PDA

View Full Version : RandPaul'sAmazing FlipFlop-Colossal RepubHypocrisy



Gayle in MD
03-30-2011, 03:13 AM
LMAO! His outrage over President's Obama's humanitarian actions in Libya, which is on youtube, is hilarious, since he, and every single other Senator, Republican and Democratic, voted for all of it, every single action, from the UN enforced, no fly zone, to Gadaffi most go, in Schumer's Resolution, on March first!!! You'd never know it to listen to the critics, especially HYPOCRITE COLOSSAL, PAUL!

What a bunch of hypocritical LIARS!
Thumbs up for McCain and the Junior Senator from Massachusetts on their rational, non-hypocritical, honest statements regarding this issue.

G.

Gayle in MD
03-30-2011, 05:28 AM
Here he is, the latest of the Republican exercise regime, the Great American Flip Flop....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q

AND HE VOTED FOR IT, FOR ALL OF IT!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

llotter
03-30-2011, 09:32 AM
Are you fabricating something our of whole cloth? what resolution are you talking about?

Gayle in MD
03-30-2011, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sen. Rand Paul: Obama is not a king
By nick ramsey
-
Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:07 PM EDT
As is the custom on Capitol Hill, plenty of those who are politically opposed to President Obama have taken to the Internets, news shows, and press releases to respond to the President's address on Libya. One of those lawmakers making his voice heard is Tea Party freshman, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). In his remarks, he blasted President Obama for a lack of "understanding of constitutional checks and balances," adding:

"While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here."

"Neither was the case here." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Except on March 1, the United States Senate passed - by unanimous consent, no less, so that would include Sen. Rand Paul - Senate Resolution 85 which, among other things:</span>... urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory...

Below I've included Sen. Paul's response to the President's address in its entirety. You can also read it on his website. Find out what Lawrence has to say about this and more in tonight's Rewrite.



</div></div>
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/


I don't make things up, I leave that to you righties on here....

Gayle in MD
03-31-2011, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you fabricating something our of whole cloth? what resolution are you talking about? </div></div>

Bump????????????

llotter
03-31-2011, 07:28 PM
This is really playing fast and loose with reality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Paul staff told Free Man In Kentucky "There wasn't a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution--which is non-binding-- was in and out before he made it back to the floor." </div></div>

This is a unconscionable effort to provide some back door cover for The Moron's stupidity...cover they rightly anticipated they would need cause they are as aware as everyone else just how stupid The Moron really is. (I know it seems redundant to refer to The Moron's acts as stupid but the situation he deserves a double dose)

To include someone as part of a unanimous consent that wasn't even on the floor and would certainly not consented if he was present at the time, is a blatant attempt to smear a political opponent using very dirty tactics. HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/03/truth-about-senator-paul-and-senate.html?spref=tw

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 04:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is really playing fast and loose with reality.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Paul staff told Free Man In Kentucky "There wasn't a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution--which is non-binding-- was in and out before he made it back to the floor." </div></div>

This is a unconscionable effort to provide some back door cover for The Moron's stupidity...cover they rightly anticipated they would need cause they are as aware as everyone else just how stupid The Moron really is. (I know it seems redundant to refer to The Moron's acts as stupid but the situation he deserves a double dose)

To include someone as part of a unanimous consent that wasn't even on the floor and would certainly not consented if he was present at the time, is a blatant attempt to smear a political opponent using very dirty tactics. HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/03/truth-about-senator-paul-and-senate.html?spref=tw


</div></div>

Nice try, but they're lying.

Qtec
04-01-2011, 04:58 AM
From your link.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anonymous said...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Lol, <u>lookup the Senate Definition of unanimous consent. Any 1 senator can object and it is forced to debate on the Senate Floor. Why didn't Paul just object then and force debate or if the Republican Senate was worried about the fact that Mr. Paul "didn't see" the bill then anyone could have objected in the Senate and it would have been debated.</u></span> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>It troubles me that you have this website when you don't even bother to lookup facts and rather ask a politician (lol) and then take their word for it. Of course Mr. Paul's Admin wouldn't openly say "Aww shucks, we're wrong", they'll make up some crap that apparently people like you will believe and continue to push their Anti-Obama agenda. It doesn't bother me whether you're left or right leaning but if your going to run a political website then you need to do some research on what you're writing about.</span>
</div></div>


http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/265.jpg

Q

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 06:17 AM
How can he object if he wasn't even on the floor?

Steve

llotter
04-01-2011, 08:55 AM
first, there was no flip-flop by Sen. Paul. Second, the unanimous consent resolution was not on the schedule. Third, there was no debate and Sen. Paul was not on the floor. The whole proceeding took less than 40 seconds and in Schumer's introduction and description, there was no mention of a no-fly-zone.

You know Q, I have stood by you while others have called you a unpleasant names but now, when you use some anonymous post as an authority to shoot down an argument, you are stretching my tolerance of giving others the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSessionPart243/start/15224/stop/15261

Gayle in MD
04-01-2011, 09:19 AM
How ignorant can you be????

Are you aware there are no laws passed to authorize military action. They are authorized through Resolutions.

Do you even know that Resolutions are non-binding. Or that the Senate can vote electronically from their offices as long as there is unanimous consent?


Do you even know that if one senator, withholds consent, then the vote must be held by roll call, in person, on the floor of the Senate. The fact that the Resolution passed means there was unanimous consent (including Rand Paul). So that means either Rand Paul is lying, has a very short memory, or is just jumping at a chance to get his ugly mug back in front of the camera.

You need to learn something about how your government works, since you relentlessly bash it...Oh, and be sure to share your new found awareness with your RW buddies, who never get anything straight!

G.

pooltchr
04-01-2011, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How ignorant can you be????

G.



</div></div>

A question we have been wondering about you for quite some time!

Steve

ugotda7
04-02-2011, 05:26 PM
PO....................?

JohnnyD
04-02-2011, 07:46 PM
gail why do you flip flop?
Are you coo coo?

SHALOM.

JohnnyD
04-02-2011, 07:47 PM
gail why are you ignorant?

SHALOM.