Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Rand Paul Votes in Favor of $631 Billion U.S. Defense Legislation

Rand Paul's To Do List before officially running for president:
Visit is Israel (scheduled for January)
Make sure Military-Industrial Compex is funded (Check)
The Senate, by a 98-0 vote, authorized $525.3 billion in baseline military spending, trimming only a small chunk from the administration’s $525.4 billion request. Thebill also authorizes $88.5 billion more for ongoing wars.

The bill supports the Pentagon’s plans for the Air Force to spend $3.7 billion on the F-35 fighter program and the Navy to spend $3.2 billion, on what is the biggest weapon program in history.

The Military Corp Times reports:
The legislation also largely endorses the Army’s vehicle and helicopter programs. plans. It authorizes the Army to enter into a five-year procurement contract for CH-47 Chinook helicopters made by Boeing.
The upper chamber’s bill also endorses the Army’s plans to spend $639.9 million in 2013 to develop its envisioned Ground Combat Vehicle. (GCV). The legislation also fully supports the ground service’s $373.9 million Paladin Integrated Management effort and its $318 million plan to buy 58 Stryker vehicles.
The Army request for ed $1.3 billion to buy UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters also was approved. Sure, said the Senate.

39 comments:

  1. If anyone had doubts about Rand, surely now they are dispersed...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I have a friend who leans libertarian, who still thinks Rand is just playing the game for now, and that one day he'll say to the GOP " got you suckers". I tell him that he is the sucker here.

      Delete
    2. I'll admit that I thought that Rand was just playing the game for a while. However, I do have certain thresholds, and he has crossed quite a few thus far. I'm a pretty forgiving person in that I always give somebody another chance depending upon the circumstances, but Rand has proved time and time again that he is not worth forgiving.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. I WANT Rand to be the GOP nom in 2016. I WANT to support him. But bullshit like this...unacceptable.

      Delete
  2. Armed Americans should encourage family members and neighbors to arm and train. We should cut the military budget by about 80 percent and bring everyone home. Everyone.

    Then the people themselves can provide genuine, bottom-up, homeland security. No one invades Switzerland.

    I'd love to see armed Americans everywhere. I wouldn't feel threatened at all. Quite the opposite. I'd be armed too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. More evidence of just how far the apple has fallen from the tree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mitch McConnell must surely be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rand apologist: "Don't judge him on his words; judge him on his votes."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ron Paul!...err Rand, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike Lee is a neocon for voting Yea on this legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. yep, i still had some faith in rand, not anymore.... Ron must be disappointed

    ReplyDelete
  9. I seriously doubt that all of you Rand naysayers ever gave him a real shot. I absolutely love Ron for his consistency to his principles, but surely you must recognize that while he was effective in advancing the ideas of liberty, he was not so much at getting liberty legislation passed.

    I have no idea why Rand voted yes on this, but what if he did it to get a few votes on an audit of the Fed. Would it be worth it then? Would you really rather him alienate senators who might be willing to help him when there is a battle he can actually win, just to have made the vote 97 "yea"s?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liberty doesn't come by legislation being passed. It comes by legislation being repealed.

      Delete
    2. Liberty comes not by passed legislation, but by repealed legislation.

      Delete
    3. the NDAA is... It is the annual funding for the Military. Pays for tanks, pay, benefits, bases, air planes, fuel, etc... It is one of the few Constitutional Bills the Federal Government is responsible for. Be REAL People... The Belligerence Act was part 1021 & 1022 last year ONLY.. it was stuck in there by McCain, Lieberman & Graham Neocons because they knew they had to pass it. Rand got rid of the Belligerence Act out of it.

      Delete
    4. I thought Rand said he wanted to cut military spending though. If that's true then shouldn't he have voted no on this? If he's just going to say that he's for cutting military spending in interviews but then vote yes for spending as much as possible I don't see what good he is.

      Delete
    5. "I have no idea why Rand voted yes on this, but what if he did it to get a few votes on an audit of the Fed. Would it be worth it then?"

      No.

      Delete
    6. Kate, I would suggest you double check your facts. Rand's little piece of legislation did nothing. It had no teeth. It had no spine. The indefinite detention clause laughs at it knowing that it did nothing.

      Delete
    7. Anon OP-

      The reason people supported Dr Ron was his principled stance on government. Even if the MSM and GOP talking heads called him unpatriotic or anti-American for refusing to vote FOR a bill, he could always point out that he NEVER voted for unconstitutional measures. The details of this bill are not only unconstitutional but abhorrent to the ideas of the founders.

      Delete
    8. "I seriously doubt that all of you Rand naysayers ever gave him a real shot."

      Libertarians don't give politicians "shots". Politicians first convince them, as they SHOULD. That's what Ron Paul did over a period of decades. Most of us were sympathetic to Rand Paul back when he was riding Ron Paul's coattails, until he showed he was a fraud by endorsing Romney. We're libertarians for a reason. We didn't become it by putting faith in politicians, but by LOSING faith in them, or recognizing them for what they are right from the beginning.
      Rand Paul is a knave, and people putting faith in him are fools.


      "I absolutely love Ron for his consistency to his principles, but surely you must recognize that while he was effective in advancing the ideas of liberty, he was not so much at getting liberty legislation passed."

      Liberty legislation is an oxymoron. That's why Ron Paul's nickname is Dr. No, and why you don't seem to even understand what liberty is, or legislation for that matter.
      Liberty is not MAKING laws, but repealing them.

      And by the way, what ideas is Rand advancing? How many new libertarians is he creating that are necessary to ever reach critical mass for real change?


      "I have no idea why Rand voted yes on this, but what if..."

      What if Mitt Romney actually would have abolished government IF ONLY...
      What if Barack Obama actually uses Obamacare to convince people how stupid national healthcare really is?
      Why not put faith in them?

      You admit you have no clue why Rand would vote yes on this, yet you immediately concoct fictional excuses to keep that blind faith, that cognitive dissonance alive.
      And you will probably keep concocting fictional excuses for every single bad vote he makes, because you're not ready to completely cut ties with this fantasy land called government.


      "Would it be worth it then?"

      Of course not. Why would it be?
      That's like asking us to buy the car from the thief that has stolen it from us in the first place.


      "Would you really rather him alienate senators who might be willing to help him when there is a battle he can actually win, just to have made the vote 97 "yea"s?"

      Alienating senators is what Ron Paul did and it created many new people for the movement who wised up to reality.
      Supporting Rand Paul will wise up nobody. It will create zero libertarians, if they did not already convert thanks to Ron Paul anyway. There is nothing long term to be gained from it. Even if we were to trust Rand, any changes he would make would last about 4 years. After that, new president, change everything back. Since Rand creates no new libertarians, the Republican pool will remain the non-libertarians, who will gladly vote for a neocon again.

      Delete
  10. To "anonymous" (for Rand Paul): I liked Rand Paul...until he showed his true colors of dealing within the RNC. Washington shouldn't be making deals for votes. They should be voting based on what is good for our country and the next generation. When a candidate says in an election year "I love America" his actions should speak loudly in comparison. Love means making the hard and unpopular decisions when you know it's the best thing. Rand falls short of that - he traded his support of his father for the RNC. That was his true colors. he will go where the popularity is.

    As a parent, I can tell you making those decisions doesn't make me popular with my children all the time, but it gives them a picture of my love. Looking back years from now, they will see that I did it out of love for them.

    With responsibility comes specific obligations...and voting for what is BEST for our country, even when standing alone, is the responsible thing to do.

    SIDE NOTE: And by the way...shaving off $100 million dollars from the military budget does nothing. they could have given them all the money they asked for. That's not a dent in the outrageous spending we are seeing in Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't get why a group I largely supported and considered myself a part of, the Ron Paul Revolution, is totally discarding their(our) strongest ally(Rand Paul) that everyday fights for so many of the same principles as we do. He is who has been against every bill, and threatening to filibuster almost every bill(which subsequently threatens his political career)that goes against the Constitution.
    He is almost perfect, unlike his Dad, but he's our strongest best option. And do you really think he'd go completely against his dad? I bet you that Ron Paul would vote for his son Rand in 2016 for president, not because he is solely his son, but because his son Rand agrees with Ron's principles more than anyone else. In other words, Ron Paul would vote for his son for the same reason that his son endorsed him, compared to most other politicians in DC they actually see Eye-to-Eye. They just have a different way of getting their principles to be the every day way it works up there in DC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want Rand to win for Prez in 2016. I want him to be like his dad.

      But he is not. He is a sellout, and I won't vote for him.

      If principles can be disgarded at whim, then why would I support him?

      Delete
    2. "Ron Paul Revolution"

      I don't know the feelings of the 'Ron Paul Revolution', as i'm not part of that. I'm a libertarian, and make judgments based on my principles and values, and not based on NAMES or fictional assumptions of hidden motives to justify blind faith. You obviously think voting for SOMEONE is an absolute necessity. Then you better learn that many libertarian don't; and some even think it is downright immoral.


      "He is almost perfect, unlike his Dad"

      I smell a cult of personality tendency here.


      "I bet you that Ron Paul would vote for his son Rand in 2016 for president"

      That is irrelevant, even if he would have voted for him if he weren't his son. That cult of personality thing makes you think Ron Paul's decisions are sacrosanct, rather than judging them on their merit.


      "compared to most other politicians in DC they actually see Eye-to-Eye."

      Nonsense. Rand just voted yes on a spending bill for the military that cuts virtually nothing; and he voted for sanctions against Iran, which especially libertarians know is usually the starting signal for a future war.

      In comparison, his father regards what America is doing as imperialism. Do you call that seeing "Eye to Eye"?
      Ron Paul is actually seeing more eye to eye on this issue with Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, than with his own son.


      "They just have a different way of getting their principles to be the every day way it works up there in DC."

      Prove it.
      Don't wishful think me.

      Delete
  12. Rand Paul is just doing what is politically expedient. Ron Paul did this too when he switched from Libertarian Party to Republican Party. These small compromises are necessary to further launch the Libertarian agenda into full swing.

    Rand has to be the bad guy for doing the dirty work to get Libertarianism the fist of power.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron Paul was always in the Republican Party during his time in politics, and only switched to the Libertarian Party for a single campaign back in the late 80s (back when guys like Rothbard were affiliated with the party). His subsequent runnings under the Republican ticket had nothing to do convenience, it was out of necessity (getting on the ballots in all 50 states as a third party candidate is today near impossible, but was more feasible in 1988). Further, Ron never compromised, not a single time, no matter what letter was after his name. He always stuck to his principles.

      "... to get Libertarianism the fist of power"

      First of all, this statement is entirely antithetical to libertarianism. Second, I do agree that Libertarians want power (just look at the candidates that they run), but this has very little to do with libertarianism. A political party is not synonymous with, nor is it usually consistent with, the underlying political philosophy that it supposedly represents. I stopped being a Libertarian some time ago because I realized that the party was filled with people who simply aren't libertarians. They sought what you apparently seek: the fist of power. I have met very few Libertarians that are actual libertarians, and you are apparently an example.

      Delete
    2. Ron Paul changed parties, not principles.

      Rand Paul changes principles, not parties.

      There is a BIG difference, and it is rather sad you can't see it.

      Delete
  13. I Can't believe this many people don't know what the NDAA is... It is the annual funding for the Military. Pays for tanks, pay, benefits, bases, air planes, fuel, etc... It is one of the few Constitutional Bills the Federal Government is responsible for. Be REAL People... The Belligerence Act was part 1021 & 1022 last year ONLY.. it was stuck in there by McCain, Lieberman & Graham Neocons because they knew they had to pass it. Rand got rid of the Belligerence Act out of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand didn't get anything taken out of the NDAA, and those indefinite detention sections are still valid.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, and even IF it got some changes to it, i'm sure all those guys in the senate will start caring about what the constitution says.

      Since you don't think Rand is a fraud, you must obviously think he is really stupid.

      Delete
  14. He sold out when he endorsed Romney. This is to be expected. He needs to heed his namesake's quote: "People don't sell their souls to the devil, they nickel and dime them away.' Ayn Rand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand isn't his namesake. His name is Randall.

      Delete
  15. You guys are idiots. Click on the link this mind-numbing propaganda pretending to be a scientific source provides as a reference and read a legitimate news article on this defense budget. It is MASSIVELY cut down from last year, eliminates billions in useless garbage, adds multiple oversight provisions, and conditions more cuts if the fiscal cliff is not resolved. We DO need a national defense and Rand Paul never claimed to be completely opposed to one - he wants one that is accountable and used for defense, as opposed to blank checks for the pentagon to pick through the assholes of the earth looking for hidden gold. This authorization bill is a HUGE step in that direction, why wouldn't Rand vote for it? Judging by the obvious literacy challenges, shitty interface, and floating reference to anti-Zionism; this was probably posted by some radical hippie using a WiFi connection on a boat in a Gaza-bound "aid" flotilla, and it also fails to acknowledge every single Democrat voted in favor - yet Rand is the bad guy. Paulbots ought to be smarter than to take this seriously, good god.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...he wants one that is accountable and used for defense"

      Don't they all?
      No, seriously. Don't they all?
      P.S. Sanctions against Iran says 'hello'.


      "Judging by the obvious literacy challenges, shitty interface, and floating reference to anti-Zionism; this was probably posted by some radical hippie using a WiFi connection on a boat in a Gaza-bound "aid" flotilla."

      Judging by your rant, you got lost on your way to National Review.


      "and it also fails to acknowledge every single Democrat voted in favor"

      Why would we acknowledge them? They may start thinking we want more of them. Besides, why blame idiots for their idiocy?
      Finally, every single Democrat agreeing with Rand Paul is hardly an endorsement here. Only more reason to look at him very suspiciously.


      " - yet Rand is the bad guy."

      No. It's just that we really like picking on him. It's a favorite pass time.

      Delete
    2. No moron, You're the idiot. Good god.

      Go peddle your stupidity somewhere else.

      Delete
  16. ha, ha, the bill would have passed 97-0 if Rand abstained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah.
      Now it went over 98-0, with Rand's signature under it.

      You know how a guy like this could have made a mark with potential voters?

      By being the guy behind the "1" in 97-1. That's a guy who smells like change. This guys smells like the mothballs of establishment.

      Delete
    2. That's right, somebody's gotta be the one to take a stand. Since when were libertarians okay with politicians voting for tyranny just because all the other politicians are voting for it?? Rand talked a good one about reducing military spending but his actions have now made it clear that he's not serious about it.

      Delete