Nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel to be Secretary of Defense Nomination Confirmed - by a vote of (58 - 41) RAND PAUL VOTED YES!
Other notable votes by Republican Rand Paul:
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Passed (78 - 22) RAND PAUL VOTED NO (apparently Paul supports 'violence against women) 21 others voted no hmmmmmm wonder why and who they were Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Hurricane Sandy) Bill Passed - (62 - 36) RAND PAUL VOTED NO [/color]35 others voted no...... Middle Class Tax Cut Act Bill Passed - Senate(51 - 48 )[color=red]And 47 others voted no RAND PAUL VOTED NO
He doesn't need any help...he is his own negative campaign!
Nope I seen this before with other candidates who actually offered something other then the status quo, the parties unite to go after that person, after they are successful they go back to acting like they are any different.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The big government dems and reps are trying to smear Paul early, when they see a threat they amazingly unite to go after it.
LMAO @ "smear Rand Paul"!! All that is needed to 'smear' Randy Paul, is to wait till he speaks... and he'll do it for you.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Love the all out character assault by the establishment statists and their minions.
Yup! Box has said it for years, the Paul's are irrelevant.
So far box posted his highly intellectual cartoons depicting Paul as a racist and comparing him to Hugo Chavez.
No direct debate of Paul's concerns about presidential authority to conduct drone strikes against American citizens labelled "enemy combatants" - just sophmoric character attacks. Attacking the character of your opponent so early must mean they've conceded they've lost the debate and character attack is all they have left.
I don't get it? If they voted to add to the $16 trillion of federal debt they would be relevant? I agree that's the measure of success for a number of Americans. I say let those people step forward and own those votes.
Love the all out character assault by the establishment statists and their minions.
Yup! Box has said it for years, the Paul's are irrelevant.
So far box posted his highly intellectual cartoons depicting Paul as a racist and comparing him to Hugo Chavez.
No direct debate of Paul's concerns about presidential authority to conduct drone strikes against American citizens labelled "enemy combatants" - just sophmoric character attacks. Attacking the character of your opponent so early must mean they've conceded they've lost the debate and character attack is all they have left.
Love the all out character assault by the establishment statists and their minions.
Yup! Box has said it for years, the Paul's are irrelevant.
So far box posted his highly intellectual cartoons depicting Paul as a racist and comparing him to Hugo Chavez.
No direct debate of Paul's concerns about presidential authority to conduct drone strikes against American citizens labelled "enemy combatants" - just sophmoric character attacks. Attacking the character of your opponent so early must mean they've conceded they've lost the debate and character attack is all they have left.
(As I've posted, I support oversight of the entire drone program. )
The fact that Daddy and Baby Paul are irrelevant has nothing to do with me... look at what legislation they've passed (almost none) or the policy they've shaped (almost none)... as politicians they are irrelevant. Baby Paul may yet do something to help this country, but Daddy Paul in his 16 years in congress accomplished little or nothing for his district or his country. Ron Paul's 3 runs at the presidency failed to gain even 1% of the vote. The article that I posted showing the similarities between Hugo Chavez and Randy Paul was, as stated, a "different perspective" for a board who worships the Paul Gods.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Passed (78 - 22) RAND PAUL VOTED NO (apparently Paul supports 'violence against women) 21 others voted no hmmmmmm wonder why and who they were
The 22 Senators who voted against the Violence Against Women Act were all, like Rand Paul, Republicans: Sessions, Jeff AL Boozman, John AR Rubio, Marco FL Grassley, Chuck IA Risch, James ID Roberts, Pat KS Blunt, Roy MO Johanns, Mike NE Coburn, Thomas OK Inhofe, Jim OK
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 Passed (78 - 22) RAND PAUL VOTED NO (apparently Paul supports 'violence against women) 21 others voted no hmmmmmm wonder why and who they were
The 22 Senators who voted against the Violence Against Women Act were all, like Rand Paul, Republicans: Sessions, Jeff AL Boozman, John AR Rubio, Marco FL Grassley, Chuck IA Risch, James ID Roberts, Pat KS McConnell, Mitch KY Blunt, Roy MO Johanns, Mike NE Coburn, Thomas OK Inhofe, Jim OK Graham, Lindsey SC Scott, Tim SC Thune, John SD Cornyn, John TX Cruz, Ted TX Hatch, Orrin UT Lee, Mike UT Johnson, Ron WI Barrasso, John WY Enzi, Michael WY
53 Democrats, 23 Republicans, and 2 Independents voted for the bill.
As to why those Republicans voted against a bill protecting women from violence... apparently violence against women is not their priority.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I don't get it? If they voted to add to the $16 trillion of federal debt they would be relevant? I agree that's the measure of success for a number of Americans. I say let those people step forward and own those votes.
I wasn't speaking about the $16trill...I was speaking about OVERALL RECORD. Look at how they voted, when they did vote, and of those bills that passed, what was their record. Look at those bills that passed where they voted YAH and where those bills benefited the most. Look at the bills that were voted down and how they voted. Overall record.....let's put it this way. Any of us with that kind of performance at work WOULD BE FIRED!!!!!!!
PS - Why is it they seem to be UNAVAILABLE for voting on some very important legislature??? Seems kinds fishy on some of them. You know, if they ain't there, they can't be blames one way or the other when that specific bill passes/fails...keeps their nose clean!!!! Unless you "question" it..........seems like questioning is selective for a few.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Look at the bills that were voted down and how they voted. Overall record.....let's put it this way. Any of us with that kind of performance at work WOULD BE FIRED!.
What? Fired? I've voiced my opinion in opposition with my coworkers and superiors in regards to policy changes and finacial decisions, and in some cases my decisions were correct. In some cases I was incorrect. But at no point was my opinion(vote) grounds for termination. Only in your tyrannical view of government would you view a vote of dissension to be considered ground for termination.
The violence against women act was a spending bill. It was a give-a-way to state law enforcement. The federal government is $16 trillion in debt. Where did the money come from?
What? Fired? I've voiced my opinion in opposition with my coworkers and superiors in regards to policy changes and finacial decisions, and in some cases my decisions were correct. In some cases I was incorrect. But at no point was my opinion(vote) grounds for termination. Only in your tyrannical view of government would you view a vote of dissension to be considered ground for termination.
The violence against women act was a spending bill. It was a give-a-way to state law enforcement. The federal government is $16 trillion in debt. Where did the money come from?
You are so focused on those elements you want to exploit that you simply do not see the big picture...... Do you honestly believe their voting record was in the best interest of the people? Why were they absent for certain voting that was critical (how come you don't question that? Why did they seem intent on votnig through bills mostly that benefited their state (how come you don't questions that? Their votes are slanted and self-serving. They abstain from voting when it might hurt them. They consistantly vote NAY regardless...and please, don't give me this crap they are looking out for us, cuz that simply isn't true. They should both lose any further elections. If it was Mario Coumo or Barack holding those seats voting that way, everyone would be bashing them!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
LMAO @ "smear Rand Paul"!! All that is needed to 'smear' Randy Paul, is to wait till he speaks... and he'll do it for you.
]
Like I expected you got nothing, you and the others show your true colors, this is exactly what Rand Paul wanted to do. Funny you are now aligning yourself with the likes of Trump, McCain, Graham LMAO
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Logged
