About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, April 7 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It is too bad that CNN only gives you a 1 minute and 40 second portion of his speech.  I tried to find a video of the entire speech, which isn't that long, but had no sucess (not even at Rand Paul's web site)

 

But I did find a transcript of the speech.  Here is a link to that:



Post 1

Tuesday, April 7 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I watched his whole speech this morning, and I thought it was pretty good.



Post 2

Tuesday, April 7 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jeff,

 

I liked it as well.  As some of the commentators have said, he will have a tough time since he'll be attacked by members of his own party, and the times have changed in that when he came out opposed to the involvement in the wars in the middle east, the population liked that idea.  Now, with ISIS, and the entire region on fire and Iran ready to go nuclear, he will have to try to defend that position.  It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Lindsay Graham is entering the race for the sole purpose of trashing anyone who isn't as gung ho about waging war as he is (I think that is everyone except McCain, who just won't retire, damn it.)

 

I'd still vote for him - even if I don't agree with him on abortion or 100% on his foreign policy.  His strongest draw is being principled and recognizing that we need to be bold to move back to a constitutional government, and a fiscally responsible government.



Post 3

Wednesday, April 8 - 2:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Salon.com is not amused: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/rand_pauls_terrifying_vision_for_america_the_truth_about_his_plan_for_economic_freedom_zones/

 

I was laughing when he was talking in his speech about a "read the bill" act.  At first I was thinking we was going to require that any legislation be read aloud into the record.  That would have been interesting.



Post 4

Wednesday, April 8 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jeff,

 

I think your understanding of the Read The Bill Act is correct.  

 

It was first started, as I understand it, by DownSizeDC.org  (Harry Browne was one of the three founders).  They wrote a sample bill (I don't know how much Rand Paul's version differs) and in that sample the summary states:

 

The Bill

 

To require a Constitutional Authority Statement in support of every bill or resolution, the verbatim inclusion in each bill or resolution the text of any existing law amended, and, before final passage of any bill (other than a private bill) or resolution, the full verbatim reading of the text to each house of Congress called to order with a quorum physically assembled throughout, the verbatim publication of every such Bill on an official Internet web site of the Senate and the House of Representatives before final passage of any Bill in each house of Congress, prior notice of the calendar week on which the final vote is scheduled to be taken, the execution of an affidavit by every member of each house of Congress attesting that, prior to voting for passage of a bill the individual member had either listened attentively to the reading of said bill or had personally read it in its entirety; and to provide for enforcement of the printing, reading, entry, publication, recording and affidavit requirements herein.

 

So, yes.  Enough members have to physically have their butts in the seats and listen to the full text of the bill being read verbatim and outloud - no summaries. And to sign an affidavit so attesting.  (I think that the affidavit should be attached to a felony offense for a false signing saying they were there when they weren't and that no one can vote on that bill who hasn't signed.)  

 

There is no way that many of the bills they sign could be read in the time they could stay seated (like ObamaCare or the Defense Appropriations bill).  I like the idea of bills that are no longer than a quorum of congress' attention span :-)  Some people might say that this would reduce the number of bills that congress could pass in a year.  Excellent!  I'd consider that an added benefit.

 

This sample bill is about 3,111 words in length, so at somewhere between 100 and 200 words per minute, it could be read out loud at in less than half and hour.  If you try to read the Defense Appropriations bill or ObamaCare, not only would it take more time than is remotely possible, those two couldn't be read, no matter at what speed, in a way that made them comprehensible.  Imagine the CSPAN showing of that attempt!

 

There are other aspects of some of the proposed transparency acts that relate to how a version has to be put on the internet 7 of days before the vote and to be identical to what is voted on.



Post 5

Wednesday, April 8 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I love that article in Salon for how starkly it contrasts Capitalism and the Progressives view.

 

This pretty much sums up their sarcastic attempt to deal what clearly horrifies them:

I guess if you’re in the business of bestowing freedom, why not try to give to as many people as possible, right?

You need to understand that that statement is dripping with sarcasm, which can be returned tit for tat.  

 

Oh, Horror, horror! Not Freedom... the Progressive's not-so-secret F word.

 

Reduce taxes? Oh, my God, Rand Paul actually wants people to keep more of their money as if that would help an economically depressed zone!

 

Clean Air and Water? Yeah, that's why people are flocking to Detroit as we speak. We need more regulations for Detroit so that it can once again be prosperous.

 

And let parents have choice about what schools their kids go to?  Who could be that cold and unfeeling?  And what does a good education have to do with things like jobs, anyway?

--------------

So what if all this “freedom” doesn’t work?

Gee, I don't know.... Tyranny?  Well, we could try what the Salon article decries as being tossed out the window by Rand Paul: High taxes, more regulations, bailouts, and financial assistance.  But wait, didn't we just try that?  Hasn't it been an unmitigated failure?  Isn't Detroit already the poster-child for those approaches?

--------------

 

The article ends when they make the point, "There’s no such thing as a 50-page gaffe: This is Paul’s vision." Yes, and the very nature of Paul's vision serves to bring out the true progressive's nature and put the two in stark contrast. Go Paul!



Post 6

Wednesday, April 8 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jeff Laundauer: "I was laughing when he was talking in his speech about a "read the bill" act. At first I was thinking we was going to require that any legislation be read aloud into the record. That would have been interesting."

 

We still do that here in Texas... well, OK, we got away from it... but every bill requires three "readings" even if they are formulaic.  You would never get the Pelosi gambit that we must pass the bill to see what is in the law.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.