Paultard, hurr, durr

Just because American citizens are being killed, doesn't mean the government has any responsibility to act.

Wow, that actually makes sense. "I didn't get to properly read the bill that was designed to address concerns presented in a report that wasn't done yet"

Are we sure this was Rand Paul???

I still think he owns slaves.

His, gramer svcks!;

He had a very long time to come up with an excuse. This was the best he could do...

I hope that the floorboards of Hell are laminated with Rand Paul's quivering flesh...

Wait!?!!?!?!?!

A politician explaining why they should do laws in a rational way rather than knee-jerk, and that the laws should actually fix something rather than pretend they do. And give a rational explanation to things and a reasonable one at that

Wow. I never though this day would come.

god bless.....RAND PAUL.RAND PAUL

The mightly "So There" defense. Nothing beats that.

Jackson Herring: The Great EZE: The background is that there have been recent accidents involving pipeline ruptures or explosions, some injuring or killing nearby people. As with all tragedies, there is always a call for immediate government action. Often these calls are an overreach where government is trying to solve an insolvable problem just to make voters feel better.

I'm glad he's finally opening the lid on that whole "fire department" scam. If your oven blows up, sure your initial instinct is to call the big ol' government to save your house. But you're really just calling for an overreach to make you feel better. After all, there will always be fire so bootstrap up!

Wasn't this the pipeline regulation literally written by the oil pipeline industry?

Not all of them, I don't think.

Did anyone actually bother to test if he read the bill? Because if he didn't acutally read the final bill after all that, it'd be rather embarrassing.

masercot: He had a very long time to come up with an excuse. This was the best he could do...

I hope that the floorboards of Hell are laminated with Rand Paul's quivering flesh...

Dante Alighieri approves of this message.

I guess only Paul knows if he read the bill. What he did do was have the grandfather clause removed so that older pipelines are no longer exempt from inspection. Does anybody want to argue that that is a bad thing? Are you people such partisan hacks that you cannot give credit where it is due? Was there a pipeline explosion while the bill was held? Would that pipeline have been inspected and repaired 12 minutes after passage? I suppose he should have just voted for it so he could see what was in it.

He sounds insecure.

NewportBarGuy: Show me that in the legislation and I will HAPPILY donate $50 to his reelection campaign. I'm dead serious and I'll provide a receipt. If he was able to eliminate, entirely, something like that... He DID just make the bill better, and our lives safer. It will also cost those industries so much money I highly doubt it's in there.

If anyone can find it and prove to me that it's in the bill my offer stands. If it gets stripped out, that's not his fault. Just show me he put it in there.

Break out the checkbook.

NewportBarGuy

Good call, however, I won't hold you to that wager UNLESS it can be definitively proven that Rand Paul himself were instrumental/responsible in such claimed change to the legislation.

As I see it, TWO things need to be proven:

1. That the original legislation included such a "grandfather" clause as Paul represents, and that the clause was removed before passage of the final bill; and

2. That Rand Paul played an instrumental role in having the legislation amended in such a manner.


Surely, it isn't asking to much of Paul to provide some evidence to show that he authored amendments for same, or to point at somewhere in the Congressional record where he is recorded as voicing his opinion in support of removing the grandfather clauses from the bill.

The Great EZE: The background is that there have been recent accidents involving pipeline ruptures or explosions, some injuring or killing nearby people. As with all tragedies, there is always a call for immediate government action. Often these calls are an overreach where government is trying to solve an insolvable problem just to make voters feel better.

I'm glad he's finally opening the lid on that whole "fire department" scam. If your oven blows up, sure your initial instinct is to call the big ol' government to save your house. But you're really just calling for an overreach to make you feel better. After all, there will always be fire so bootstrap up!

Yes, all government regulation is bad.

Here is a perfect example: refrigerator doors. They used to have a latch mechanism, so that they would close securely.

Well, some liberal busybodies were worried about children getting trapped inside and suffocating. So they wanted a federal law to modify how refrigerator doors were made. How dumb is that?! Just because a few precious snowflakes were too stupid to get inside a refrigerator, and too weak to open the door to get out, American businesses had to re-tool, incurring a cost of millions, maybe billions, of dollars. And who bears the cost of that? You, my friends! You have to pay for the cost of regulating some stupid liberal crotchfruit who honestly maybe should have died so that their liberal genes won't be passed on to the next generation. (Note: this is not an endorsement of evolution. Survival of the fittest is not OK when we're talking about the origin of the human species, but is perfectly OK when we're talking about liberals, retards, gimps, and other undesirables.)

Look at this display of the Nanny State - a whole report from the CPSC on refrigerator door hazards! What a waste of taxpayer money!

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5073.html (new window)

And do you know what happened when they enacted this legislation? I'll tell you! This is from a government report! This is the government's own data! (new window)

Death rate from refrigerator suffocation in 1963: 0.9 deaths per million children
Death rate from refrigerator suffocation in 1966: 1.8 deaths per million children

That's right, the death rate doubled, after the federal law was enacted!

Can't explain that!

NewportBarGuy: Thank you for your donation. It will help Rand spread his message of balanced budgets, limited government, and term-limits this fall.

Here are your transaction details:
Amount: $50.00
Transaction ID: *******
Transaction date/time: 2011-10-24 10:04:44

I don't agree with the man on a lot of issues, but he did the right thing here and I applaud him for it.

+1 Sir.

The Great EZE: sprawl15: NewportBarGuy: Show me that in the legislation and I will HAPPILY donate $50 to his reelection campaign. I'm dead serious and I'll provide a receipt. If he was able to eliminate, entirely, something like that... He DID just make the bill better, and our lives safer. It will also cost those industries so much money I highly doubt it's in there.

If anyone can find it and prove to me that it's in the bill my offer stands. If it gets stripped out, that's not his fault. Just show me he put it in there.

Break out the checkbook.

Wow. Increasing regulation in a way that is sure to cost the oil industry a ton of money. That's awful RINO'y of him. Good job with that, seriously. Does he get a pass from The Base because he justified his decision with the usual smarmy Republican "The Government I Fought Like Hell to Get a Job In Can't Do Anything Right So You Should Never Trust It" rhetoric?

NewportBarGuy: sprawl15: break out the checkbook.

"After meeting recently with federal regulators, Paul proposed an amendment that would commit the government to requiring pressure tests or something equally effective on older lines. The Senate approved the proposal, and after Paul removed his hold on the bill, the full legislation passed."

You know what? That's good enough for me! Let me go see if his site accepts donations.

That these are both true gives me a happy.

// you can be wrong and admit it
// you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons (and still have shiatty justifications and cognitive dissonance in your reasoning), but be commended for it

NewportBarGuy: I don't agree with the man on a lot of issues, but he did the right thing here and I applaud him for it.

Wow. Increasing regulation in a way that is sure to cost the oil industry a ton of money. That's awful RINO'y of him. Good job with that, seriously. Does he get a pass from The Base because he justified his decision with the usual smarmy Republican "The Government I Fought Like Hell to Get a Job In Can't Do Anything Right So You Should Never Trust It" rhetoric?


Well, I guess that answers my partisan hack question. No, he gets support from his base because he saw a problem that needed to be fixed and worked to do so. Try to wrap your mind around the concept that consevatives don't hate all regulation, just stupid regulation. Had he held up the bill for reasons you thought were benefitting the oil companies my guess is you'd be criticizing him for that. Just sad.

I have a feeling that 'reading the bills' often entails having his staff read the bills in detail and them giving him the jist of it. This is not necessarily a horrible thing, that's what assistants are for, and actually reading all the bills yourself would take a very long time unless you're some sort of legalese speed-reader. If he does actually read all the bills personally, I'd be quite impressed, especially since he's not a lawyer.

I'm quietly surprised.
There was no caveat emptor in home purchases in gas pipeline territory. It also expands Government's rules and regs and increases the size of the inspections dept and expenditures. It approvingly follows a - ugh - California law.

Good thing he's not running for election today. He'd be RINO'd fer real.

Virtuoso80: I have a feeling that 'reading the bills' often entails having his staff read the bills in detail and them giving him the jist of it.

Which is what all politicians do. It's why the "I didn't read the bill personally" is a stupid argument against them. That's why they have staff in the first place.

His picture should be in the dictionary right next to the definition of "backpfeiffengesicht."

NewportBarGuy 2011-10-24 11:06:14 AM

Thank you for your donation. It will help Rand spread his message of balanced budgets, limited government, and term-limits this fall.

Here are your transaction details:
Amount: $50.00
Transaction ID: *******
Transaction date/time: 2011-10-24 10:04:44

I don't agree with the man on a lot of issues, but he did the right thing here and I applaud him for it.

I didnt see a credit card number and therefore can not confirm that this went through. Please resubmit with credit card number, SSN, Home Address and Pin. Thanks

Rand Paul must think civil defence is carrying an old newspaper made into a sword, shield and hat and standing on the beach. No government involvement needed.

We could all chip in to buy a big rug and sweep the bills for two off-the-books wars under it.

Rand Paul has some kind of a thing against grandfather clauses. It was also the justification for his public split with the ophthalmology association.

Lost Thought 00: Just because American citizens are being killed, doesn't mean the government has any responsibility to act.

Actually he said the opposite. he said because American citizens are being killed government has the responsibly to act responsibly, not push through a bad bill for the sake of saying something was done rather than actually trying resolve the problem. Good for him.

Churchill2004: Rand Paul has some kind of a thing against grandfather clauses. It was also the justification for his public split with the ophthalmology association.

It makes sense. If regulation is worth having, then it's worth having. If it's not, then it's not. Half-assing it just complicates the regulation/paper trail, prevents modernization, and invalidates the point of additional regulations.

If pipes are at danger of exploding, that danger needs to be addressed - regardless of the cost to the oil companies. If they're not, then don't bother passing the new regulations to begin with.

historycat: Jackson Herring:

4. I'm sure as a physician if his patient was incurable he still prescribed something. He didn't just throw up his hands and say "sucks to be you". I'd hope he kept trying, even over reaching at some point.

I see the physician analogy as spot on here. It's possible that in his practice he saw cases where any known treatment would do more harm than good. It happens. Perhaps a little "first, do no harm" would be useful in more legislative debate.

The Great EZE: ImperialHazman: Wow. Increasing regulation in a way that is sure to cost the oil industry a ton of money. That's awful RINO'y of him. Good job with that, seriously. Does he get a pass from The Base because he justified his decision with the usual smarmy Republican "The Government I Fought Like Hell to Get a Job In Can't Do Anything Right So You Should Never Trust It" rhetoric?


Well, I guess that answers my partisan hack question. No, he gets support from his base because he saw a problem that needed to be fixed and worked to do so. Try to wrap your mind around the concept that consevatives don't hate all regulation, just stupid regulation. Had he held up the bill for reasons you thought were benefitting the oil companies my guess is you'd be criticizing him for that. Just sad.

Okay, I'll be sure to pay close attention to the next Republican debate to see if they add the word "stupid"--or really any qualification--in their histrionic ranting about regulations. I don't usually see such attention to shades of gray from Conservatives. That's why this news is coming as a shock to so many people.

Perhaps you should re-read the article and word search for "overreaching". It may come as a shock to so many people because of their own mindset, which brings us to the next part of your post...

And I'm willing to give him all the credit in the world for this. Partially because it's the right thing to do and partially because I know it's only a matter of time before he pisses it away by proposing legislation banning science books or reclassifying birth control pills as an illicit substance or completely defunding the FDA.

/What is it they say about stopped clocks?

They say libs get things right once in a while. (And I'll not be as obstinate to say so as you have been)

It's funny that Rand Paul's whole reason for being is that he HATES government regulation and government overreaching and believes in free market solutions, and yet he held up the bill until congress would cave in and allow him to ad a provision in the bill to ad more government regulation to make sure oil companies check the welds on their older pipelines instead of giving them the "grandfather" exception. I am glad that Rand Paul has finally seen the light on the importance of government regulation.

depmode98: yet he held up the bill until congress would cave in and allow him to ad a provision in the bill to ad more government regulation to make sure oil companies check the welds on their older pipelines instead of giving them the "grandfather" exception.

Grandfather clauses create more regulation, uniform regulation creates less.

This thread says a lot about Fark.

why I held the bill and about an important lesson this bill can teach us about why government hasn't been working


It isn't working because any dickhead with a bug up his ass can hold up a bill.

Hey, Randy Paul, where does it say in the Constitution that congress can post messages on the internet?

You are flagrantly violating the constitution, pal.


/isnt willful naivety fun?

Goodfella: isnt willful naivety fun?

Oh irony, thou art a spiteful lover.