If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Rand Paul wants to pass a census religion law that was already passed 36 years ago. RAND PAUL   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 102
    More: Stupid, Rand Paul, Republicans in Congress, American Community Survey, response rate, Census Bureau, Michael McAuliffe, faiths  
•       •       •

3982 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 1:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 10:16:34 AM
Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?
 
2013-03-16 10:22:58 AM

Ghastly: Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?


I thought it was something about weed.
 
2013-03-16 10:23:50 AM
It is unclear why lawmakers think this proposition needs to be passed a second time.

Haven't the Derpublicans repealed Obamacare 35 times now?
 
2013-03-16 10:23:57 AM

Ghastly: Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?


Because Rand Paul is stupid. He may also be crazy.
 
2013-03-16 10:28:16 AM
Rand likely doesn't research existing law by, you know, looking at the U.S. Code, he looks it up on Breitbart.

Ain't going to slow him down, none of his voters or contributors want to know, they just want to be outraged.

After all, how many times did the House GOP vote to repeal ObamaCare?  4,012 times?  Romney didn't win because they didn't do it the 4,013th time...they know it, they just know it.
 
2013-03-16 10:28:41 AM

dr_blasto: Ghastly: Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?

Because Rand Paul is stupid. He may also be crazy.


You may be right, he may be crazy.

But he just may be a lunatic we're looking for.
 
2013-03-16 10:29:12 AM

Shostie: Ghastly: Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?

I thought it was something about weed.


I think if libertarians ever organized enough to be considered a genuine risk to the party establishment all the ruling party would have to do is say "All drugs, guns, and porn are now 100% legal" and no libertarian would ever get off their ass to vote again as that seems to be about the only thing the majority of libertarians I've talked to give a shiat about, the legalization of all drugs, guns, and porn.

And the ones who don't fall into that category are simply Republicans who don't want to say they're Republicans but still vote a straight Republican ticket every time.
 
2013-03-16 10:31:21 AM
Maybe he considers the "rise of the Nones" bad news, thinks the surveys showing it are done by the US Census, and he wants the bad news to go away?

Or maybe he's just an illiterate ignoramus.
 
2013-03-16 10:32:05 AM
Rand Paul is an ignorant moron.  This is not actually news.
 
2013-03-16 10:32:08 AM
This is the party that, despite the existence of the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal funds for abortion, continues to pass laws banning the use of federal funds for abortion.
 
2013-03-16 10:38:05 AM

Ghastly: And the ones who don't fall into that category are simply Republicans who don't want to say they're Republicans but still vote a straight Republican ticket every time.


drudgeretort.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-16 11:13:29 AM
So if I'm reading this correctly, what we have here is Rand - Poe's Law?
 
2013-03-16 11:13:55 AM
I don't get the outrage. Did they really miss that the paragraph was only repeated because it added outline levels to go along with the added paragraph below it?
 
2013-03-16 11:36:07 AM

Ghastly: Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?


I believe this is that laser focus on jobs that is occasionally mentioned by some politicians at election time. He's given staffers some work writing the proposed law. People with intelligence above room temperature level spend time reading articles about it written by wage slaves and guffawing at the buffoonery. People with i.a.r.t.l. from his own political party will visit a paid doctor to recover from the bruises inflicted from hard face palming. Eventually someone will be able to shine a bit of light into what we will loosely refer to as his brain and he'll have his paid staffers doing some research and writing articles defending his new law or attempting to scrub all references to it from the historical record. Voila! He's a job creator.
 
2013-03-16 11:42:06 AM
The proposed amendment expands subdivision (c) of 13 USC 221 by adding additional provisions to the existing language.  The fact that the amendment retains and renumbers the existing language does not mean that they're trying to pass something that was already passed 36 years ago.  That's just the way amendments are written.

The stupid tag goes to Huff Puff.
 
2013-03-16 11:48:20 AM

SkinnyHead: The proposed amendment expands subdivision (c) of 13 USC 221 by adding additional provisions to the existing language.  The fact that the amendment retains and renumbers the existing language does not mean that they're trying to pass something that was already passed 36 years ago.  That's just the way amendments are written.

The stupid tag goes to Huff Puff.


Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

?
 
2013-03-16 12:04:10 PM
*filibusters for 13 hours*
*gets an answer to a question*

wejash: Rand likely doesn't research existing law by, you know, looking at the U.S. Code, he looks it up on Breitbart.


Breitbart is *so* passé; he goes to THE BLAZE
 
2013-03-16 12:05:46 PM
glad that post worked out for me so well

/sets up the intravenous coffee
 
2013-03-16 12:15:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The proposed amendment expands subdivision (c) of 13 USC 221 by adding additional provisions to the existing language.  The fact that the amendment retains and renumbers the existing language does not mean that they're trying to pass something that was already passed 36 years ago.  That's just the way amendments are written.

The stupid tag goes to Huff Puff.

Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

?


Funny thing is, I suspect RAND PAUL would be singing a different tune when it comes to identifying Muslims to lock up into camps.
 
2013-03-16 12:27:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.


Existing subsection (c):
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

The bill amends subsection (c) to read:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title --
(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the 'American Community Survey.
(2) Paragraph (1)(B)-
(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits-
(i) the name of the respondent;
(ii) contact information for the respondent;
(iii) the date of the response; or
(iv) the number of people living or staying at the same address; and
(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct described in subsection (b).

See the difference.  The amendment adds additional provisions to subsection (c).  For Huff Puff to criticize the authors for retaining existing language in their rewrite of the subsection is inane.
 
2013-03-16 12:35:00 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Existing subsection (c):
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

The bill amends subsection (c) to read:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title --
(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the 'American Community Survey.
(2) Paragraph (1)(B)-
(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits-
(i) the name of the respondent;
(ii) contact information for the respondent;
(iii) the date of the response; or
(iv) the number of people living or staying at the same address; and
(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct described in subsection (b).

See the difference.  The amendment adds additional provisions to subsection (c).  For Huff Puff to criticize the authors for retaining existing language in their rewrite of the subsection is inane.


Remember kids: expansive over-regulation of something that is already expressly illegal is good, as long as it's a Republican doing it.
 
2013-03-16 12:37:14 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Existing subsection (c):
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

The bill amends subsection (c) to read:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title --
(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the 'American Community Survey.
(2) Paragraph (1)(B)-
(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits-
(i) the name of the respondent;
(ii) contact information for the respondent;
(iii) the date of the response; or
(iv) the number of people living or staying at the same address; and
(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct described in subsection (b).

See the difference.  The amendment adds additional provisions to subsection (c).  For Huff Puff to criticize the authors for retaining existing language in their rewrite of the subsection is inane.


How, exactly, do the modifications change the existing law?
 
2013-03-16 12:39:02 PM
Next they will go after Friends of Hamas and de-fund ACORN I suppose!
 
2013-03-16 12:50:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Existing subsection (c):
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

The bill amends subsection (c) to read:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title --
(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the 'American Community Survey.
(2) Paragraph (1)(B)-
(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits-
(i) the name of the respondent;
(ii) contact information for the respondent;
(iii) the date of the response; or
(iv) the number of people living or staying at the same address; and
(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct described in subsection (b).

See the difference.  The amendment adds additional provisions to subsection (c).  For Huff Puff to criticize the authors for retaining existing language in their rewrite of the subsection is inane.

How, exactly, do the modifications change the existing law?


Currently, the American Community Survey:

a) is mandatory, and not completing it can result in a (small) fine.

b) is allowed to ask questions about the amount of your mortgage, type of plumbing you have, how many cars you have, etc.

This amendment makes it so that they can only ask the basic questions used in the decennial census.
 
2013-03-16 12:53:56 PM

GAT_00: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Existing subsection (c):
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

The bill amends subsection (c) to read:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title --
(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the 'American Community Survey.
(2) Paragraph (1)(B)-
(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits-
(i) the name of the respondent;
(ii) contact information for the respondent;
(iii) the date of the response; or
(iv) the number of people living or staying at the same address; and
(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct described in subsection (b).

See the difference.  The amendment adds additional provisions to subsection (c).  For Huff Puff to criticize the authors for retaining existing language in their rewrite of the subsection is inane.

Remember kids: expansive over-regulation of something that is already expressly illegal is good, as long as it's a Republican doing it.


The Republicans want to do away with the census, not really sure why. But I have an idea it's related a few ways the data is used -- defining congressional districts, voting rights, "entitlement" programs -- anything that's related to stuff they don't like. Which is very short sited on their end -- they could not have been as successful with their recent redistricting efforts without information from the census. It's easy to jump behind the excuse that it's an invasion of privacy and play to their paranoid base (it's Big Brother!).

The demographic data is used extensively by businesses in the US -- part of what work I do in commercial real estate. So for once they aren't listening (I hope they are being told this, need to check and see) to their real constituents -- businesses.
 
2013-03-16 12:59:18 PM

yellowcat: The Republicans want to do away with the census, not really sure why.


It's information.  It appears to be as simple as that.  Never mind it's required, never mind it is incredibly useful, it's information known by the government about the people living in the country, and they are so farking scared of everything that they think that should be done away with.
 
2013-03-16 01:03:04 PM

GAT_00: It's information. It appears to be as simple as that. Never mind it's required, never mind it is incredibly useful, it's information known by the government about the people living in the country, and they are so farking scared of everything that they think that should be done away with.


Especially because it sometimes yields evidence that contradicts their passionately held beliefs about how the world is.
 
2013-03-16 01:08:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: How, exactly, do the modifications change the existing law?


It adds additional provisions.  Now are you willing to concede that Huff Puff is the one being stupid here?
 
2013-03-16 01:21:37 PM

cmunic8r99: I don't get the outrage. Did they really miss that the paragraph was only repeated because it added outline levels to go along with the added paragraph below it?


There is no outrage.  Rand Paul is simply being an attention whore by pushing redundant legislation to fire up the mouth-breathers that are his base.
 
2013-03-16 01:27:44 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: How, exactly, do the modifications change the existing law?

It adds additional provisions.  Now are you willing to concede that Huff Puff is the one being stupid here?


Such as?
 
2013-03-16 01:28:23 PM
Boy, that sure is a sane, sane family.
 
2013-03-16 01:36:58 PM

Fart_Machine: cmunic8r99: I don't get the outrage. Did they really miss that the paragraph was only repeated because it added outline levels to go along with the added paragraph below it?

There is no outrage.  Rand Paul is simply being an attention whore by pushing redundant legislation to fire up the mouth-breathers that are his base.


You should read the rest of the thread.

And stop making me defend that d-bag.
 
2013-03-16 01:39:19 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Existing subsection (c):
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

The bill amends subsection (c) to read:
(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title --
(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body; and
(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), no person may be fined or otherwise compelled to answer questions in connection with the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, which is commonly referred to as the 'American Community Survey.
(2) Paragraph (1)(B)-
(A) shall not apply to any question that elicits-
(i) the name of the respondent;
(ii) contact information for the respondent;
(iii) the date of the response; or
(iv) the number of people living or staying at the same address; and
(B) does not waive any penalty imposed for conduct described in subsection (b).

See the difference.  The amendment adds additional provisions to subsection (c).  For Huff Puff to criticize the authors for retaining existing language in their rewrite of the subsection is inane.


Okay, if the cray cray only wants to answer these questions we can compromise and let them pass this terribly important bill. Thank FSM for their ability to protect my freedom from having to declare how many toilets I have in my house every 10 years. Now, on to the war, TSA, and jobs!
 
2013-03-16 01:39:27 PM
skinnyhead It adds additional provisions.  Now are you willing to concede that Huff Puff is the one being stupid here?

Given the scope of this change, added to my personal and deep involvement in the last census and viewing the vast and far more important issues currently on our collective U.S. "to do" list? I'd say it's stupid HuffPo has to be covering this at all
 
2013-03-16 01:40:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: (c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;


socialisms!!!!1!!!!1 0bamfart lover!!1!1
 
2013-03-16 01:41:21 PM
Thank God we have Rand Paul watching us over the intruding eyes of the US Census.

Where would we ever be without him?
 
2013-03-16 01:41:23 PM
A true Libertarian would resign from office. Smaller government and all that jazz.
 
2013-03-16 01:41:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: How, exactly, do the modifications change the existing law?

It adds additional provisions.  Now are you willing to concede that Huff Puff is the one being stupid here?

Such as?


What additional provisions?  The amendment rewrites the entire subsection by taking the existing subsection (c) and renumbering it (c)(1)(A).  It then adds additional provisions stating that people cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions that go beyond basic information, such as name, date, contact information, and number of people living there.

The whole point of the Huff Puff article was to claim that Rand Paul is stupid for trying to pass a law that already exists.  When you look at the facts, you find out that Huff Puff is the one being stupid.  Incredibly stupid.
 
2013-03-16 01:43:10 PM

SkinnyHead: The whole point of the Huff Puff article was to claim that Rand Paul is stupid for trying to pass a law that already exists.  When you look at the facts, you find out that Huff Puff is the one being stupid.  Incredibly stupid.


No, what's incredibly stupid is that Rand Paul is even wasting time on trivial bullcrap like this.

But then again, this is what I have come to expect from Rand Paul.
 
2013-03-16 01:44:21 PM

Veloram: A true Libertarian would resign from office. Smaller government and all that jazz.


You're talking about a movement whose leader was a Congressman for 20 years.

If they couldn't pick up on the irony of that, they won't pick up the irony of what you're suggesting.
 
2013-03-16 01:44:48 PM

Mrtraveler01: Thank God we have Rand Paul watching us over the intruding eyes of the US Census.

Where would we ever be without him?


In a country that didn't suck quite so much ass?
 
2013-03-16 01:48:56 PM
skinnyhead -
What additional provisions?  The amendment rewrites the entire subsection by taking the existing subsection (c) and renumbering it (c)(1)(A).  It then adds additional provisions stating that people cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions that go beyond basic information, such as name, date, contact information, and number of people living there.
The whole point of the Huff Puff article was to claim that Rand Paul is stupid for trying to pass a law that already exists.  When you look at the facts, you find out that Huff Puff is the one being stupid.  Incredibly stupid.


That is already the case - that is rather the POINT here -
YOUR point seems to be you dont care for the Huffington Post
 
2013-03-16 01:49:36 PM

cmunic8r99: Fart_Machine: cmunic8r99: I don't get the outrage. Did they really miss that the paragraph was only repeated because it added outline levels to go along with the added paragraph below it?

There is no outrage.  Rand Paul is simply being an attention whore by pushing redundant legislation to fire up the mouth-breathers that are his base.

You should read the rest of the thread.

And stop making me defend that d-bag.


Still missing the outrage.
 
2013-03-16 01:50:12 PM
Paging Senator McCain.
 
2013-03-16 01:50:28 PM

parasol: skinnyhead -
What additional provisions?  The amendment rewrites the entire subsection by taking the existing subsection (c) and renumbering it (c)(1)(A).  It then adds additional provisions stating that people cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions that go beyond basic information, such as name, date, contact information, and number of people living there.
The whole point of the Huff Puff article was to claim that Rand Paul is stupid for trying to pass a law that already exists.  When you look at the facts, you find out that Huff Puff is the one being stupid.  Incredibly stupid.

That is already the case - that is rather the POINT here -
YOUR point seems to be you dont care for the Huffington Post


Does Arianna Huffington have a GED?  I don't think so.
 
2013-03-16 01:52:33 PM
Oh come on, give the guy a break.  Everyone knows that no teabagger knows anything about history or the American legal system.  Personally, it's surprising to me when teabaggers have enough brain power to remember to breathe and not poop themselves.

The poor guys.  The poor stupid guys.
 
2013-03-16 01:59:34 PM
This is why legislators should have to take 6 months of training before each new term, to learn how to actually BE legislators.
 
2013-03-16 02:00:07 PM

Ghastly: Why the hell does Rand Paul want to pass any laws. Isn't his whole libertarian mantra "repeal all the laws"?


Yes, but the Paul Family Motto is, "Look at these rubes, take their money, someone will."
 
2013-03-16 02:01:07 PM
Who the hell actually views the Census as overly intrusive?
 
2013-03-16 02:03:14 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: The proposed amendment expands subdivision (c) of 13 USC 221 by adding additional provisions to the existing language.  The fact that the amendment retains and renumbers the existing language does not mean that they're trying to pass something that was already passed 36 years ago.  That's just the way amendments are written.

The stupid tag goes to Huff Puff.

Please explain how this:

(c)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision under this title-- '(A) no person may be compelled to disclose information relative to the person's religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body;

is an expansion of this:

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

?


Well, thee's a '(1)' AND and '(A)' in it now. Those are pretty significant changes, IMHO. In fact a (1) and an (A) have to potential to completely rewrite ALL of our laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report