I stand with Rand

[z0sa]

:lol no really I don't and the GOP is honestly up shit creek as long as Hilary doesn't really, really fuckin botch her campaign.

Fuck, I'll vote for her just to have Bill around again.

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul Joins Crowded Field of People Who Will Never Be President

LOUISVILLE — With an official announcement on his campaign Web site, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has joined a crowded field of people who will never be elected President in their lifetimes.



While Paul and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are the only officially announced Republican candidates with a zero-per-cent chance of ever winning the Presidency,

a burgeoning roster of totally pointless candidacies is waiting in the wings.

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and neurosurgeon Ben Carson are just a few of the men thought to be considering squandering time and money pursuing an office that they will never occupy in a billion years.

On the Democratic side, only former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has stepped forward as someone who could only be elected to the White House in an alternate universe.

Minutes after his announcement, aides to Senator Paul said that they believed that he would emerge as the top choice of voters who are determined to waste their votes in 2016.

“There’s no one out there who has a more remote chance of being elected, unless Trump decides to run,” one aide said.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/rand-paul-joins-crowded-field-of-people-who-will-never-be-president?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(13)&cndid=&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(13)&CNDID=&spMailingID=7643852&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=660639476&spReportId=NjYwNjM5NDc2S0

[The Reckoning]

sad that people poke fun at other's unelectability than their message. politics has dissolved into a homecoming competition rather than a serious discourse on what's best for us as a nation.

[Blake]

These dudes are getting poked pretty good for their messages and their message sending actions

[CosmicCowboy]

Rand's message would actually play better in a general election than the Republican primary. His laissez faire foreign policy position won't play well with the hardcores.

[ElNono]

I think Rand is a lot more politically savvy than his dad, which might not be good news for those looking for purity, but makes him a more well rounded candidate, IMO.

[The Reckoning]

i agree that isolationism is outdated and so is the message, but rand has demonstrated that he can be more flexible than poppa. maybe he'd be more like bill than ron.

[boutons_deux]

How Rand Paul's Policies Would Increase Inequality

So-called libertarian Rand Paul is running for president. As with Cruz, it's hard to see him being more than a sideshow. Nonetheless, he's a sideshow with a non-trivial amount of support, especially among young conservatives. For that reason, it's worth rehashing his wacky political views.

Redistribute from the Poor to the Rich

Like most conservatives, libertarians especially, Paul is of the mind that our country's current set of economic institutions distribute too much to the poor and not enough to the rich. Nevermind that the poor in the US are among the poorest in the developed world (in both absolute and relative terms). Nevermind that the rich in the US are the richest in the developed world (in both absolute and relative terms). Nevermind that the US has one of the highest levels of inequality in the developed world. Things are still not quite inegalitarian enough for Paul's tastes.

Also like most conservatives, Paul supports the usual set of structural reforms to fix our problem by redistributing income up. Paul's budget proposal for 2014 provides a good blueprint of how he'd like to go about doing this (http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/FY2014Budget.pdf):



"Flat Tax." By increasing taxes on the bottom and middle while decreasing them on the top, Paul's "flat tax" plan redistributes the national income upwards. Of course, making tax burdens "flatter" as part of a project to increase the overall tax level can be justified provided surplus revenue is buried into transfers. But Paul has no intention of making the overall tax level higher. He intends to make it lower.

Eliminating Capital Taxes. Paul also wants to clear out the entire slate of taxes that fall almost entirely on the super-rich, including taxes on capital gains, dividends, interest, estates, and enormous gifts. Such a reform would be a massive giveaway to the rich.



Block Granting Benefit Programs. To balance the budget while reducing the overall tax level, outlays have to be cut somewhere. Given what the federal government does, that means either cuts in social insurance or cuts in the military.Last month, Rand Paul proposed increasing military spending (http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/). So, that leaves only social insurance cuts. To cut social insurance, the conventional Republican strategy, which Paul adopts, is to block grant a bunch of the benefit programs to the states while slowly suffocating their funding. This is what they did to TANF and the program is basically a zombie on a march towards eventual death. Block granting programs like SNAP, WIC, and Medicaid reduces benefits for the poor while also making the benefits less responsive (sometimes even entirely unresponsive) to cyclical downturns, which is when the benefits are most needed.


In total, Paul wants to give away huge sums of money to the rich via the elimination of capital income taxes and switching into his "flat tax." The "flat tax" also, all else equal, reduces the disposable incomes of the bottom and the middle. This tax reform would lower the overall tax level, necessitating social insurance and transfer cuts that will fall heavily on the poor, as well as on the elderly and sick. It doesn't take a genius to see how this plays out distributively and it's not pretty.

Like all the other advocates of upwards redistribution, Paul assures us this reform would generate crazy growth that would actually leave the bottom and middle better off even while it spikes inequality. The problem is that this growth game is not supported by cross-country studies on the determinants of growth. Not only do countries with high tax levels and high transfer levels (like the Nordic countries) grow as well as we do, but huge cross-country datasets tend to show inequality-reducing transfers leads to more (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf) growth.

The Federal Government Enslaves Doctors

Of course, Paul doesn't actually care whether his redistribution from the poor to the rich has dynamic second-order effects that greatly benefit those it takes from. Like his father, at the end of the day, Paul subscribes to this college-student-inflected libertarianism where he thinks things like taxes and social insurance are the forceful aggression of the government (but that somehow other government economic institutions like property laws aren't).

If you don't believe me, please watch this bizarre spectacle where he argues that a public right to healthcare entails enslaving doctors (YouTube Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEBBA9hQjA)). Here is a partial transcript:

With regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies. It's not an abstraction. I am a physician. That means you have a right to come into my house and conscript me. That means you believe in slavery.

He goes further than that, expanding it even to water and food. Statements to the effect that people should have a right to those things are, in his view, statements in support of slavery.

Civil Rights

Because Paul is ultimately and deep down a believer in the Rothbardian non-aggression brand of libertarianism most popular among college freshman, it should come as no surprise that he doesn't believe in the Civil Rights Act as applied to public accommodations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html). The "No Blacks" sign at the hotel is OK by him, not something of public concern. A company that systematically refuses to hire women in top positions, also OK.

To be fair, he has more recently dishonestly said he is for the Civil Rights Act. But this is political expediency, and doesn't even come accompanied with the more sophisticated libertarian pretend stuff where they now go "Oh well you know, non-discrimination laws just this once I guess was cool ." Instead, he just sort of all of a sudden became alright with civil rights protections.

But make no mistake in all of this. As his comments on public rights to water and healthcare reveal, his deep down view is that anti-discrimination laws are tantamount to enslavement. Conscription of public accommodations providers! An aggressive intrusion into their absolute pre-political property rights!
[B]
Conclusion

This is just a tip of the iceberg of the circus that is Rand Paul's politics, but it should give you a sense of his angle. Rand Paul's libertarian fantasy is, like all libertarian fantasies, a reality-denying nightmare for nearly all but the rich, especially the white and male rich.

http://www.demos.org/blog/4/7/15/how-rand-pauls-policies-would-increase-inequality

[CosmicCowboy]

Military isolationism isn't necessarily outdated. I just see it as an alternative. IMHO in the Middle East and North Africa we should either play hard to win or get the fuck out. I'm OK with getting the fuck out with the "don't fuck with Israel or we come back and kick your ass" condition.

[The Reckoning]

boots your article is ridiculous and i lost brain cells reading through it's bias.


anyway, happy i can urge some discussion of policies instead of "sideshows" and "unelectability". Rand actually puts thought into his votes and compromises btw. He's not like Ron in that he votes No for everything.

As for military, no reason for us to intervene in people killing each other unless it's to defend our own folks and interests...and give them no reason to hate us. That was Ron's revelation that I agree with.


also military spending really all isn't bad so long as they carrve all the waste (which there's billions of $ of waste). it's the best training in the world for those who can't afford an advanced education...and with all the benefits like the GI Bill, it's a great start for those who don't have a trust fund.

[Blizzardwizard]

As said above, the guy's more savvy than Ron Paul and frankly is seen as a little more sane and a little less senile. Individualistic Libertarian Laissez-Faire policies won't win elections these days though. Hillary surely can't screw this up. Even someone like Warren or Sanders would wipe the floor with Paul.

[ChumpDumper]

Military isolationism isn't necessarily outdated. I just see it as an alternative. IMHO in the Middle East and North Africa we should either play hard to win or get the fuck out. I'm OK with getting the fuck out with the "don't fuck with Israel or we come back and kick your ass" condition.Why would you go to war for Israel?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why would you go to war for Israel?

It's more of a deterrent to keep the war from ever starting and to prevent Israel from having use nukes for their survival.Too many enemies in that region have sworn to exterminate them. Israel naturally takes it seriously and for good reason.

Why would you want to stand by and watch Israel be exterminated? Do you not like Jews?

[ChumpDumper]

So why do they even have nukes if you're willing to fight their wars for them?

I'm fine with the billions we give them so they can buy our shit to fight their own wars.

[CosmicCowboy]

So why do they even have nukes if you're willing to fight their wars for them?

I'm fine with the billions we give them so they can buy our shit to fight their own wars.

A reasonable position as well, although the implied threat of unqualified US participation might actually prevent the war from ever starting.

[ChumpDumper]

That's what nukes are for.

Why is going to war for Israel in our interest?

[boutons_deux]

boots your article is ridiculous and i lost brain cells reading through it's bias.


Which RP policies did the article get wrong?

[The Reckoning]

Which RP policies did the article get wrong?


It makes logical assumptions that are way beyond reasonable circumstance.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's what nukes are for.

Why is going to war for Israel in our interest?

hmmm...why would preventing nukes from being used in the middle east as a last ditch defense effort be in our interest?

[ChumpDumper]

hmmm...why would preventing nukes from being used in the middle east as a last ditch defense effort be in our interest?It's the deterrent.

So the only reason to go to war for Israel is so they won't use nukes?

We should take away their nukes then. They don't need them when they have the US as a satellite state anyway.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's more of a deterrent to keep the war from ever starting and to prevent Israel from having use nukes for their survival.Too many enemies in that region have sworn to exterminate them. Israel naturally takes it seriously and for good reason.

Why would you want to stand by and watch Israel be exterminated? Do you not like Jews?

Of course bluster and hope they don't call you on it is how you live your life, brokiller. Of course you are shortsighted enough to apply personal ethic to international policy. What a toolbag.

[boutons_deux]

Ayn Rand Paul AND his staff are fucking incompetent politicians

Twitter Ignites Over Rand Paul's 'JEW For Rand' Banner On New Website
http://a2.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/gnq4kv3ckz0lu1zojbeb.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-jew-for-rand-twitter?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

:lol You avg Jew tends to be more educated, sophisticated than your avg gun fellatin, KY jelly brained libertarian

[boutons_deux]

where you RP suckers can waster your money:

Rand on a stick: The Salon guide to Rand Paul’s online campaign store

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/rand_on_a_stick_the_salon_guide_to_rand_pauls_onli ne_campaign_store/

Libertarianism! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Ayn Rand Paul, aka Wombat Hair (Jon Stewart), using racist, xenophobic, LGBT-hating code phrase

Rand Paul promises to ‘take our country back’ in 2016 White House bid

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/rand-paul-promises-to-take-our-country-back-in-2016-white-house-bid/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course bluster and hope they don't call you on it is how you live your life, brokiller. Of course you are shortsighted enough to apply personal ethic to international policy. What a toolbag.

ankle biting faggot...:lol

[boutons_deux]

Pastor Who Spoke At Rand Launch: We Don't Yet Know Obama's 'Real Religion'


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rev-jerry-stephenson-obama-evolve-religion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[boutons_deux]

He Wants to Boost Military Spending? 5 Things Everyone Needs to Know About Rand Paul

1.) He Wants to Boost Military Spending:

The Kentucky Senator appealed to many antiwar citizens by questioning his party's commitment to perpetual regime change, but he has pulled back on this view. Last month, Paul introduced a budget amendment that would add $76.5 billion to defense spending. This reversal put him in line with Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who has called for similar Pentagon increases. Paul's proposal actually adds up to an almost $190 billion addition over the next two years. How does Paul propose offsetting the increased cost? With $212 billion in cuts to things like climate change research, the EPA, and departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Education.

2.) He's Become a Staunch Supporter of Israel:

After occasionally touching the third rail of US political discourse, Paul has stopped saying things that will potentially upset pro-Israel voters. Additionally, Paul has produced an Orwellian-titled pro-Israel bill: The Defend Israel by Defunding Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015. The bill would cut funding to Palestine unless they stop seeking recognition at the International Criminal Court. Paul's also responsible for the Stand With Israel Act, a piece of legislation that would also cut financial aid. As for cutting aid to Israel, the country that takes the most in taxpayer money, Paul has assured citizens that his stance on foreign aid is specifically inconsistent: "I've never said oh my goodness! Let's target aid to Israel…I said you know what, to get to an ultimate goal maybe we should start by eliminating aid to countries that hate us, countries that burn our flag. I've been very up front to acknowledge that Israel isn't one of the countries. Israel is our friend. I have never had a bill that had Israel's name in it to eliminate aid to Israel."

3.) He Wants to Take From the Poor and Give to the Wealthy:

Paul shares his economic ideas with many other Republicans. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes, hack away at what's left of our safety net, and establish a "flat tax." As Matt Bruenig writes (http://www.demos.org/blog/4/7/15/how-rand-pauls-policies-would-increase-inequality) [3], "Like most conservatives, liberarians especially, Paul is of the mind that our country's current set of economic institutions distribute too much to the poor and not enough to the rich. Nevermind that the poor in the US are among the poorest in the developed world (in both absolute and relative terms). Nevermind that the rich in the US are the richest in the developed world (in both absolute and relative terms). Nevermind that the US has one of the highest levels of inequality in the developed world. Things are still not quite inegalitarian enough for Paul's tastes."

4.) Paul is "Not Sure Anybody Exactly Knows Why the Climate is Changing." And that is not his only anti-science view. (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/rand-paul-climate-change?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) [4]

5.) Anti-worker:

The National Right to Work Committe has already given Paul $20,000 this election cycle, impressed by his anti-worker, union-busting legislation. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/204) [5] The presidential candidate has also argued that workers don't contribute to their own pensions and the Post Office is failing because of unions.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/5-not-so-wacky-things-you-should-know-about-rand-paul?akid=12983.187590.ixN1EI&rd=1&src=newsletter1034469&t=1

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul’s Home State Relies On Government Programs He’s Vowed To Dismantle (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/07/3643710/rand-paul-kentucky-economy/)

Rand Paul will formally announce today in Louisville, the largest city in his home state of Kentucky, that he will seek the Republican nomination for president. But what Paul won’t tell the crowds of Kentuckians and others gathered in the city to watch his announcement is that his policies would further devastate the people already suffering (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/11/3631479/beattyville-kentucky/)in one of the worst economies in the nation.

Though Paul has generally expressed suspicion (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/14/3611776/rand-paul-disability/)that poor people are cheating (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/13/318259/with-record-number-of-americans-falling-into-poverty-rand-paul-says-the-poor-are-getting-rich/) or being preyed upon by government programs, Kentuckians, who have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, rely heavily on programs Paul has vowed to dismantle, including Obamacare and food stamps.

Rand Paul has said (https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/10152416051106107) he will not rest until Obamacare is 100 percent repealed, preferring to rely on “freedom” (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2015/01/06/sen-rand-pauls-remedy-obamacare-we-could-try-freedom-awhile-we-had-it-long-time) in the health insurance marketplace. But Kentuckians living in the rural parts of the state, which ranks among the most unhealthy (http://www.americashealthrankings.org/KY) in the nation, were among the groups that benefited most (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/29/upshot/obamacare-who-was-helped-most.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1) from the health care law. Before the health care law was signed, a staggering 640,000 people, or 15 percent of the state, lacked health insurance in Kentucky.

Paul believes food stamp recipients are abusing the system (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/232567-senate-votes-down-farm-amendment-repealing-food-stamp-program) to “buy junk food” and “McDonalds,” but 91 percent of Kentucky food bank clients reported that they bought unhealthy food because it was the cheapest way to feed their families.

Paul also opposes setting a minimum wage, let alone increasing it. About 49,000 Kentuckians (http://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/2014/pdf/minimumwageworkers_kentucky_20140422.pdf) earn the federal minimum wage of $7.25 or less, but even that falls short of how much it costs to live in the state. According to MIT’s living wage calculator, a Kentucky family making minimum wage would still be stuck deep in poverty.

Nevertheless, Paul has dismissed concerns over poverty, asserting (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/13/318259/with-record-number-of-americans-falling-into-poverty-rand-paul-says-the-poor-are-getting-rich/) that “the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.” :lol

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/07/3643710/rand-paul-kentucky-economy/

RP, garden-variety, blindly idelogical, right-wing sociopathic LIAR.

[TeyshaBlue]

Rabble thoroughly roused.
:lol thinkprogress

[boutons_deux]

Rabble thoroughly roused.
:lol thinkprogress

stalker TB :lol nothing to say against the FACTS of the article

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul’s tangled approach to H-1B visas


http://www.itworld.com/article/2907080/rand-pauls-tangled-approach-to-h-1b-visas.html?phint=newt%3Ditworld_today&phint=idg_eid%3De9a1bab1fadac3242d97a6dde939315b#t k.ITWNLE_nlt_today_2015-04-08

Enterprise zones? some experience:


Enterprise Zones: Just the Facts


http://www.calaborfed.org/index.php/site/page/enterprise_zones_just_the_facts1

iow, they are, essentially, way to reduce corporate taxes and put US employees in direct competition with low-wage South/East Asian immigrants, which is just another battle in BigCorp's self-enriching War on Employees, aka, destruction of the middle and working classes' wealth.

[The Reckoning]

Lol where are these links coming from?

IT World? Are you tech support, croutons?

[boutons_deux]

Lol where are these links coming from?

IT World? Are you tech support, croutons?

the links are in the post.

[The Reckoning]

I know but the websites are hilarious. Next one will be from croissantafictionados.com

[boutons_deux]

When he's not obsessing about Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul is lying about the debt (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376349/-When-he-s-not-obsessing-about-Hillary-Clinton-Rand-Paul-is-lying-about-the-debt)


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376349/-When-he-s-not-obsessing-about-Hillary-Clinton-Rand-Paul-is-lying-about-the-debt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

==============

Fact checking Rand Paul’s announcement speech



“Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration. And it’s now tripling under Barack Obama’s watch. President Obama is on course to add more debt than all of the previous presidents combined.”


Paul joins the long list of politicians in both parties who make misleading statements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/) about the growth of the national debt. But we are not sure where he gets the idea that Obama has tripled the national debt.

The U.S. Treasury “debt to the penny (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current)” Web site shows that the gross national debt, which includes bonds held by Social Security and the other government trust funds, stood at $10.627 trillion on Jan. 20 and reached $18.152 trillion on April 6 — an increase of about 71 percent. In terms of debt held by the public, the number has doubled from $6.307 trillion to $13.108 trillion in the same period.

The biggest problem with this kind of calculation is that every president inherits a debt from the previous one, making it virtually certain that the pile of debt is going to grow. So raw numbers don’t tell you much; what’s important is the percentage change in the time period being measured.

Under that standard, the debt went up 190 percent under Ronald Reagan, who Paul cited in his speech.

Paul also made reference to “big government.” If he’s talking about the number of workers, that’s wrong. As the Wall Street Journal reported (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/07/the-federal-government-now-employs-the-fewest-people-since-1966/), the federal government under Obama employs the fewest people since 1966.


“We borrow a million dollars a minute. This vast accumulation of debt threatens not just our economy, but our security.”


As a factoid, borrowing a million dollars a minute is correct, at least if you are looking to use round numbers in a speech. The deficit in fiscal 2014 was nearly $500 billion, and a million dollars a minute adds up to $525 billion in a year. But Paul doesn’t mention that this figure is more than half the size of the deficit during the Great Recession. Then the United States was borrowing more than $2 million a minute.


“Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.”


Actually, the budget was balanced — and ran a surplus — not too long ago, in four fiscal years of the Bill Clinton administration and part of the George W. Bush administration (1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001). Republicans held control of both the House and the Senate. Believe it or not, this was only 14 years ago.

Whether this is the result of brilliant planning by Clinton, a Democrat, or Republican diligence once the party took control of Congress in 1994 — or simply everyone got lucky — is of course the subject of fierce political debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-gross-rewriting-of-history/2011/06/30/AGFGVqsH_blog.html). But a balanced budget amendment was not necessary to achieve the result.


“Warrantless searches of Americans’ phones and computer records are un-American and a threat to our civil liberties. I say that your phone records are yours. I say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business. … The president created this vast dragnet by executive order. And as president on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance.”


Paul has been critical of the National Security Agency’s program to collect billions of U.S. phone records in bulk. While he did not specifically name President Obama in his announcement, Paul previously has linked Obama’s administrative decisions to what Paul believes is an overreach. Paul’s statement Tuesday implied that Obama started the NSA program with an executive order.

But the original program was launched in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks, by President Bush. In 2007, Obama promised to protect civil liberties if elected president. The program was placed under court oversight in 2006, and the Obama administration reviewed it after Obama took office. The Obama administration decided to continue the program with more internal oversight. It was not until 2014 that Obama called for changes to narrow the government’s access to Americans’ records, following public outcry after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified information showing the extent of the program.

Paul alluded to these developments at the 2015 South by Southwest conference, in a lengthy interview in front of a tech-savvy young crowd. He said: “Some of the programs started under Bush, but they’ve been expanded. Where people voted for President Obama, they expected him to be a defender of their civil liberties and privacy, not so much.”

Paul largely was on point about the development of surveillance initiatives under Bush and Obama during that interview. But his announcement on Tuesday did not reflect the nuances. In fact, the announcement falsely created an impression that the current program, or the “vast dragnet,” began with a single executive order by Obama. We know Paul knows the difference. Perhaps it is time for Paul’s speechwriter to brush up on this topic. – Michelle Ye Hee Lee


“We must realize, though, that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.”


Paul reinforces a myth here — that the United States borrows most (if not all) of its money from China. But as we have reported, that’s simply wrong (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/29/no-china-does-not-hold-more-than-50-percent-of-u-s-debt/). China is a biggest single holder of Treasury debt, owning $1.252 trillion as of October 2014, but that amounts to less than 10 percent of all U.S. debt held by the public.



“Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home. It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to America’ in countries that receive millions of dollars in our foreign aid.”


Here’s another myth perpetuated by Paul. Foreign aid is a relatively tiny part of the federal budget — about one percent (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/03/four_pinocchios_for_the_americ.html) — and very little is spent on bridges. A chunk of money is spent on development and nutritional assistance but much of the aid is military in nature. Moreover, with the exception of Israel, countries which receive U.S. military assistance must buy U.S. products. The big winners of such deals are often American workers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-misleading-budget-cuts/2013/02/15/6f68014a-77b8-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_blog.html), so in reality that spending directly aids American taxpayers. (And yes, indeed, the biggest recipients of such military assistance are often countries where crowds chant anti-American slogans.)

So, despite Paul’s wish to bring that aid money home, much of it is already coming back in the form of jobs for Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/08/fact-checking-rand-pauls-announcement-speech/?wprss=rss_fact-checker&tid=sm_tw_pp

[boutons_deux]

Paul Presidential Campaign Crashes and Burns As Rand Melts Down On NBC’s Today

Paul made it roughly halfway through the interview (http://www.today.com/news/rand-paul-iran-nuclear-deal-im-going-keep-open-mind-2D80592771), before he fell apart.Today’s Savannah Guthrie said, “You’ve had views in the past on foreign policy that are somewhat unorthodox, but you seem to have changed over the years. You once said Iran was not a threat, but now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel. You now support it, at least for the time being, and you once offered to drastically cut defense spending and now you want to increase it sixteen percent, so I just wonder if you’ve mellowed out?”

Sen. Paul went into meltdown mode by attacking Guthrie, “Why don’t you let me explain instead of talking over me, ok? Before we go through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on, why don’t you ask me a question. Have I changed my opinion on? That would be sort of a better way to approach an interview. No, no, no, no, no. You’ve editorialized. Let me answer a question. You ask a question and say have your views changed, instead of editorializing and saying my views have changed.”


Rand Paul lasted less than 24 hours as a presidential candidate before he threw his first Randtrum. (A Randtrum is defined as a Rand Paul temper tantrum brought by anyone who dares to point out Paul’s flip-flops and ideological inconsistencies.) Media editorializing in questions is something that deserves to be despised, but Guthrie wasn’t editorializing.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/08/paul-presidential-campaign-crashes-burns-rand-melts-today-show.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

In 2008, Rand Paul Said We Should Slash Taxes on the Rich Because That's What the “Church...Asked for”


HOST: What total percentage of income do you think should reasonably go to taxes—federal state and local—and what percentage of any do you think we should be able to keep for ourselves?

PAUL: I'd like to chime in because I never heard a number there […]I'm going to say the church never asked for more than 10 percent. I think there's no reason we should have a higher than a 10 percent income tax federally and if we have to have an income tax. And I would say locally, we could have no income tax and about a 10 percent sales tax.


Of all excuses to cut taxes on the rich, using the church as an argument is certainly novel.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/2008-rand-paul-said-we-should-slash-taxes-rich-because-thats-what-churchasked

[Clipper Nation]

Rand is a neocon shill, he's nothing like his dad. I'll be writing in Ron again.

[Blizzardwizard]

In 2008, Rand Paul Said We Should Slash Taxes on the Rich Because That's What the “Church...Asked for”

HOST: What total percentage of income do you think should reasonably go to taxes—federal state and local—and what percentage of any do you think we should be able to keep for ourselves?

PAUL: I'd like to chime in because I never heard a number there […]I'm going to say the church never asked for more than 10 percent. I think there's no reason we should have a higher than a 10 percent income tax federally and if we have to have an income tax. And I would say locally, we could have no income tax and about a 10 percent sales tax.


Of all excuses to cut taxes on the rich, using the church as an argument is certainly novel.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/2008-rand-paul-said-we-should-slash-taxes-rich-because-thats-what-churchasked




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCFUMGsUoAIyUi8.png

[TeyshaBlue]

Its Thinkprogress:lol.
Why waste the time reading that bullshit?

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol Moonbat posts.
The rabble is on fire!

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol Moonbat posts.
The rabble is on fire!

Cute fucking epithet, now you keep on keeping on sport while boutons keeps dropping all these napalm bombs.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol bombs

[z0sa]

Boutons, start your own thread for your stupid articles and stop spamming mine unless you have an original opinion to put forth. Thanks.

[boutons_deux]

looza has "his" thread! :lol

hurts bad when your adored Rand Paul is destroyed in 100 different ways.

did you listen to his speech! hilarious, the snips I heard! Hate govt! FREEDOM! :lol

[z0sa]

See, this is why people make fun of you non stop. when you actually put forth an opinion, you sound utterly idiotic. In the very OP, I laughed him and the rest of the GOP's likely candidates off as jokes. Yet you accuse me of adoring him. It just boggles the mind.

[Slutter McGee]

I am not a huge fan of the Paul's anti-FED campaign. I think it puts too much political pressure on the FED. I wouldn't mind the audit the FED stuff if I could be assured no additional interference in monetary policy..

And I am not saying the FED is great and doesn't have its problems. I just think Congress being involved with monetary policy is a stupid idea. No way they would have let Volker cause a recession in the 80's to get inflation under control. But that was the right play.

But, yeah. I will support Rand. I like Cruz just because he pisses liberals off, but he has no shot at winning.

Slutter McGee

[Th'Pusher]

Rand Paul being swift boated by the hawks for supporting Obama. These guys are gona shred each other...again:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/08/398224643/tv-ads-financed-with-secret-money-attack-paul-on-day-1-of-presidential-bid

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

[The Reckoning]

who you voting for Blizzardwizard?

Oh..wait..

[Blizzardwizard]

who you voting for Blizzardwizard?

Oh..wait..

Ed Miliband, Labour Party. 2015 UK elections.

If I was American, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren if they ran, or nobody.

It bothers you that I dare talk American politics though doesn't it? :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Ed Miliband, Labour Party. 2015 UK elections.
Nigel Farrage >>>>>>>>>>>

[Blizzardwizard]

Nigel Farrage >>>>>>>>>>>

:lol A true Republican in the UK if there ever was one.

[The Reckoning]

Ed Miliband, Labour Party. 2015 UK elections.

If I was American, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren if they ran, or nobody.

It bothers you that I dare talk American politics though doesn't it? :lol

Well...by definition you are un-American

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul’s vile abortion deceit: How he’s trying to conceal his odious anti-choice recordhttp://media.salon.com/2015/04/rand_paul19.jpg

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/rand_pauls_vile_abortion_deceit_how_hes_trying_to_ conceal_his_odious_anti_choice_record/

[boutons_deux]

NRA snubs Rand Paul, Chris Christie (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376418/-NRA-snubs-Rand-Paul-Chris-Christie)


The National Rifle Association's annual convention will be missing a pair of prominent tools when it convenes this Friday (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/chris-christie-rand-paul-nra-leadership-forum-nashville-tennessee-116754.html#ixzz3WjsfbXju).


Neither Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky nor New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was invited to address the NRA’s Leadership Forum, NRA officials confirmed to The Tennessean.“We have a really lengthy program and we have the longest list of potential presidential candidates to speak at the Leadership Forum this go-around, and we just could not accommodate everyone,” Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Nashville paper.


The Christie snub is almost expected at this point, under the general banner of nobody likes Chris Christie, but the Rand Paul omission is perhaps more significant. He is, after all, one of the only two Republicans who has actually announced himself as a candidate. The other is Ted Cruz, who is speaking, along with pretty much everyone else (http://www.tennessean.com/story/insession/2015/04/07/chris-christie-rand-paul-not-invited-to-address-nra/25430189/).

Donald Trump secured an invite, but not Rand Paul?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376418/-NRA-snubs-Rand-Paul-Chris-Christie?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[boutons_deux]

To Rand Paul, Abortion Access For Rape Victims Isn’t Worth Talking About (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/08/3644523/rand-paul-abortion-exceptions/)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who announced his candidacy (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/politics/rand-paul-republican-presidential-nomination.html) for the presidency this week, isn’t willing to clarify whether he believes there are any circumstances under which women should be allowed to legally obtain an abortion.

When the Associated Press pressed the GOP contender (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5b4bc674db064a1d9f1a50e39c4a66bd/ap-interview-paul-wont-spell-out-abortion-ban-exceptions) about “where, in his view, a pregnant woman’s rights begin and those of the fetus end,” Paul would not answer the question. He did not say whether a total abortion ban should include any exceptions for extreme cases, like women who do not wish to continue a pregnancy that resulted from sexual violence.

“The thing is about abortion — and about a lot of things — is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told the AP (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5b4bc674db064a1d9f1a50e39c4a66bd/ap-interview-paul-wont-spell-out-abortion-ban-exceptions). ( yes blanket banning abortion is "details"! :lol )

On his campaign website (http://randpaul.com/issue/sanctity-of-life), Paul declares “that life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.” During his time in Congress, the Kentucky senator has co-sponsored a total abortion ban (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/rand-paul-personhood-problem), the Life at Conception Act, that would officially enshrine this position into law.

Two years ago, in an interview with CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/19/sitroom.01.html), Paul struggled to answer the same question. Asked to clarify whether his proposed Life at Conception Act would include any exceptions, Paul responded (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1303/19/sitroom.01.html), “I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.” :lol

Although Paul is often referred to as a staunch libertarian, his positions on reproductive rights don’t align (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/04/06/3643093/rand-paul-not-libertarian/) with the Libertarian Party — whose official platform (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm) states that “we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

Paul has rebuffed arguments that a wave of state-level abortion restrictions (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/08/3644204/new-abortion-laws-2015/) have compromised women’s personal liberty.

Last year, the Republican lawmaker declared (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/26/3205991/rand-paul-war-women/), “If there was a war on women, I think they won…The women in my family are doing great.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/08/3644523/rand-paul-abortion-exceptions/

"Freedom!" as he kept screaming at his candidacy camp meeting. :lol

"The women in my family are doing great." have you been screwing them? have they been raped? needed, had abortions?

His family anecdote means the Repug/Christian Taliban War on Women is over! :lol

RP can't keep his shit straight, is an inept politician, his actually pretty dumb. Thanks, KY jelly brains!

[Blake]

"..... A day after*announcing the launch of his 2016 presidential campaign*during a fiery speech in Louisville, Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul*got a bit testy during an interview on the*“Today”*show Wednesday.

Appearing via satellite from New Hampshire, the tea party favorite took issue with*“Today”*co-anchor Savannah Guthrie's line of questioning about how his views on several key foreign policy issues seem to have changed over the years.“

Before we go through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on,”*Paul said, cutting Guthrie off,*“why don’t you ask me a question, ‘Have I changed my opinion?’ That would be a better way to approach an interview.”

“Is Iran still not a threat?”*Guthrie asked.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,”*Paul replied.*“Listen, you’ve editorialized. Let me answer a question. You ask a question, and you say, ‘Have your views changed?’*instead of editorializing and saying my views have changed.”........"

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-testy-today-show-interview-video-132952295.html


Fuck this whiny ass hole. He's a terrifying presidential prospect.

[boutons_deux]

Funny Business: The Financial ‘Shenanigans’ Of Ron Paul And Company

the Kentucky senator should remember that “follow the money” is a game everybody can play. And since he believes that any funds raised or spent by Bill Clinton are fair game, shouldn’t the same rule apply to all the financial “shenanigans” that surround his millionaire father, Ron Paul?

When he ran for president in the Republican primary three years ago, the Texas Republican drew the attention of Washington reporters (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/12/ron-paul-one-of-the-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report-finds) and ethical watchdogs bemused by his habit of using campaign funds and congressional expense reimbursements to enrich himself and his family. In 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington examined every congressional campaign filing (http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Family_Affair_House_2012_CREW.pdf?nocdn=1)– and Paul had paid more of his relatives with campaign funds than any other member. His re-election committee paid salaries to his daughter, his grandson, his daughter’s mother-in-law, his granddaughter, and his grandson-in-law — namely Jesse Benton, who just took charge of Rand Paul’s SuperPAC.

Total payments to Paul and his family in that cycle were nearly $400,000 — and this dubious practice, illegal in some states, has continued.

During the first few months of 2012, Roll Call published a series of stories citing credit card records (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_90/Records-Show-Ron-Paul-Trips-Paid-Twice-212118-1.html) that showed Ron Paul billed travel expenses to both his congressional office account — that is, to the taxpayers — and several political organizations that were controlled by him and his family.

When one of those committees came under independent management, the new leadership noted the discrepancies and complained that he had “double-billed” at least $20,000 and possibly much more. (According to the ubiquitous and scandal-tinged Benton (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitch-mcconnell-campaign-manager-jesse-benton-resigns-110465_Page2.html), married to Rand Paul’s niece and Ron Paul’s sometime employee, those were all mere bookkeeping errors.)

But the nagging, never-answered question about the Paul family business is how much of Ron’s millions were the fruit of Ron Paul & Associates — corporate purveyors of the racist, anti-Semitic, gay-baiting, conspiracy-addled newsletters that raked in millions over two decades from their dim ultra-right subscribers.

The Washington Post reported in January 2012 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html)that under his supervision, Paul’s company “pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas…” In other words, he sought to profit from the bigotry of his supporters.


cute answer offered by Ron Paul (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/01/all-the-candidates-tax-returns.html) when asked to release his tax returns at a debate in 2012:

“I don’t have any intention of releasing it – but for a different reason. I’d probably be embarrassed to put my financial statements next to [the other candidates’] income and I don’t want to be embarrassed because I don’t have a greater income.” :lol

Does anyone really believe that’s why the former proprietor of Ron Paul’s Survival Report (http://www.nationalmemo.com/lethal-fantasies-dear-old-ron-paul/) refused to release his returns?

http://www.nationalmemo.com/funny-business-the-financial-shenanigans-of-ron-paul-and-company/

I remember you rightwing dicksuckers saying back then that Ron Paul was not responsible for HIS racist newsletters because he didn't read them. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, I was intently reading that until the article mentioned CREW...

I don't believe anything at face value these partisan idiots make up.

Have any valid source material?

As for that newsletter, it was made by supporters without his endorsement.

Will you ever stop being a useful idiot for the partisan left?

[Wild Cobra]

"..... A day after*announcing the launch of his 2016 presidential campaign*during a fiery speech in Louisville, Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul*got a bit testy during an interview on the*“Today”*show Wednesday.

Appearing via satellite from New Hampshire, the tea party favorite took issue with*“Today”*co-anchor Savannah Guthrie's line of questioning about how his views on several key foreign policy issues seem to have changed over the years.“

Before we go through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on,”*Paul said, cutting Guthrie off,*“why don’t you ask me a question, ‘Have I changed my opinion?’ That would be a better way to approach an interview.”

“Is Iran still not a threat?”*Guthrie asked.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,”*Paul replied.*“Listen, you’ve editorialized. Let me answer a question. You ask a question, and you say, ‘Have your views changed?’*instead of editorializing and saying my views have changed.”........"

http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-testy-today-show-interview-video-132952295.html


Fuck this whiny ass hole. He's a terrifying presidential prospect.

Many people would disagree with you.

[boutons_deux]

“Those women were not yelling at you”: Megyn Kelly condemns Rand Paul’s interview conduct

http://media.salon.com/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-09-at-10.21.32-AM-620x412.png

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/megyn_kelly_condemns_rand_pauls_interview_conduct_ those_women_were_not_yelling_at_you/

[Wild Cobra]

I see you haven't watched the exchanges. That once again, you are parroting what you liberal talking heads tell you to believe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL878fniK-s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjiuCDAeTIA

Hey B-Shit...

I know you aren't going to watch the whole thing, but listen to what Megan has to say starting at 9:14.

It does not agree with what your liberal talking heads are telling you to believe.

[Blake]

Many people would disagree with you.

There are many terrifyingly stupid and/or ignorant people in this country.

[Blizzardwizard]

“Those women were not yelling at you”: Megyn Kelly condemns Rand Paul’s interview conduct

http://media.salon.com/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-09-at-10.21.32-AM-620x412.png

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/megyn_kelly_condemns_rand_pauls_interview_conduct_ those_women_were_not_yelling_at_you/


"I don't like the question because it doesn't parrot my republican agenda, please like me :cry"

:lmao

[The Reckoning]

I think Paul is trying to present himself as an anti-Romney


could bite him in the ass on both sides

[Th'Pusher]

Well...by definition you are un-American

Should that preclude him from discussing american politics

[boutons_deux]

Republican field tired of 'gotcha questions' sob, stop quoting me! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/09/1376620/-Republican-field-tired-of-gotcha-questions-sob-stop-quoting-me)

The Republican presidential primary has only just gotten going and already the candidates are sick and tired of gotcha questions from the media. You know, sneaky, unfair stuff like asking the candidates about their own words.

Ted Cruz has had enough of this nonsense (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102570583) where people check to see if he's telling the truth:


Harwood: You've said a few things that don't necessarily comport with the facts, like, "125,000 I.R.S. agents, send 'em to the border." They've only got 25,000 agents or something like. You've talked about the job-killing nature of Obamacare. We're adding jobs at a very healthy clip right now. Why shouldn't somebody listen to you and say, "The guy'll just say anything - doesn't have to be true"?

Cruz: There is a game that is played by left-wing editorial writers. It's this new species of yellow journalism called politi-fact. Colloquially :lol I was referring to all the employees as agents.

That particular stat is in a joke I used. So, they're literally fact-checking a joke. I say that explicitly tongue in cheek.


Oh, see, colloquially I was using the scary-sounding term "agents" to stand in for agents, receptionists, clerical staff, janitors, paper pushers, and number crunchers, and it was all a joke anyway, so it's illegitimate to point out that my innocent little joke making a serious political point (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/19/1371950/-Ted-Cruz-sees-IRS-agents-everywhere) was premised on misinformation.It's a good strategy for wooing the Republican base, though—say all kinds of outrageous stuff, then insist it was all a joke anyway, so if reporters call you out on it, it's yellow journalism by left-wing editorial writers. Cruz could never be held accountable for anything he says under this theory.

For his part, Rand Paul spent the first day of his official candidacy testily explaining to reporters that nothing he said before about 2009 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/08/1376356/-Rand-Paul-says-the-stuff-he-said-before-is-now-off-limits), when he began running for office, is in any way relevant to his presidential run now and so it's all off limits.

In one case, he even claimed that something he said in 2009 was said in 2007, pushing it back out of the acceptable-to-ask category, per his rules.

This from the man who's been trying to run against Hillary Clinton based on things her husband did in the 1990s. :lol

For guys gearing up to run on accountability for everyone else, "it's not fair to ask me about that stuff I said" is an interesting and nervy approach to dealing with the media.

But the truth is, it is likely to appeal to a Republican base strongly rooted in the victim mentality.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/09/1376620/-Republican-field-tired-of-gotcha-questions-sob-stop-quoting-me?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

:lol how many of Krazee Kruz' base knows what "colloquially" means?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul: I Don’t Hate Women, I’m An Equal Opportunity Dick

Rand Paul has had a rough couple of days since he announced that he will be the next, LOL, president of these United States. He spent Day One being mocked ruthlessly on the intertubes for the disaster that is his campaign website (http://wonkette.com/582118/rand-pauls-terrible-horrible-totally-fcked-up-day), filled with misspelled words like “eductation,” ridiculous swag (hoodies and skull caps, Senator? Really?), and a page of “endorsements” from German stock photos.

He spent his second day (http://wonkette.com/582248/yup-rand-paul-fcked-up-his-second-day-running-for-president-too) picking fights with everyone in the media, Randsplaining how “real” journalism should work.

(It should work like his interviews on Fox, where he gets to spout bullshit while Sean Hannity strokes him off and tells him he’s a great American, like he’s done 54 times (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/09/the-fox-primary-18-potential-candidates-have-al/203192) in the last two years alone, more than twice as much as any other Republican presidential contender. And that doesn’t include the other 65 times he’s appeared on non-Hannity shows on Fox.)

But the one thing self-certified “opthalmologist” (http://wonkette.com/582118/rand-pauls-terrible-horrible-totally-fcked-up-day) Rand Paul wants us to know about him, as he explained to male interviewer Wolf Blitzer, is that when it comes to being A Asshole to reporters, he is NOT sexist. He will asshole anyone, (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/rand-paul-im-testy-with-male-and-female-reporters-205210.html) male or not male:

You know, I think I’ve been universally short-tempered and testy with both male and female reporters. I’ll own up to that. And it’s hard sometimes. As you know, like, during our interview right now, I’m looking at only a camera. I can’t see you. And it’s hard to have a true interaction sometimes, particularly if it’s a hostile interviewer. So I do think that interviews should be questions, and not necessarily editorializing.



Well, then, guess we owe the senator an apology for pointing out his tendency to tell lady reporters (http://wonkette.com/582179/rand-paul-teaches-lady-reporter-how-to-talk-to-him-again) to “shhhh” and “calm down” and “no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,” stop asking him questions the wrong way.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/582302/rand-paul-i-dont-hate-women-im-an-equal-opportunity-dick#W6R6xr7xlZUZV6bB.99

[The Reckoning]

Should that preclude him from discussing american politics


yes because he's un-American like boutons and Cosmic Cowboy

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Shreds Rand Paul By Unmasking His Great Libertarian Fraud

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dropped the hammer on Rand Paul by exposing why the 2016 presidential candidate is no different from his fellow Republicans.

Sen. Sanders was speaking about Rand Paul on Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show when he said:He’s a legitimate candidate, certainly.

Basically, after you get through the nuances of a Rand Paul, or a Ted Cruz, or a Jeb Bush, kind of their views are pretty much the same.

That is tax breaks for millionaires, more spending for the military, cuts in Social Security/Medicare, and Medicaid, taking/accepting as much money as you can from billionaires.

It’s kind of their agenda.

Host Larry Wilmore asked if Paul was legitimate by being different from that. Sanders answered, “No. His difference that is the Republican DNA. It’s to make the rich richer while everyone else becomes poorer…His nuances are civil liberties, where he has taken some good positions, and I agree with him on that.”

After other panelists suggested that Paul should reach out to women and gays in the same way that he has reached out to African-Americans, Sanders explained why that will never happen,

“The problem he has is that it is hard to reach out to women when you are anti-choice.

It’s hard to reach out to the gay community when you don’t support gay marriage.”

Wilmore asked how Paul can be a Libertarian and anti-choice, when Roe vs. Wade was decided based on the privacy issue.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/09/bernie-sanders-shreds-rand-paul-unmasking-great-libertarian-fraud.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/09/bernie-sanders-shreds-rand-paul-unmasking-great-libertarian-fraud.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

[Nbadan]

Rand Paul Melts Down Again During Press Interview

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/rand-paul-melts-down-again-during-press


Guardian reporter Paul Lewis was asking the Kentucky Republican and 2016 Republican presidential candidate about criminal justice reform.

"One more question for you, sorry we have to sometimes be a bit forceful, when you stand for president you get pressed and questioned and you understand that," Lewis said, before mentioning that at Paul's campaign launch on Tuesday he got an enthusiastic response to his calls for criminal justice reform.

"You're standing for the Republican nomination, all the research shows that Republicans, white Republicans who will determine the outcome of this race, don't think criminal law is applied in an unfair way, so how are you going to win the nomination with this..." Lewis asked before being cut off by Paul.

"I think your premise is incorrect," Paul said. "I think I can take that message into a white Evangelical church anywhere in Iowa and give the exact same speech and be received well."

Lewis then tried to quote a recent Washington Post and ABC poll, before Paul pointed at him, looked at his staff, said something unintelligible and walked out.

Lewis got back in front of the camera to explain what happened when the lights in the room were turned off.

"So we got that interview cut off maybe it was because I was about to push him on the specific, oh the lights are off in fact, we're being told to go," Lewis said. "But the specifics of why Republicans, most of them don't think that criminal law is applied [unequally], two in three white Republicans say that according to a poll last week, would've been great to say that to Sen. Paul, the interview was cut short, but that's periscope."

In classic Republican fashion, Paul blamed CNN for turning the lights out and new technology for the cut video feed.

[boutons_deux]

CNN reporter corners Rand Paul on gay rights: You believe in freedom ‘but not when it comes to marriage’


During an interview that aired on Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash pointed out that Paul had told voters in New Hampshire that he would “fight for your right to be left alone.”

“I do believe people ought to be left alone,” Paul insisted. “I don’t care who you are, what you do at home or who your friends are, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to. What you do in your home is your own business. That’s always been who I am. I am a leave-me-alone kind of guy.”

“But not when it comes to marriage,” Bash noted.

“Well, no, :lol

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/cnn-reporter-corners-rand-paul-on-gay-rights-you-believe-in-freedom-but-not-when-it-comes-to-marriage/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

With racists like Paul, it's always "states rights" to discriminate, to hate behind the Bible, to violate people's rights, to NOT "leave them alone" ! :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

yes because he's un-American like boutons and Cosmic Cowboy

WTF does this mean?

[boutons_deux]

Nutcase Retrograde Assoc didn't invite RP to their annual circle-jerking hate-fest because he raised money for another grifter gun org.

[Clipper Nation]

Even though I still won't vote for that flip-flopping neocon, I'm starting to like Rand more just for how butthurt he's clearly made boutons_shill :lol

[Blizzardwizard]

There's a reason why no one takes Paul seriously. A real libertarian would support LGBT rights and marriage equality. This guy's just a corporate Republican sellout shining the shoes of the Koch brothers. Oh and he'll bomb the fuck out of Iran and kill us all.

[Cry Havoc]

sad that people poke fun at other's unelectability than their message. politics has dissolved into a homecoming competition rather than a serious discourse on what's best for us as a nation.

That has a lot to do with the political extremism and complete lack of actual discourse in this country. A lot of that is a direct result of the strategies that the GOP has been using singe Reagan.

[Clipper Nation]

There's a reason why no one takes Paul seriously. A real libertarian would support LGBT rights and marriage equality. This guy's just a corporate Republican sellout shining the shoes of the Koch brothers. Oh and he'll bomb the fuck out of Iran and kill us all.
As I've been saying for years, he's nothing like his father. There's a reason why he only has a fraction of Ron's voter base. Whether you agree or disagree with Ron's views, he always maintained his principles and spoke uncomfortable truths regardless of whether they were politically popular or aligned with GOP orthodoxy. That's why he gained so many supporters in the first place. Rand, meanwhile, is a disingenuous flip-flopper who has backed off of any non-neocon positions in order to supposedly boost his chances of getting elected. In reality, as a garden-variety neocon, he doesn't stand a chance against similar hacks like Jeb and Cruz, and he's alienating his core base.

[Clipper Nation]

That has a lot to do with the political extremism and complete lack of actual discourse in this country. A lot of that is a direct result of the strategies that the GOP has been using singe Reagan.
No, it actually started with LBJ and the Democrats' infamous "Daisy" ad in 1964.

[Spurminator]

Fear mongering in political ads has been going on for 200 years in newspapers.

[Cry Havoc]

No, it actually started with LBJ and the Democrats' infamous "Daisy" ad in 1964.

I'm not speaking exclusively to political fearmongering. That predates the 60s for sure, even if LBJ took it to new levels.

I'm speaking to the idea that you have to wage war against the political opponent. Of course there have been situations in the past where two men didn't like each other and they went at it tooth and nail.

However, the Reagan strategy to systematically paint the other party as the enemy on a national level was pretty new, at least in it's apoplexy. Since then, it's been spiraling pretty badly.

I mean, it's no coincidence that modern day politics more closely resembles the WWE than actual discourse on the issues. There is a large core of voters who care about how a candidate "appears" in front of a camera, what kind of mustard he eats, more than they focus on the actual heartbeat of the message. Romney, who was one of the most boring primary winners ever, won the first presidential debate essentially by lying and being aggressive rather than his actual political chops.

[HI-FI]

I like Rand. He's probably the only one I'd consider voting for at this point. I'd prefer his dad but no way the elites or their media shills would allow that to happen. Rand is more of a flip flopper but I think he sees the angles.

I don't think he'll get the nomination though, hope I'm wrong. man if it's Jeb vs Hillary :lol.

[DMX7]

I like Rand. He's probably the only one I'd consider voting for at this point. I'd prefer his dad but no way the elites or their media shills would allow that to happen. Rand is more of a flip flopper but I think he sees the angles.

I don't think he'll get the nomination though, hope I'm wrong. man if it's Jeb vs Hillary :lol.

Jeb is the favorite, but I think he is clumsy enough to blow it even to these candidates in the primary.

[boutons_deux]

asshole saying asshole privatization stuff

Rand Paul: America's hungry seniors should turn to charity (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/22/987624/-Rand-Paul-America-s-hungry-seniors-should-turn-to-charity)

Koren noted that by 2020, the annual cost of medical care for seniors who fall is expected to reach $54.9 billion—many magnitudes more than the approximately $2 billion per year the federal government spends on nutrition assistance for senior citizens.

Sen. Paul, however, explicitly rejected this logic. “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money,” he said. “The idea or notion that spending money in Washington somehow is saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.”

Instead, Paul touted the “nobility of private charity” as opposed to government-funded “transfer programs.” He suggested privatizing Meals on Wheels and other government assistance for hungry seniors.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/22/987624/-Rand-Paul-America-s-hungry-seniors-should-turn-to-charity?detail=email

[boutons_deux]

Time picks Rand Paul to fluff the Koch brothers, and Rand Paul delivers (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378182/-Sen-Time-picks-Rand-Paul-to-fluff-the-Koch-brothers-and-Rand-Paul-delivers)

the task of blurbing why the Koch brothers are God's gift to America fell to ... Sen. Rand Paul.

(Right now, somewhere in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker is once again crying into his soup.)

Sen. Paul, who would benefit greatly if the Koch brothers find him favorable and choose to shower him with their blessings, delivers the blowjob as only a true professional could (http://time.com/3822767/charles-koch-david-koch-2015-time-100/).


What is underappreciated is their passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas. Unlike many crony capitalists who troll the halls of Congress looking for favors, the Kochs have consistently lobbied against special-interest politics. HOLY SHIT! :lol


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378182/-Sen-Time-picks-Rand-Paul-to-fluff-the-Koch-brothers-and-Rand-Paul-delivers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

:lol iow, RP is just another whore for BigMoney.

[boutons_deux]

RP getting trashing he deserves

What a Rand Paul World Would Look Like: 6 Things You Should Know About the War-Mongering, Faux Libertarian

But Paul's delicately crafted maverick image is far from the reality. Here are six things younger and more progressive voters need to know about Rand Paul.

1. Rand Paul wants more military spending and more war in the Middle East.

Rand Paul has grown a reputation for anti-interventionism over the years partly by association with his stridently anti-interventionist father Ron Paul, and partly on account of statements he made during his early years as a senator. To be fair, he has staked out a slightly less rabid position on Iran than some other GOP presidential hopefuls, though that's not saying much. As with all politicians, the key is not to watch what they say but what they actually propose and vote for.

On March 25, Rand Paul introduced a budget amendment calling for a whopping (http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/) $190 billion increase to military spending. The United States already spends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) more on war and military expenses than almost the entire rest of the world combined. Paul hasn't yet clarified what he thinks that $190 billion would be spent on, if not to facilitate more wars abroad. To pay for it, he calls for drastic cuts to climate change research, education, housing assistance, and foreign aid.

Rand Paul was even more hawkish (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/rand-paul-iraq_n_5762270.html) than his Republican colleagues on dealing with ISIS, proposing a full-scale military assault that would almost certainly have demanded a resurgence of American troops on the ground in Iraq. No matter what one thinks of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, it's difficult to argue that Rand Paul would be any kind of improvement from an anti-interventionist perspective.

2. Rand Paul would be even worse for students and the middle class than other Republicans.

Rand Paul's proposed budget (http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/FY2014Budget.pdf) is cruel and shortsighted even by Republican standards, constituting a massive giveaway (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/25/1771561/the-5-worst-things-about-rand-pauls-budget-proposal/) to the extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Paul's budget would entirely (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/7/8356979/rand-paul-education-department) eliminate funding for the Department of Education The worst case scenario there would be the elimination of funding for public schools entirely, while the best case would be allowing block grants to states to spend education money as they see fit. So if Alabama wanted to make education funding dependent on teaching students that dinosaurs lived alongside humans before missing Noah's ark, they would be allowed to do that in Rand Paul's perfect world without pesky oversight from the federal government.

But that's not all. Elementary students would lose school lunches, as well as children's health insurance programs and other food assistance. Paul made a splash with his proposal to allow students to deduct their tuition over the course of their working career, but that itself is a wolf in sheep's clothing: the plan would do little to help students burdened by student loans who cannot find a job after college, and it would further starve the government of the revenues it needs for programs like education, which Paul plans to cut. But Rand Paul didn't have any difficulty in placing the interests of big banks over those of students by voting against (http://ourfuture.org/20140611/the-37-senators-who-today-voted-for-millionaires-over-students) Elizabeth Warren's proposal to allow students to borrow money from the government at the same low rate that banks do. Meanwhile, Rand Paul also supports repealing the Affordable Care Act, including its provision that allows Americans under 26 to remain on their parents' health plans.

And it's not just students and young adults who would suffer under Rand Paul. He would eliminate the Housing and Urban Development and Energy departments, crucial instruments for improving blighted neighborhoods, helping working Americans achieve middle-class stability, and moving the country toward a renewable energy future.

Last but not least, his budget also calls for privatizing Medicare and Social Security, slashing Medicaid, and dramatically cutting taxes on the obscenely wealthy during a period of record income (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-record-pew-research_n_6343264.html) and wealth inequality. He also wants to repeal (http://www.housingwire.com/articles/republican-jobs-bill-aims-repeal-dodd-frank) even the modest constraints placed on Wall Street in the wake of the Great Recession. His flat tax plan (http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/07/pf/taxes/rand-paul-flat-tax/) would dramatically decrease taxes on the super-rich, and raise them on the poor and middle class. In short, Rand Paul's economic policies are a betrayal of the poor and middle class, further enriching the 1% and Wall Street at the expense of everyone else. On these issues alone the glaring difference between Rand Paul and even the most conservative Democrat could not be more stark. Paul would be an utter disaster on core, bread-and-butter economic issues not only for students but Americans of all ages and backgrounds.

3. Rand Paul voted against reforming the NSA.

One of Paul's supposed differences with the Washington establishment is his stated opposition to the surveillance state and his support for privacy rights. Rand Paul is indeed vocal (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235861-paul-doubles-down-on-patriot-act-opposition) in his opposition to the renewal of the Patriot Act, but the devil is in the details. When Paul had a real opportunity to curtail the NSA's power in November of last year, he infuriated (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/224746-rand-paul-under-criticism-for-voting-against-nsa-bill) civil liberties advocates by voting against a bill that would have dramatically scaled back NSA operations on the grounds that the reforms would be part of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act might be modified when it comes up for renewable, but it's very unlikely to be scrapped entirely. So civil liberties advocates know that the best chance at reforming the NSA will come by making alterations to the law. Which means that when Rand Paul opposes NSA reform on a hardline stance against renewing the Patriot Act, he gets to have his cake and eat it, too: he wins support from privacy-minded voters while ensuring that the establishment knows he's not a real threat to make even minor changes to how the security state does business.

Meanwhile, despite her reputation as an establishment friend of the security state, Hillary Clinton herself joined with NSA critic Mark Udall in voicing support for the need to makes changes to surveillance law to defend privacy. If Ms. Clinton were to accept restrictions to the NSA as part of a Patriot Act renewal or other related vote, she would do far more to defend privacy than Rand Paul has ever done.

4. Rand Paul opposes marriage quality and reproductive choice.

Despite styling himself as a libertarian who favors privacy rights, Rand Paul stridently opposes both abortion rights and gay marriage, sticking the government in your womb and in your bedroom. On abortion Rand Paul goes further than even many of his Republican colleagues, opposing abortion (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26kentucky.html) even in cases of rape and incest. Using the federal government's power to force a 13-year-old to carry her father's baby to term is hardly the portrait of freedom. When challenged, he tried to dodge the question by saying the issue wasn't worth (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/08/3644523/rand-paul-abortion-exceptions/) talking about. As if that weren't bad enough, Rand Paul also took the extraordinary step of voting (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s19) against the Violence Against Women Act.

On marriage equality, Rand Paul continue to take an archaic stance against the rights of LGBT Americans to marry and strengthen household stability, despite blaming the weakening of marriage for increased poverty among straight Americans.

5. Rand Paul advocates for discriminatory laws.

Paul famously opposed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html) the Civil Rights Act, including its provisions demanding that all Americans be treated equally regardless of race. He then attempted to backtrack on that statement by claiming that civil rights provisions should be left up to the states to decide, but that's an obvious dodge, given that the Civil Rights Act was passed at the federal level precisely because intransigent, mostly former Confederate states adamantly refused to integrate schools or force businesses to serve blacks as well as whites at the lunch counter.

If civil rights were left entirely up to states to decide, many states would still be stuck in the Jim Crow era. Which is precisely how conservative politicians like Rand Paul who advocate for "state's rights" in the realm of civil liberties want it. Paul's antiquated views on civil liberties match up with his support (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/11/02/3587580/rand-paul-supports-voter-id-laws-but-says-republicans-shouldnt-campaign-on-it/) for discriminatory voter ID laws on their merits (if not on their politics), and his steadfast (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rand-paul-rejects-rights-based-your-behavior) opposition to gay rights.

6. Rand Paul does not support decriminalizing drugs.

As we've seen, Rand Paul often pretends to be something he is not on many issues, not least of which is drug policy. While his father, Ron Paul, is a strong advocate of drug decriminalization, the son has not followed in his father's footsteps. In fact, he has gone out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/04/rand-paul-isnt-his-fathers-son-when-it-comes-to-drug-legalization/) of his way to distance himself from his father on the issue to reassure the GOP base. He has publicly assured (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-rand-paul-aggressively-courting-evangelicals-to-win-over-gop-establishment/2013/05/12/d917ccb4-b8af-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story_1.html) conservative evangelicals that he disagrees with drug decriminalization, and that his father's views on the subject should not be attributed to him. Paul's stance even on marijuana, much less harder drugs, isn't "live and let live," but rather just more of the same "just say no (http://www.msnbc.com/martin-bashir/unlike-his-father-rand-paul-just-says-no-t)."

It's true that Rand Paul advocates sentencing reforms for nonviolent drug offenses, but so do many Democrats, including President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Not that drug policy really matters much at the presidential level, since Congress is unlikely to put any sort of decriminalization bill on the president's desk. On that front, the real work is happening in the states, where Democrats are leading the push for relaxation of drug laws over strident Republican opposition.

http://www.alternet.org/what-rand-paul-world-would-look-6-things-you-should-know-about-war-mongering-faux-libertarian?akid=13014.187590.sfbSNK&rd=1&src=newsletter1034958&t=1

[Slutter McGee]

You are full of crap Boutons as usual. Lets take this step by step.

1. Rand Paul wants more military spending and more war in the Middle East

You (or more specifically the people who's talking points you are parroting) use as evidence the bill proposing an increase in 190 in aid with cuts on domestic projects to fund it. Lets actually do analysis of the situation that led to this bill. Cruz and others offered an amendment an increase of 190 billion but offered no appropriate spending decreases into funding it. Rand quickly countered with this bill to prove the point that these Republican's are not serious about balancing the budget or cutting spending, because they all voted against it. It was a political calculation designed to give him ammunition in the primaries.

Rand Paul has repeatedly proposed defense cuts and less foreign spending overseas. The argument above takes out of context the situation and is disingenuous.

2. Rand Paul would be even worse for students and the middle class than other Republicans.

Federal funding for Education vs local control is simply an ideological difference. Federal control over education has just as many negatives as state control, and mistakes at the Federal Level are harder to correct than mistakes at the state level. But instead of focusing on actual differences that exist and the reason for those differences, your talking points make references to Jesus on a Dinosaur.

4. Rand Paul opposes marriage quality and reproductive choice

Paul has stressed neither of these opinions much outside of making normal republican comments on the matter or abortion, and more states rights comments on the subject of gay marriage. Abortion is a complicated issues, and the idea that somebody pro-life is anti-women is not making headway. Paul has also shied away from condemning both before and after conception birth control. To try to paint him as a radical on the subject is stupid liberal spin.

5. Rand Paul advocates for discriminatory laws

Again, the article is taking issues out of context. Paul said that he would have voted for the act but he did have some issues with the government telling people what they could do on private property, and that he wished there could have been a market solution. This is simply a libertarian leaning view. This also ignores all the bills and arguments he has made for criminal justice and voting reform and their discriminatory elements. Again, full of crap

6. Rand Paul does not support decriminalizing drugs.
Well, at lease they mention that Paul supports sentencing reform then follow it with (but so do many Democrats). This is entirely untrue, as almost no democrats outside of Corey Booker has attempted to broach the subject. Holder and Obama have made passing notice, but have not actually tried to affect reform as Paul has. Of course this completely leaves out the bit about legalizing medical weed which Paul has proposed, allowing states who legalize it to be free from federal interference (those horrible states rights you hate so much, and eliminating mandatory sentencing.)

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT BOUTON'S

If I didn't know you were just an idiot, I'd call you a liar.

Slutter McGee

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol boutons getting his shit pushed and running away to spam another thread without responding.

[boutons_deux]

:lol boutons getting his shit pushed

... in you dreams, queen of butthurt

[Slutter McGee]

... in you dreams, queen of butthurt

The boutons method:

1.Present copypasta from a leftist site. Make some comment about evil republicans. Don't even attempt to provide your own analysis.

2.Get called out on how its bullshit with evidence, facts, and intellectual thought.

3.Post no response

4.Accuse said person of hating women, being butt hurt, or having just been bitch slapped by your complete lack of a response.

5.Look up newest Salon article, try to find a thread it will fit in.

6.Wonder why even the leftists here think you are dumbass.

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

The boutons method:

1.Present copypasta from a leftist site. Make some comment about evil republicans. Don't even attempt to provide your own analysis.

2.Get called out on how its bullshit with evidence, facts, and intellectual thought.

3.Post no response

4.Accuse said person of hating women, being butt hurt, or having just been bitch slapped by your complete lack of a response.

5.Look up newest Salon article, try to find a thread it will fit in.

6.Wonder why even the leftists here think you are dumbass.

Slutter McGee

Slut, you just like TB :lol, got nothing to refute what I post or paste. Where have you ever posted 100% pure original "thought" that you didn't pick up somewhere else?

You asshole Repugs elect asshole politicians. Refute that

[Blizzardwizard]

Time picks Rand Paul to fluff the Koch brothers, and Rand Paul delivers (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378182/-Sen-Time-picks-Rand-Paul-to-fluff-the-Koch-brothers-and-Rand-Paul-delivers)

the task of blurbing why the Koch brothers are God's gift to America fell to ... Sen. Rand Paul.

(Right now, somewhere in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker is once again crying into his soup.)

Sen. Paul, who would benefit greatly if the Koch brothers find him favorable and choose to shower him with their blessings, delivers the blowjob as only a true professional could (http://time.com/3822767/charles-koch-david-koch-2015-time-100/).


What is underappreciated is their passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas. Unlike many crony capitalists who troll the halls of Congress looking for favors, the Kochs have consistently lobbied against special-interest politics. HOLY SHIT! :lol


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/16/1378182/-Sen-Time-picks-Rand-Paul-to-fluff-the-Koch-brothers-and-Rand-Paul-delivers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

:lol iow, RP is just another whore for BigMoney.





We've known this for a long time. Slurping the Koch brothers is something Rand does, something Obama does and something Hillary will do also. Only one with any influence standing up to corrupt capitalism is Sanders. One guy is not enough.

[Slutter McGee]

Slut, you just like TB :lol, got nothing to refute what I post or paste. Where have you ever posted 100% pure original "thought" that you didn't pick up somewhere else?

Boutons, of course my thoughts are developed from outside sources and If you look up a few fucking posts you will see where I specifically refuted several of your facts. Haven't seen a counter argument yet.

The difference here is that my "thoughts" are developed from a variety of sources that I have studied and used to make my own conclusions.

I will give you an example. I read an article a year or so ago on how raising the minimum wage could raise employment levels. I remember my micro-economic classes. A raise in the minimum wage, if binding, acts as a price floor causing an surplus of supply in the labor force.

Now I could of pulled a boutons and screamed what I thought I knew. Probably could have found and article to copy paste also. Instead I looked it up and researched it in several academic journals. Had to get a friend to help explain some of the calculus to me since I can't do much more than take a partial derivative. But I was able to understand the regression analysis and the points being made. I found out that I was wrong. A small increase can lead to an increase in employment in some markets, though it probably will be negative on the aggregate, but still not negative like micro theory suggests. I also found that other negative effects will happen. I found out why. I looked at the numbers.

Try challenging yourself sometime, instead of parroting Democrat talking points.


You asshole Repugs elect asshole politicians. Refute that

I can't. There are plenty of asshole politicians in both parties.

Slutter McGee

[Clipper Nation]

We've known this for a long time. Slurping the Koch brothers is something Rand does, something Obama does and something Hillary will do also. Only one with any influence standing up to corrupt capitalism is Sanders. One guy is not enough.
Bernie Sanders is a washed-up union shill, and he pussied out of supporting a full audit of the Fed. Not even the socialists like him.

[Blizzardwizard]

Bernie Sanders is a washed-up union shill, and he pussied out of supporting a full audit of the Fed. Not even the socialists like him.

Sanders may be an oap but at least he's getting the right message out, can you name another politician in congress who does that? Has he pulled out of supporting the audit? Maybe he realises that teaming up with Rand on the audit will give others the wrong message..

[Clipper Nation]

Sanders may be an oap but at least he's getting the right message out, can you name another politician in congress who does that?
Ron Paul, pre-retirement. Except he got the actual correct message out, not libtard shit. Nowadays, it's Justin Amash, and that's pretty much it.

[Blizzardwizard]

Ron Paul, pre-retirement. Except he got the actual correct message out, not libtard shit. Nowadays, it's Justin Amash, and that's pretty much it.

Ron Paul was just as senile as Sanders, if not more so :lol Guy could never decide if he wanted to be moderate or a fully fledged republican.

[Clipper Nation]

Ron Paul was just as senile as Sanders, if not more so :lol Guy could never decide if he wanted to be moderate or a fully fledged republican.

He was a constitutionalist and a libertarian - in other words, the sane middle ground between the libtards and the neocons.

[Blizzardwizard]

He was a constitutionalist and a libertarian - in other words, the sane middle ground between the libtards and the neocons.

Meh, I'll take the sane ground left of the libtards.

[Clipper Nation]

Meh, I'll take the sane ground left of the libtards.

:lol Translation: "I'll take my place in the foodstamp line instead of working for a living."
:lol Socialism
:lol "Sane"
:lol UKIP taking a wet shit on the libtards and bringing sanity back to the UK

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol Translation: "I'll take my place in the foodstamp line instead of working for a living."
:lol Socialism
:lol "Sane"
:lol UKIP taking a wet shit on the libtards and bringing sanity back to the UK

:lol 'Libertarians'
:lol Pussified 'change'
:lol "sane"
:lol UKIP well known for having the lowest intelligence support base out of any party. Will never be relevant thankfully.

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul Hits A New Low By Begging People On The Internet For Dirt On Hillary Clinton


Rand Paul is soliciting information regarding the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of contributions from foreign governments in his latest move to cast doubt on the former secretary of state’s candidacy.

“Do you have additional information about the Clinton Foundation accepting foreign contributions?” a page on Paul’s campaign website reads. Users can then enter their first and last names, along with their ZIP code, email address and the information they have. The form shared by Paul on Sunday via Twitter did not appear to include a secure HTTPS protocol.



In his speeches, he has promised some mystery scandal that will destroy Hillary Clinton’s campaign. When pressed for details, Paul said nothing. The begging for dirt on Hillary Clinton on his campaign website suggested that he is open to any crazy unsubstantiated right-wing conspiracy theory.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/20/rand-paul-hits-begging-people-internet-dirt-hillary-clinton.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Senator Rand Paul moves to block new 'net neutrality' rules

http://news.yahoo.com/u-senator-rand-paul-moves-block-net-neutrality-162641719.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He was a constitutionalist and a libertarian - in other words, the sane middle ground between the libtards and the neocons.

Only if you can only envision bipolar topology due to a limited mind.

[boutons_deux]

RP, as much of whore for BigCorp as any of them, and libertarianism, as much of a joke as "free market", are frauds

[Clipper Nation]

:lol 'Libertarians'
:lol Pussified 'change'
:lol "sane"
:lol UKIP well known for having the lowest intelligence support base out of any party. Will never be relevant thankfully.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-establishment-ukip-beats-tory-donations-5610984

:lol Tories
:lol UKIP telling the haters to get their numbers up
:lol Socialists stay taking L's

[Blizzardwizard]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anti-establishment-ukip-beats-tory-donations-5610984

:lol Tories
:lol UKIP telling the haters to get their numbers up
:lol Socialists stay taking L's

Donations mean far less in the UK than the US :lol

UKIP only going to win 4 of the 650 available seats :lol

Fascist 'revolution' falling on it's ass :lol

[Infinite_limit]

Would vote for him next year

[boutons_deux]

Ron Paul Steers Paranoid Gun Lovers to Militia Groups in Right-Wing Propaganda Flick

'Midnight Ride' suggests the only solution to preserve civil liberties is to join armed militia groups.

Ron Paul and other right-wing figures will appear in a new anti-Semitic film encouraging viewers to join the Oath Keepers gun group to stop the threat of martial law.

Paul, the former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, will star in “Midnight Ride,” directed by 9/11 truther James Jaeger, reported Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ron-paul-stars-oath-keepers-militia-film-anti-semitic-filmmaker).

Jaeger is a longtime supporter of Paul – the father of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a GOP presidential candidate :lol – and has written extensively about his belief that Israeli and U.S. intelligence conspired (http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/9-11project.htm) to bring down the World Trade Center.

Paul has previously appeared (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ron-paul-guest-stars-documentaries-made-911-conspiracy-theorist) in other films by Jaeger, including “Fiat Empire,” “Original Intent,” “Spoiler,” and “Molon Labe.”

Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and top supporter Elias Alias will appear in the film alongside Paul, gun lobbyist Larry Pratt, extremist former sheriff Richard Mack (http://www.rawstory.com/2014/04/former-sheriff-women-need-to-be-the-first-ones-shot-by-feds-in-bundy-ranch-standoff/), and apocalyptic preacher Chuck Baldwin (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/chuck-baldwin).

The movie ties recent cases of police brutality to a “globalist” plot to impose martial law on Americans – and suggests the only solution to preserve civil liberties is to join armed militia groups.

The film — which is based on the book “Tyranny Out of Necessity,” (http://www.amazon.com/By-Tyranny-Out-Necessity-Bastardy/dp/0967175976) by Edwin Vieira Jr. (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm) – also warns that U.S. monetary policy will trigger a worldwide economic collapse that will lead to the eventual enslavement of millions.

“The power elite is getting ready for a war – not a war on drugs or even a war on terror, but a war to protect themselves,” the narrator says. “Yes, they are the ones in terror – in terror because of their own deeds.”

Alias praised the film (http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/midnight-ride-the-movie-update-from-james-jaeger/) as a “very classy showcase” for the Oath Keepers and their ideals – including the “Ten Orders We Will Not Obey,” (http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html) a list of dark fantasies about martial law, forced disarmament, and concentration camps.

The Oath Keepers, who helped fund the film, claim their membership is made up largely of former and active-duty law enforcement and military personnel who vow not to obey or enforce any laws they deem to be unconstitutional.

They have taken part in armed demonstrations at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and the Sugar Pine Mining Claim in Oregon, as well as armed patrols in Ferguson, Missouri.

Jaeger’s eponymous research institute serves as a clearinghouse for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, blaming Jews for the Holocaust and accusing them of child murders.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/ron-paul-steers-paranoid-gun-lovers-militia-groups-right-wing-propaganda-flick?akid=13046.187590.2ZTch7&rd=1&src=newsletter1035560&t=21

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Maher trashes Rand Paul as just another Repug pandering to the Repug base AND trashes Texas nutters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH1c2zqWSu8

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/21/rand_paul_doesnt_know_what_hes_talking_about/

[Slutter McGee]

Boutons,

Any reason you haven't mentioned him and Ron Wyden blocking the Patriot Act?

Slutter McGee

[boutons_deux]

Boutons,

Any reason you haven't mentioned him and Ron Wyden blocking the Patriot Act?

Slutter McGee

no reason. Rand's filibuster is look-at-me grand-standing, tying to separate his Klown act from the other umpteen Repug Klowns. Same Klown act Krazy Kruz's Asshole-I-Am filibuster, but just as useless.

If Rand were President he wouldn't, he couldn't do a fucking thing to restrain the der-Heimat-Security/NSA/CIA/FBI/militarized-police-surveillance state, and he knows it.

[ElNono]

Fox News includes Donald Trump in its poll — but not Rand Paul

http://theweek.com/speedreads/557730/fox-news-includes-donald-trump-poll--but-not-rand-paul

:lol

[Slutter McGee]

no reason. Rand's filibuster is look-at-me grand-standing, tying to separate his Klown act from the other umpteen Repug Klowns. Same Klown act Krazy Kruz's Asshole-I-Am filibuster, but just as useless.

If Rand were President he wouldn't, he couldn't do a fucking thing to restrain the der-Heimat-Security/NSA/CIA/FBI/militarized-police-surveillance state, and he knows it.

Except that him, Wyden, and that new guy Dem from NM blocked all of McConnels attempts at short extension through Unanimous consent which may allow the Patriot Act to not be extended unless a Rand gets a vote on bulk collection.

But then again, I actually pay attention to the political process. I can understand how this might be confusing to you.

Slutter McGee

[ElNono]

Rand is gonna lose this fight in the long run (probably as early as next week), but I have a lot of respect for what him and Wyden have tried to pull off here... hopefully there will be a time where more representatives join them and we can put this orwellian bullshit behind us.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sanders may be an oap but at least he's getting the right message out, can you name another politician in congress who does that? Has he pulled out of supporting the audit? Maybe he realises that teaming up with Rand on the audit will give others the wrong message..

Warren?

[boutons_deux]

Surprise, Surprise: Rand Paul Has A Fake Thomas Jefferson Quote Problem


Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul’s first two books contain several statements falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson and other historical figures, Buzzfeed reported. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-pauls-first-two-books-are-full-of-fake-founding-fathers#.vhVEAOnN4) [3]
Records from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation indicate that “there is no evidence” Jefferson was responsible for five statements Paul included in his work, and that two other statements were taken out of context.

For example, Paul claimed to cite Jefferson while criticizing the Patriot Act in his 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

“This sort of invasiveness is also precisely the reason we have a Second Amendment protecting our right to keep and bear arms,” he wrote at the time. “Or as Jefferson wrote ‘The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.'”

But according to the Jefferson Foundation, (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-retain-right-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation) [4] “this quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson,” though it is allegedly often paired with the phrase, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms,” which is taken from his draft of the Virginia state constitution.

Paul explains his opposition to the Affordable Care Act in the same book in part by stating, “When Thomas Jefferson wrote that a ‘government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have,’ he could have easily been referencing Obamacare.”

The foundation noted (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-big-enough-give-you-everything-you-wantquotation) [5] that, while the quote has appeared in print as far back as 1953, it was not attributed to Jefferson — erroneously — until 2005.

“Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson,” the foundation stated, adding that it “became a popular saying among Republican politicians” after being copyrighted in 1957 by the General Features Corporation.

According to Buzzfeed, Paul also mischaracterized a statement by Benjamin Franklin in not only that book, but his follow-up, Government Bullies.

“Who’s to say the Tea Party won’t become the government’s next target under the PATRIOT Act?” Paul stated in the first book. “Benjamin Franklin once wrote, ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,’ and Americans who continue to support unconstitutional intrusions into the private lives of their fellow citizens will inevitably learn the same lesson.”

But, as NPR reported this past March, (http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century) [6] Franklin’s words are frequently taken out of context, since he was writing in support of defense spending and taxation in a dispute between Pennsylvania lawmakers and relatives of the Penn family, the “proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony.”

“The legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War,” Brookings Institute senior fellow Benjamin Wittes told NPR. “And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly’s acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.”

The senator has also attributed the following statement to George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force … Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” However, editors at the Yale Book of Quotations have stated (http://volokh.com/2010/04/14/government-is-not-reason-it-is-not-eloquence-it-is-force/)[7] that there is no evidence that Washington ever made the “undoubtedly apocryphal” quote.

Paul has come under criticism for his sourcing before. MSNBC host Rachel Maddowridiculed him on-air in October 2013 (http://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/hit-it-senator-rachel-maddow-mocks-rand-paul-for-lifting-eugenics-speech-from-wikipedia/) [8] after portions of one of his speeches appeared to have been copied from the Wikipedia page for the film Gattaca.

He later blamed the criticism on “haters,” (http://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/rand-paul-rips-maddow-over-wikipedia-questions-shes-been-spreading-hate-on-me-for-three-years-now/) [9] without mentioning Maddow by name.

http://www.alternet.org/surprise-surprise-rand-paul-has-fake-thomas-jefferson-quote-problem?akid=13230.187590.hMB1TC&rd=1&src=newsletter1038088&t=15

:lol

wombat hair Rand Paul LIAR, fraud, front seat in the Repug Klown Kar

[boutons_deux]

One of those diehards is a man called Jack "Southern Avenger" Hunter, author of "John Wilkes Booth Was Right," (http://web.archive.org/web/20071104065842/http://www.southernavenger.com/82/?form_58.userid=4&form_58.replyids=25) and former chairman (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/southern-avenger-jack-hunter-to-speak-at-same-conference-as-rand-paul/279804/) of the Charleston, South Carolina chapter of the extreme-right League of the South (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/07/12/rand-paul-aides-claims-regarding-league-of-the-south-are-hogwash/).

More importantly, Hunter is a close associate of Senator Rand Paul, the presidential wannabe who has announced plans (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/218463-rand-paul-to-open-silicon-valley-office) to open an office in Silicon Valley in order to attract tech money for his own campaign.

How close? In 2011, Hunter co-wrote (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap3PZYDyUco) Sen. Rand Paul's first book, "The Tea Party Goes To Washington" (https://books.google.com/books?id=XrsZlyTL4KkC&pg=PT1&lpg=PT1&dq=%22jack+hunter%22+%22tea+party+goes+to+washingt on%22&source=bl&ots=YRAbqjrGvs&sig=ID2vovqVsDoswzkSNYenGSgDu9g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xXAtVZyAJ-iIsQS8_4DgDQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22jack%20hunter%22%20%22tea%20party%20goes%20to %20washington%22&f=false), published in 2011. He also served as Sen. Paul's head of social media, and was the Ron Paul 2012 campaign's main blogger (https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/354612487146061824) when Rand's dad ran for president.

In 2013, the Washington Free Beacon was first to reveal (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/rebel-yell/) that Hunter "spent years working as a pro-secessionist radio pundit and neo-Confederate activist." Stunningly, as the Huffington Post reported, Rand Paul stood by his "Southern Avenger (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/rand-paul_n_3577196.html)," before later allowing him to resign on his own.

Still, as others pointed out, Hunter was hardly the first neo-Confederate on Rand Paul's staff.

In 2010, Rand Paul's senate campaign spokesman, Chris Hightower, resigned (http://www.kentucky.com/2009/12/18/1064489_rand-paul-spokesman-resigns-over.html?rh=1) after a Kentucky blogger (http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2009/12/rand-pauls-spokesperson-is-a-satanic-metal-god-in-kkk-gear-5-updates.html) found all sorts of racist (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/flashback-paul-campaign-spokesman-resigned-over-racism-on-myspace-page) gibberish on his MySpace page.

In fact, Rand Paul's own "Suggestions for Further Reading" list in his 2010 book includes books by Thomas Woods, a neo-Confederate secessionist (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/the-new-crusaders/two-treatises) and former member (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/4/9/124434/9216/Front_Page/Ron_Paul_Curriculum_Launched_by_Reconstructionist_ Gary_North_and_Neo_Confederate_Thomas_Woods) of the League of the South (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/league-of-the-south);

and Murray Rothbard, the anarcho-libertarian who promoted (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html) the politics of Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke (http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/domestic-extremism-terrorism/c/david-duke.html), and who supposedly ghost-penned Ron Paul's racist newsletters (http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/). Rand Paul has written (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html) that Murray Rothbard "was a great influence on my thinking."

https://pando.com/2015/04/15/how-silicon-valley-almost-joined-the-confederacy-and-the-rand-paul-speechwriter-who-wishes-it-had/

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul overlooks Cliven Bundy’s racism to pander to the far right

Rand Paul is openly courting Cliven Bundy’s militia supporters by appealing to the scofflaw rancher at a campaign event Monday.

Rand had thrown his support behind the rancher in 2013, calling the federal government’s actions “overreach (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/04/22/sen-rand-paul-harry-reid-versus-rancher-cliven-bundy-we-need-tone-down-rhetoric-governmen).” But he withdrew it after the New York Times reported Bundy made racist remarks about blacks, saying (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?ref=us&_r=1) they:

abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.


But Paul seemed ready to court him again on Monday.

“I think almost all land use issues and animal issues, endangered species issues, ought to be handled at the state level,” Paul told the AP. “I think that the government shouldn’t interfere with state decisions, so if a state decides to have medical marijuana or something like that, it should be respected as a state decision.”

Paul also seems to have the support of David Lory VanDerBeek, a Nevada politician from the far-right Independent American Party who is also tied to Bundy Ranch. Last week he wrote on his Facebook page that he “loves (https://www.facebook.com/DavidLoryVanDerBeek)” Paul’s position on the IRS.

VanDerBeek is linked to Jerad and Amanda Miller, a married couple who dropped everything in their home state of Indiana to come to Bundy Ranch to take part in the stand-off. They later gunned down two police officers and a Walmart shopper before being killed in a shootout with authorities.

VanDerBeek (http://www.rawstory.com/2014/06/jerad-miller-cried-hysterically-when-he-was-asked-to-leave-bundy-ranch-candidate-says/) had communicated with the couple numerous times and acknowledges his criticism of police may have resonated with the couple.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/rand-paul-overlooks-cliven-bundys-racism-to-pander-to-the-far-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[whitemamba]

Fox News includes Donald Trump in its poll — but not Rand Paul

http://theweek.com/speedreads/557730/fox-news-includes-donald-trump-poll--but-not-rand-paul

:lol

jesus christ

flashbacks of 2008

[boutons_deux]

Fox News includes Donald Trump in its poll — but not Rand Paul

http://theweek.com/speedreads/557730/fox-news-includes-donald-trump-poll--but-not-rand-paul

:lol

Trump now polling #2 in some states! :lol

[RandomGuy]

wombat hair [/FONT][/COLOR]Rand Paul LIAR, fraud, front seat in the Repug Klown Kar






Meh. Whatever his faults are, he is right about the NSA collection of data and phone records under the patriot act. eff that.

[boutons_deux]

Meh. Whatever his faults are, he is right about the NSA collection of data and phone records under the patriot act. eff that.

Roberts' FISA court just said bulk collection can continue

[boutons_deux]

Cliven Bundy says Rand Paul promised to make Nevada a ‘sovereign state’ if he’s elected president

“He said, ‘One of your biggest problems is getting Nevada to recognize its sovereignty and to stand up for its sovereignty,” Bundy told KNPR-FM (http://knpr.org/knpr/2015-07/cliven-bundy-rand-paul-and-i-see-eye-eye).

“He said he would turn over the jurisdiction authority and allow the state of Nevada to act like a sovereign state. He said it would be up to we the people to govern ourselves.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/cliven-bundy-says-rand-paul-promised-to-make-nevada-a-sovereign-state-if-hes-elected-president/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[sickdsm]

Rand Paul overlooks Cliven Bundy’s racism to pander to the far right

Rand Paul is openly courting Cliven Bundy’s militia supporters by appealing to the scofflaw rancher at a campaign event Monday.

Rand had thrown his support behind the rancher in 2013, calling the federal government’s actions “overreach (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/04/22/sen-rand-paul-harry-reid-versus-rancher-cliven-bundy-we-need-tone-down-rhetoric-governmen).” But he withdrew it after the New York Times reported Bundy made racist remarks about blacks, saying (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?ref=us&_r=1) they:

abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.


But Paul seemed ready to court him again on Monday.

“I think almost all land use issues and animal issues, endangered species issues, ought to be handled at the state level,” Paul told the AP. “I think that the government shouldn’t interfere with state decisions, so if a state decides to have medical marijuana or something like that, it should be respected as a state decision.”

Paul also seems to have the support of David Lory VanDerBeek, a Nevada politician from the far-right Independent American Party who is also tied to Bundy Ranch. Last week he wrote on his Facebook page that he “loves (https://www.facebook.com/DavidLoryVanDerBeek)” Paul’s position on the IRS.

VanDerBeek is linked to Jerad and Amanda Miller, a married couple who dropped everything in their home state of Indiana to come to Bundy Ranch to take part in the stand-off. They later gunned down two police officers and a Walmart shopper before being killed in a shootout with authorities.

VanDerBeek (http://www.rawstory.com/2014/06/jerad-miller-cried-hysterically-when-he-was-asked-to-leave-bundy-ranch-candidate-says/) had communicated with the couple numerous times and acknowledges his criticism of police may have resonated with the couple.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/rand-paul-overlooks-cliven-bundys-racism-to-pander-to-the-far-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29




So once must agree with all of someones life decisions before supporting them on one issue?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul, dorm room philosopher: Why his “slavery” nonsense is so outrageous

Paying taxes makes you a slave, says a grown man running for the most powerful office in the world

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul has a tax plan he’d like to sell you on. The plan, which would put in place a 14.5 percent flat tax, was crafted with the input of some of the wrongest people in the conservative economic policy world (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/rand_pauls_demented_promise_ill_do_to_america_what _sam_brownback_did_to_kansas/), and it would redistribute wealth up the economic ladder while tossing a bone or two (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/rand_paul_comes_to_the_rescue_of_americas_most_vul nerable_its_wealthy/) to the people at the bottom. But Rand is proud of it nonetheless, mainly because he thinks it’s less slavery-like than your average tax scheme.

Here’s what Paul said last week about taxation and “freedom,” as reported by BuzzFeed (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-paul-philosophizes-on-tax-rates-if-we-tax-you-at-50-you#.lgmM50opA5):

“Now you can have some government, we all need government,” the Kentucky senator said while discussing Thomas Paine and the role of government at the local public library. “Thomas Paine said that government is a necessary evil. What did he mean by that?”

Paul said he believes that “you have to give up some of your liberty to have government,” saying he was “for some government.”

“I’m for paying some taxes,” continued Paul. “But if we tax you at 100% then you’ve got zero percent liberty. If we tax you at 50% you are half slave, half free. I frankly would like to see you a little freer and a little more money remaining in your communities so you can create jobs. It’s a debate we need to have.”


That was his big pitch – The Rand Paul tax plan: Only 14.5 percent slavery!

This is a dumb argument. And it’s upsetting to hear this dumb argument coming from someone who is trying to be president, but will go back to writing and approving legislation if/when that doesn’t work out. Taxation is not tantamount to slavery (http://blanksslate.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-income-taxes-should-not-be-compared.html). The only thing that’s comparable to slavery is actual slavery. You might not like it that a portion of your paycheck is sent to the feds and your state government, and you may disagree with how your tax dollars are spent, but that is in no way comparable to being kept in bondage and having the fruits of your labor stolen from you.

Any way you look at this argument, it’s bad. When you’ve staked out the position that your effective tax rate is how you measure one’s slave status, then you’re arguing that a progressive tax structure means rich people are less free than the lucky poor folks who would see a smaller percentage of their income go to the government.

By this reading, a hedge fund billionaire who moves his assets offshore to avoid paying taxes is basically Frederick Douglass. And when you refer to something as slavery, how can you then make the case that there is an acceptable threshold for it? Why should 14.5 percent slavery be any more tolerable than 100 percent slavery?

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/rand_paul_dorm_room_philosopher_why_his_slavery_no nsense_is_so_outrageous/

Rand Paul is a fuckin fool and so are suckers who think he's a serious adult.

[angrydude]

I agree. Taxation is slavery. We should focus on reducing taxes instead of changing how it's collected. Otherwise you're being hypocritical.

I'm surprised boutons loves taxes so much considering it's all spend on the military industrial complex.

[boutons_deux]

3 Top Rand Paul Associates Were Just Indicted

After years of investigation by the Department of Justice, three top Rand Paul associates, including the senator's nephew-in-law, were indicted for their role in an alleged attempt to buy an influential Iowa state senator's endorsement of Ron Paul during his 2012 presidential campaign. None of these operatives, who served as top Ron Paul campaign aides, is currently on the payroll of Rand Paul's presidential campaign.

But two of them—Jesse Benton, who is married to Paul's niece, and John Tate—run pro-Rand Paul super-PACs that have together raised $5 million to support Paul's presidential campaign. The third man indicted, Dimitri Kesari, has served as an aide to both Rand Paul and his father.

Last year, former Republican Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson pleaded guilty to campaign finance charges accusing him of helping to cover up a scheme for the Ron Paul campaign to pay him more than $70,000 to switch his endorsement immediately before the 2012 Iowa caucus, from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul. Sorenson has been awaiting sentencing pending his cooperation in a further investigation, but it hasn't been clear who on Ron Paul's staff would be caught up in the scandal.

At the time Benton served as the campaign's chairman, Tate as the campaign manager, and Kesari as the deputy campaign manager.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/3-rand-paul-associates-indicted-kent-sorenson

[boutons_deux]

Dandy Randy, he of wombat hair, has a super PAC that has raised .... $1.3M! :lol The smallest of all the "serious" contendas.

[boutons_deux]

Why Rand Paul's Presidential Campaign Is Flailing

The latest Public Policy Polling Iowa poll has him at 3 percent.

Losing Libertarians

Throwing Red Meat To People Who Are Already Full

The Downfall

The Paul campaign is flailing, disappointing the ideological supporters of his father and failing to appeal to the hardcore nativist and warmongering base of the GOP. Paul, who was once the hottest ticket in his party's presidential field, has shown up to the dance without a partner. It remains to be seen if he can pick up the beat.http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-rand-pauls-presidential-campaign-flailing

Mixing it up with Trump in the "debate" didn't hurt Trump and certainly didn't help Paul.

[boutons_deux]

Sanders is a million miles closer to being President than this freak

Rand Paul Warns Sanders Presidency Could Lead To 'Mass Genocide'

The Republican presidential candidate linked Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist) in the mold of Northern European countries, to the murderous communist regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, saying that “most of the times when socialism has been tried” there “has been mass genocide of people or any of those who object to it.”

“It amazes me and it actually kind of scares me,” Paul said.

“I’ve been spending more time going after Bernie and socialism because I don’t want America to succumb to the notion that there’s anything good about socialism.

I think it’s not an accident of history that most of the times when socialism has been tried that attendant with that has been mass genocide of people or any of those who object to it.

Stalin killed tens of millions of people.

Mao killed tens of millions of people.

Pol Pot killed tens of millions of people.

When you have a command economy, when everything is dictated from one authority,

that’s socialism, but it doesn’t come easily to those who resist it.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-warns-sanders-presidency-could-lead-mass-genocide

wow, Ayn Randy is fucking stupid, but he certainly understands how to talk to his handful of stupid, ignorant supporters.

[DMX7]

He's still running?

[boutons_deux]

wombat hair is batshit crazy, and a loser

Rand Paul: Bernie Sanders' Socialism Will 'Eliminate' Critics

Rand Paul repeated his mantra that Bernie Sanders could turn into a murderous (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-warns-sanders-presidency-could-lead-mass-genocide) dictator (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-says-he-isnt-comparing-bernie-sanders-pol-pot-yet) if elected president, this time in an interview yesterday on the conservative network Newsmax (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=041CWa0zVbo).

While speaking with host Ed Berliner, Paul said that he “spends quite a bit of time on Bernie” during appearances at college campuses to let students know that “there’s nothing sexy or cool about socialism.”

The Kentucky senator said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0nJumib12Y&feature=youtu.be) that “socialism is anti-choice” and deadly.

“If you choose to challenge the state,” he said, “they have to get rid of you, they have to arrest you or they have to eliminate you.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-bernie-sanders-socialism-will-eliminate-critics

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul's support among Republican men plummets

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/1023/Rand-Paul-s-support-among-Republican-men-plummets

but in general, libertarians and libertarianism just suck, are a tiny, futile fringe of extremists.

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul’s point of no return: The GOP establishment tells him to back off his White House campaign

No one believes Rand Paul will be president -- not even Mitch McConnell, who endorsed him


it looks like McConnell is finally running out of patience with Paul’s presidential fantasizing. As Politico reported last week (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/mitch-mcconnell-rand-paul-senate-bid-215097#ixzz3pNhk6uEZ), McConnell and the National Republican Senatorial Committee are “quietly ratcheting up pressure on Rand Paul to pay more attention to his Senate reelection next year — and less to his flagging 2016 presidential candidacy.”

At the heart of their concern is money; Paul has raised scant amounts of cash for his Senate bid and has transferred over a million dollars (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/07/16/rand-paul-raises-6-9-million-for-presidential-campaign/) from his Senate reelection fund to his presidential campaign earlier this year.

And as Politico notes, there isn’t much concern that Paul would lose his Senate race, but McConnell and the NRSC don’t want to have to spend money on a safe seat that could otherwise be used to defend vulnerable incumbents elsewhere (of which there is no shortage).

Paul also has to worry about his relationship with the state party. They went to great trouble to create a presidential caucus especially for him, in spite of their misgivings about his viability as a presidential candidate. If he’s seen as jeopardizing his state office (or the other Kentucky senator’s position of authority) because he’s too stubborn or proud to admit that he doesn’t have a chance at the White House, that’s not going to go over well with the people he’s already indebted to politically.

McConnell souring on his junior senator’s 2016 hopes is bad news for Kentucky voters who were hoping a president and a Senate majority leader from the Bluegrass State could tag-team some legislation to end the “War On Coal” and bring back the Kentucky coal jobs that have disappeared forever. But more than anything it represents a turning point for Rand Paul.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/26/rand_pauls_point_of_no_return_the_gop_establishmen t_tells_him_to_back_off_his_white_house_campaign/

Ayn Rand Paul :lol

[DMX7]

Rand Paul, dorm room philosopher: Why his “slavery” nonsense is so outrageous

Paying taxes makes you a slave, says a grown man running for the most powerful office in the world

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul has a tax plan he’d like to sell you on. The plan, which would put in place a 14.5 percent flat tax, was crafted with the input of some of the wrongest people in the conservative economic policy world (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/rand_pauls_demented_promise_ill_do_to_america_what _sam_brownback_did_to_kansas/), and it would redistribute wealth up the economic ladder while tossing a bone or two (http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/rand_paul_comes_to_the_rescue_of_americas_most_vul nerable_its_wealthy/) to the people at the bottom. But Rand is proud of it nonetheless, mainly because he thinks it’s less slavery-like than your average tax scheme.

Here’s what Paul said last week about taxation and “freedom,” as reported by BuzzFeed (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-paul-philosophizes-on-tax-rates-if-we-tax-you-at-50-you#.lgmM50opA5):

“Now you can have some government, we all need government,” the Kentucky senator said while discussing Thomas Paine and the role of government at the local public library. “Thomas Paine said that government is a necessary evil. What did he mean by that?”

Paul said he believes that “you have to give up some of your liberty to have government,” saying he was “for some government.”

“I’m for paying some taxes,” continued Paul. “But if we tax you at 100% then you’ve got zero percent liberty. If we tax you at 50% you are half slave, half free. I frankly would like to see you a little freer and a little more money remaining in your communities so you can create jobs. It’s a debate we need to have.”


That was his big pitch – The Rand Paul tax plan: Only 14.5 percent slavery!

This is a dumb argument. And it’s upsetting to hear this dumb argument coming from someone who is trying to be president, but will go back to writing and approving legislation if/when that doesn’t work out. Taxation is not tantamount to slavery (http://blanksslate.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-income-taxes-should-not-be-compared.html). The only thing that’s comparable to slavery is actual slavery. You might not like it that a portion of your paycheck is sent to the feds and your state government, and you may disagree with how your tax dollars are spent, but that is in no way comparable to being kept in bondage and having the fruits of your labor stolen from you.

Any way you look at this argument, it’s bad. When you’ve staked out the position that your effective tax rate is how you measure one’s slave status, then you’re arguing that a progressive tax structure means rich people are less free than the lucky poor folks who would see a smaller percentage of their income go to the government.

By this reading, a hedge fund billionaire who moves his assets offshore to avoid paying taxes is basically Frederick Douglass. And when you refer to something as slavery, how can you then make the case that there is an acceptable threshold for it? Why should 14.5 percent slavery be any more tolerable than 100 percent slavery?

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/rand_paul_dorm_room_philosopher_why_his_slavery_no nsense_is_so_outrageous/

Rand Paul is a fuckin fool and so are suckers who think he's a serious adult.




If we're taxed at 0%, then we're totally free! Totally free to be invaded by Mexico.

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul Is Suspending His Presidential Campaign

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-suspends-campaign_us_56211546e4b069b4e1fbc71b?ir=Politics&section=us_politics&utm_campaign=020316&utm_content=FullStory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics

Not enough of his intellectual supporters found him intellectual enough. :lol

[rmt]

Rand Paul Is Suspending His Presidential Campaign

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-suspends-campaign_us_56211546e4b069b4e1fbc71b?ir=Politics§i on=us_politics&utm_campaign=020316&utm_content=FullStory&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics

Not enough of his intellectual supporters found him intellectual enough. :lol




More like word from the establishment to drop out (and clear the way for Rubio) or they won't support his senate re-election. Why would he otherwise drop out now instead of after NH which should be a good state for him?

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul And The Libertarian Moment That Never Was

Remember when Rand Paul was “The Most Interesting Man in American Politics?”

That’s what Time Magazine called the Kentucky senator in a 2014 cover story proclaiming Paul’s wide ranging appeal (http://time.com/3512657/rand-paul-reinventions/). Paul, Michael Scherer wrote in Time, “has been embraced, if gingerly, by many in his party. They see the same polls he does, which show the emerging demographics, the young minorities, the urban shifting away from older generations and embracing of more libertarian views on privacy, drug sentencing and foreign intervention.”

Politico similarly named Paul the “MOST INTERESTING MAN IN POLITICS” in its Politico 50 list of “the thinkers, doers and dreamers who really matter in this age of gridlock and dysfunction.” He ranked #1 in that list (http://www.politico.com/magazine/politico50/2014/#.VrIIXrIrK70), ahead of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (#2), Iowa Caucus winner Ted Cruz (#4), House Speaker Paul Ryan (#22) and Pope Francis (#6).

“Today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side,” Robert Draper wrote in a New York Times Magazine piece entitled “Has the ‘Libertarian Moment’ Finally Arrived? (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/has-the-libertarian-moment-finally-arrived.html)” The moment, Draper suggested, was Paul’s to seize.

Less than two years later, it’s now clear that the answer to the question presented by Mr. Draper’s title is a resounding “no.” On Wednesday, The Most Interesting Man In American Politics suspended his presidential campaign (https://twitter.com/CharlesMBlow/status/694880605767598080). That’s just two days after Paul received just 5 percent of the vote (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus-results/iowa) in the Republican Iowa caucus — barely more than half the share earned by Dr. Ben Carson, whose soporific performance in debates led late night comedians to compare him to a sleep aid (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jimmy-kimmel-presents-the-ben-carson-sleep-system/).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/03/3745727/rand-paul-and-the-libertarian-moment-that-never-was/

[boutons_deux]

Devout Catholic man-on-dog Santorum drops out.

[Pelicans78]

The problem with Rand was he tried to appeal to both the Libertarians and Conservatives and alienated both in the process. Didn't adapt until way too late. He wasn't going to do well in NH. Smart move to focus on his Senate re-election. He can make more of a difference that way regardless.

[boutons_deux]

what laws has RP written and/or sponsored, or what bills has he blocked? Has he had any impact on governing?

[Pelicans78]

what laws has RP written and/or sponsored, or what bills has he blocked? Has he had any impact on governing?

I think he helped reduce NSA surveilance.

[boutons_deux]

I think he helped reduce NSA surveilance.

:lol Nothing Congress does can reduce NSA/CIA deep state. It's country unto itself, out of civilian control.

[boutons_deux]

An honest reading of Rand Paul’s ‘everything is awesome!’ campaign memo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/an-honest-reading-of-rand-pauls-everything-is-great-campaign-memo/

:lol must be taking hallucinogens

[rasuo214]

Why are you posting an article 4 months old? Maybe you can update us on how Hillary has the nomination in the bag and is crushing Bernie Sanders in the polls...

[boutons_deux]

Why are you posting an article 4 months old? Maybe you can update us on how Hillary has the nomination in the bag and is crushing Bernie Sanders in the polls...

why not? ARP's delusions are not forgotten.