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.

(Opposing Views)   Rand Paul thinks congress should get veteran's benefits, food stamps and the special Medal of Honor stipend. OK, he doesn't really think that, but he's brilliantly crafted a constitutional amendment that would make it happen   (opposingviews.com) divider line 143
    More: Stupid, Medal of Honor, food stamps, constitutional amendments, welfare benefits, Americans, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

10681 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 11:44:42 AM  
Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.
 
2013-10-22 11:52:08 AM  

Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."


Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?
 
2013-10-22 11:55:03 AM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?


Yes.
 
2013-10-22 12:14:42 PM  
The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?
 
2013-10-22 12:26:29 PM  

Mrbogey: why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


You know, I was just thinking the same thing
 
2013-10-22 12:28:29 PM  
He really is a chip off the old block. Daddy Ron with his "We the People Act" needed to be outdone for stupidity, eh Rand?
 
2013-10-22 12:35:30 PM  

Mrbogey: With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


I don't know, why do you read Fark?

/I may be ignorant, dumb, a communist, but I am *not* a porn star.
 
2013-10-22 12:36:06 PM  

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Why did I read your post?

Good question...
 
2013-10-22 12:39:54 PM  
Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.
 
2013-10-22 12:44:41 PM  

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


No, that was a law that applied to Congress - it doesn't need to apply equally to the rest of the American people.

/Isn't it amazing how the language appears to be specifically worded to preserve the perks Congress granted itself?
 
2013-10-22 12:45:24 PM  
Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.
 
2013-10-22 12:48:37 PM  

nmrsnr: So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


Teabagger efficiency strikes again.
 
2013-10-22 12:51:46 PM  
That's it. I give up. The system is totally broken when being a circus clown/attention whore instead of a legislator is the way to get reelected.
 
2013-10-22 12:57:22 PM  

MrBallou: That's it. I give up. The system is totally broken when being a circus clown/attention whore instead of a legislator is the way to get reelected.


You're just now noticing? Rand Paul replaced a guy who was elected Senator just because he was a good pitcher.
 
2013-10-22 12:59:14 PM  
I am amazed that Rand Paul misunderstood the situation and proposed a completely ridiculous amendment to the Constitution in order to garner attention to himself. I mean, that is just amazing.
 
2013-10-22 01:47:00 PM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


As near as I can tell, from interviews, from his upbringing, from those wonderful moments when you hear him conversing when he doesn't realize he's being recorded, he really is just that stupid. I know with some Republicans they're putting on an act to draw in their stupid constituents, but I really do think Rand believes all his arguments and actually considers himself some kind of righteous crusader. Which is almost worse.
 
2013-10-22 01:49:59 PM  
Rand Paul should automatically draw a "Stupid" flag on Fark, just as Rubio should receive "Florida" as an automatic penalty.

Anyone in favor of a protest in favor of this rule?

<<yawn>> Didn't think so
 
2013-10-22 01:50:50 PM  
i.imgur.com
yay i get to pull this out again
 
2013-10-22 01:53:22 PM  
prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?
 
2013-10-22 01:54:24 PM  
Rand Paul ... he's brilliantly crafted

I call bullshiat.
 
2013-10-22 01:54:56 PM  
So he wants... what does he want? Does he want members of Congress to use the health care exchanges instead of the FEHB program? Because that's like the exact opposite of what he's promoting. All americans can participate in their employer sponsored health care program. If you require Congress to use the Exchange rather than FEHB, then you're actually exempting Congress from something the rest of America is subject to.

This sounds like it would actually do that exact opposite of what he wants it to do?

I'm so confused.
 
2013-10-22 02:00:53 PM  

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws.  Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.
 
2013-10-22 02:01:35 PM  
Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them? I have no problem with a veteran Senator getting VA benefits. I have no problem with a destitute Congressman getting food stamps (they'd never qualify). I have a hell of a lot less than zero problem with a Medal of Honor winning Speaker of the House receiving their MoH stipend.

If they qualify, why the hell not?

Or I am completely missing the point of the "analysis" of the proposed amendment?

The ThinkProgress article even delves into Senate Rules, which (if I am not mistaken) would not be applicable in this case, as they are not laws.
 
2013-10-22 02:04:56 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?


That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.
 
2013-10-22 02:05:05 PM  
The only law I know of that applies diectly to congress members is that "law enorcement shall not inhibit or detain a member of congress on their way to a vote"

/This, of course, means "you cannot detain a congressman ever"
//why aren't they mailed speeding tickets again?
 
2013-10-22 02:08:39 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I am amazed that Rand Paul misunderstood the situation and proposed a completely ridiculous amendment to the Constitution in order to garner attention to himself. I mean, that is just amazing.


FTFY
 
2013-10-22 02:09:03 PM  
Ask him about his ophthalmology board certification.  When you can't operate within the rules, you make new rules.  Calvinball!
 
2013-10-22 02:09:03 PM  
He's not the sharpest bowling ball in the knife drawer.
 
2013-10-22 02:11:04 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


short answer - yes
long answer - are you kidding? yes!
 
2013-10-22 02:13:25 PM  

Joe Blowme: prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?


No, it's for somebody who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to make laws apply to members of Congress because laws ALREADY apply to members of Congress (unless specifically exempted, like insider trading).
 
2013-10-22 02:13:34 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.
 
2013-10-22 02:14:13 PM  
They should pass a law requiring all Americans to be scared half to death.


/wait, thats not how the joke goes....
 
2013-10-22 02:16:50 PM  

MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.


Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.
 
2013-10-22 02:16:54 PM  
I really wish we would stop linking to Opposing Views.  I see an interesting headline, click it, and immediately my whole screen is taken up with the stupid popover with "30 Hottest Athletes", "One Weird Trick..." and so on.  I slide around on my phone screen trying to find the damn "X" to close it and it just re-centers itself.  Fark that... surely there's some other source.
 
2013-10-22 02:16:56 PM  
Old and Busted: Propose changes to legislation that are never going to pass and throw a tantrum and shut down the government to prove you mean business.

New Hotness: Proposing constitutional amendments that will never gain traction and then claiming the other side hates the constitution and that this is why we need a Constitutional Convention. (Which will also never happen)
 
2013-10-22 02:17:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.
 
2013-10-22 02:17:46 PM  
Uh, wouldn't that mean that Congress would be under the same eligibility rules as any American citizen? Congresscritters couldn't get welfare benifits without poverty means testing, and Congresscritters couldn't get a Medal of Honor without being a member of the military, and carrying out extreme examples of conspicuous gallantry and valor on the field of battle?
 
2013-10-22 02:18:06 PM  
Ron Paul is an idiot.  The author of that story is also an idiot.
 
2013-10-22 02:18:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.


Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?
 
2013-10-22 02:20:52 PM  

VendorXeno: what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

As near as I can tell, from interviews, from his upbringing, from those wonderful moments when you hear him conversing when he doesn't realize he's being recorded, he really is just that stupid. I know with some Republicans they're putting on an act to draw in their stupid constituents, but I really do think Rand believes all his arguments and actually considers himself some kind of righteous crusader. Which is almost worse.


Given the misognyist platforms he supports, it's not merely "almost" worse.
 
2013-10-22 02:21:39 PM  

Mrbogey: Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.


That will teach you not to wear a rubber.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:08 PM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


That is exactly what conservatives have been saying, and Hannity has been trotting out examples of people who have supposedly "lost their insurance to Obamacare".  These claims tend not to stand up to any scrutiny, though:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fa ct _checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
 
2013-10-22 02:23:10 PM  

MyRandomName: No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.


Why would you say that's the "correct" action. Is the OMB blocked from providing subsidies to its employees to buy insurance on the exchange? Is any other employer legally bound to force their employers on the exchange due to Republican amendment?
 
2013-10-22 02:23:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


Thanks for telling me what I've known for a while now. I was commenting on the article writer's (I hesitate to use 'journalist') assertion that this amendment would open the floodgates for Congresscritters to start getting benefits they don't qualify for simply because they are Congresscritters.

The analysis of the amendment is the point of my contention, not the actual ridiculous amendment itself.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:14 PM  
Berate the Tea Party all day long if you like, but there is a point here.  Congress should not make laws which they or their political allies are exempt from while the rest of us have to abide.  I think that a constitutional amendment to that effect, but short of the Tea Party somehow gaining much more influence or more likely a new Sulla or Marius coming to the fore it will not happen.  And yes there are several exceptions for different (influential) entities and groups within the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare that they are loath to advertise, along with several other groups seeking exemptions.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:14 PM  

Aquapope: Joe Blowme: prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?

No, it's for somebody who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to make laws apply to members of Congress because laws ALREADY apply to members of Congress (unless specifically exempted, like insider trading).


I thought it was for the guy who thinks that this amendment that will not allow congress to specifically exempt itself from laws would ever get passed.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:50 PM  
Rand "Ayn" Paul sure as hell ain't Ron. Guess which one doesn't give a fark about personal liberties. Just another stuffed suit.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:53 PM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.

Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?


Do those people no longer have insurance? What companies?
 
2013-10-22 02:24:16 PM  

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?



Some people pay 5 bucks a month to do it.
 
2013-10-22 02:27:00 PM  

antidumbass: Rand "Ayn" Paul sure as hell ain't Ron. Guess which one doesn't give a fark about personal liberties. Just another stuffed suit.


If you can only guess one, there is no wrong answer.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report