shit done is through unanimous consent. If they had to go through all of the procedural niceties for every fucking bill, including bills that will easily pass, the Senate would get even less done than it does now. When you have pissant Senators objecting to unanimous consent the whole process grinds to a halt.

That's why they need to revamp the rules. The comity that may have existed in the past and allowed the Senate to function notwithstanding its arcane procedural rules is long gone and isn't coming back any time soon.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

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.

So why not debate the regulations?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The Senate is a dysfunctional institution and needs a major revamping of the rules. That a bill that would otherwise pass by a large majority can be held up buy one dumbass is stupid.

So because proles elect morons who are trigger happy with the rubber stamp of approval, requesting a policy discussion befoe passing a bill, which is likely to pass anyways, is bad?

Seriously, why is debating a bill bad?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So why not debate the regulations?

Well, looks like that's what's happening, so when the debate takes place, are you going to watch it on C-Span?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The only way the Senate gets shit done is through unanimous consent. If they had to go through all of the procedural niceties for every fucking bill, including bills that will easily pass, the Senate would get even less done than it does now. When you have pissant Senators objecting to unanimous consent the whole process grinds to a halt.

That's why they need to revamp the rules. The comity that may have existed in the past and allowed the Senate to function notwithstanding its arcane procedural rules is long gone and isn't coming back any time soon.

When you have Pissant Senators who run the Senate in an improper manner, devoid of rules, the process grinds to a halt. Nothing gets done in the Senate because Reid is a pathetically weak leader. He cannot even get a BUDGET passed.

Again, there is a reason each Senator is allowed to do what Paul is doing. Far less time would have been taken if Reid had simply allowed the 'debate' and then followed up with a vote. Instead, Reid once again is playing the role of weak leader. I know you are all for trampling others rights, but that is not the way the Senate was designed.

You bitch about following procedure? Truly amusing. Lets just let Reid do whatever he wants... how about that? Or should we just follow the procedures that YOU like? Will you hold the same views if the Reps regain control of the Senate?

 

[Bonestorm]

When you have Pissant Senators who run the Senate in an improper manner, devoid of rules, the process grinds to a halt. Nothing gets done in the Senate because Reid is a pathetically weak leader. He cannot even get a BUDGET passed.

Again, there is a reason each Senator is allowed to do what Paul is doing. Far less time would have been taken if Reid had simply allowed the 'debate' and then followed up with a vote. Instead, Reid once again is playing the role of weak leader. I know you are all for trampling others rights, but that is not the way the Senate was designed.

You bitch about following procedure? Truly amusing. Lets just let Reid do whatever he wants... how about that? Or should we just follow the procedures that YOU like? Will you hold the same views if the Reps regain control of the Senate?

I'm not bitching about following procedure. I'm bitching about the procedure. The procedure does not work and should be changed so that pissant Senators can't gum up the works for no good reason. The fact that each individual Senator is allowed to do what Paul is doing is the problem.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I invite the Pauliticians to examine this and tell the forum what needs debate:

The United States has approximately 2.5 million miles of pipelines that transport oil, natural gas, and hazardous liquids. These pipelines are an integral component of the U.S. economy and energy supply, and are generally considered a safer mode of transportation than other options for moving gas and liquids.

Since 2006, there have been approximately 40 pipeline incidents each year that resulted in a fatality or injury. Last September, a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, Calif., and quickly engulfed nearby homes in fire. The explosion, and subsequent fire, led to the death of eight people, and destroyed or damaged over 150 residences.

The Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2011 (PTSI Act) would reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), within the Department of Transportation, for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. The pipeline safety programs expired at the end of fiscal year 2010 and the PTSI Act includes provisions to enhance pipeline safety efforts. This legislation is a broad-based reauthorization that targets known vulnerabilities and outstanding issues in pipeline regulation. Specifically, the legislation:

• Increases the cap on civil penalties for violators of pipeline regulations, and adds civil penalties for obstructing investigations;
• Permits expansion of excess flow valve requirements to include multi-family buildings and small commercial facilities;
• Sets more stringent standards on State “One-Call” systems by eliminating all exemptions given to local and state government agencies, and their contractors, on notifying “One-Call” centers before digging;
• Permits the requirement of installation of automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves on new transmission pipelines;
• Requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations that establish time limits on accident and leak notification by pipeline operators to local and state government officials and emergency responders;
• Requires the Secretary to evaluate whether integrity management system requirements should be expanded beyond currently defined high consequence areas and establish regulations as appropriate;
• Increases public availability of pipeline information, inspections, and standards by requiring that this information be made available on PHMSA’s public website;
• Authorizes additional pipeline inspectors and pipeline safety support employees, through a phased-in increase over the next four years;
• Allows PHMSA to recover costs for oversight of large pipeline design and construction projects; and
• Authorizes appropriations for PHMSA for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/i...ecord_id=72c19ebc-e9fc-41c1-9315-3ddc07a11634

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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

what? i did not side step anything. i know what the other republicans want, there is no reason to call them.

you're just pissed off because your double standard stinks and you know it. they aren't posting here, so why would i need to question them? you made a post, if you're too thin skinned to have someone respond to YOUR post and opinions, stop posting.

i am not defending republicans here. i flat out said the bill should be debated, so obviously i am AGAINST the majority of republicans. what the fuck is your problem?

 

[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?

christie.....................?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not bitching about following procedure. I'm bitching about the procedure.

My fault, however could I have come to the conclusion that you were bitching about them having to go through procedural niceties?

If they had to go through all of the procedural niceties for every fucking bill, including bills that will easily pass, the Senate would get even less done than it does now

The procedure does not work and should be changed so that pissant Senators can't gum up the works for no good reason.

The procedure worked EXACTLY as it was intended. To allow a single Senator the RIGHT to have any bill DEBATED. So go whine to your PISSANT master Senator Reid, if you wish.

Seriously, do you really think calling him a pissant Senator aides your cause? Or does it just make you look even more like a partisan hack than usual?

The fact that each individual Senator is allowed to do what Paul is doing is the problem.

Why? Because you would rather the bills just get rubber stamped? The bills SHOULD be debated.... whether you think it is a nuisance or not.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The Pauliticians don't even know what's in the legislation, and it's possible Randy doesn't either, since he hasn't stated a specific concern that I'm aware of.

The Party of No is just flexing its' puny muscles - again, this time in a minority of one.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'd rather have functioning political institutions.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It's hilarious that none of the Pauliticians on JPP live in Kentucky that I know of, and they are "defending" an obstructionist action on legislation they know little or nothing about, yet in every case their own Senators assented to fast-tracking this.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I'd rather have functioning political institutions.

So debating the merits of a law isn't a legitimate function?

 

[Bonestorm]

So debating the merits of a law isn't a legitimate function?

You're being douchey. If every senator acted the way Paul is acting, nothing would ever get done. Ever. The only thing separating the Senate from permanent gridlock is the restraint of individual senators.