Dr. Robert Paul for US Senate in Texas? (VIDEO)

[Galileo]

Dr. Robert Paul for US Senate in Texas? (VIDEO)

Kay Bailey Hutchison announces she will not run for re-election in 2012
http://www.americanindependent.com/165301/kay-bailey-hutchison-announces-she-will-not-run-for-re-election-in-2012

Dr. Robert Paul (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVxAwWFR0k

Ron Paul's other son Dr. Robert Paul speech [the next US Senator from Texas] (VIDEO)
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/134335

:hat

:ihit

:flag:

[Galileo]

Ron Paul’s son Robert running for Congress?
http://libertymaven.com/2008/03/01/ron-pauls-son-robert-running-for-congress/940/

[BlairForceDejuan]

We need Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Robert Paul, Ronnie Paul, Rick Paul, RuPaul, Pope John Paul. America's got a fever, and the only prescription is more Pauls tbh.

[4>0rings]

I hope his whole family takes over this country.

[Yonivore]

We need Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Robert Paul, Ronnie Paul, Rick Paul, RuPaul, Pope John Paul. America's got a fever, and the only prescription is more Pauls tbh.
RuPaul for Entertainment Czar! It can partay.

[Blake]

We can do without Rand Paul, imo.

[Yonivore]

We can do without Rand Paul, imo.
I'd put a whole host of politicians, we could do without, ahead of Mr. Paul, imo.

[Blake]

I'd put a whole host of politicians, we could do without, ahead of Mr. Paul, imo.

I can think of others too, but Rand Paul was mentioned here as someone we need.

[Galileo]

we need ron paul, rand paul, robert paul, ronnie paul, rick paul, rupaul, pope john paul. America's got a fever, and the only prescription is more pauls tbh.

yes!!!

[boutons_deux]

"PAUL: I think an ironclad rule that we will balance the budget from here on after, and that’s what it’s going to take. Not a rule that they can break. You know, they passed pay-as-you-go, they broke it 700 times in the late nineties and the early part of this century. It has to be a very strict rule, so we have to have different rules that they are forced to obey."

Leaving aside the myriad disastrous consequences that would result if the U.S. failed to raise the debt ceiling — and the fact that the current Congress can’t tie the hands of a future Congress, as Paul seems to imagine they can — Paul’s demand shows that he’s completely out-of-touch with what the federal budget actually looks like.

After all, to balance the budget “from here on after” once the debt ceiling is raised necessarily implies balancing the budget this year. And to do so without raising any additional revenue would entail a 44 percent cut in literally everything the government does: everything from Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending to highway funds, the FBI and the Coast Guard. Removing Social Security and defense from the equation then requires an 89 percent cut in everything else.

As the Wonk Room explained, responsible budgeting means finding a balance between the important and popular functions of government and the revenue necessary to fund them. But Paul would risk the United States defaulting on its debt obligations to implement his irresponsible slash-and-burn vision of the budget.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/rand-debt/

========

These Paul guys seem to be fantasy heroes in their own minds only.

[Galileo]

"PAUL: I think an ironclad rule that we will balance the budget from here on after, and that’s what it’s going to take. Not a rule that they can break. You know, they passed pay-as-you-go, they broke it 700 times in the late nineties and the early part of this century. It has to be a very strict rule, so we have to have different rules that they are forced to obey."

Leaving aside the myriad disastrous consequences that would result if the U.S. failed to raise the debt ceiling — and the fact that the current Congress can’t tie the hands of a future Congress, as Paul seems to imagine they can — Paul’s demand shows that he’s completely out-of-touch with what the federal budget actually looks like.

After all, to balance the budget “from here on after” once the debt ceiling is raised necessarily implies balancing the budget this year. And to do so without raising any additional revenue would entail a 44 percent cut in literally everything the government does: everything from Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending to highway funds, the FBI and the Coast Guard. Removing Social Security and defense from the equation then requires an 89 percent cut in everything else.

As the Wonk Room explained, responsible budgeting means finding a balance between the important and popular functions of government and the revenue necessary to fund them. But Paul would risk the United States defaulting on its debt obligations to implement his irresponsible slash-and-burn vision of the budget.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/14/rand-debt/

========

These Paul guys seem to be fantasy heroes in their own minds only.

you are mixed up. Dr. Robert Paul is not Rand Paul.

:lmao

[Blake]

We need RuPaul.


yes!!!

[boutons_deux]

This is the Los Tres Paulos thread.

I wouldn't waste another thread on these assholes.

[Blake]

This is the Los Tres Paulos thread.

I wouldn't waste another thread on these assholes.

I have faith Galileo will waste a few more threads on the Pauls

[Yonivore]

U9AkXdSjILQ
http://www.flashnews.com/newsimages/Rupaul.jpg