Dude, Gtown. Just say, I like MOST Of his platform and it will be OK. No one ever said he had to be 100% right.
Where did i say you "said" that. I didn't say you said that. I'm saying you're doing that right now.
You're trying to avoid talking about the legitimacy of Rand Paul's argument by bring up his other inconsistency. As we all know, all politicians are riddled with them, even the Nadermeister was no saint himself.
So the fact that you are trying to bring up medicare is just a way for you to dismiss his argument.
I never saw you do that with BO. His inconsistencies you glossed over.
These supposed real libertarians you bring up are having problems with the REAL Libertarian argument about freedom of association. So whatever tea party jabbing you're trying to stick in has no relevance to the fact that the real libertarians you cite are not real libertarians in this stance either.
I just want you to know that you're not making sense.
Have you said other libertarians rather than REAL libertarians, you're argument would be solid in that one point. But you didn't.
There is no doubt that Obama had ideological inconsistencies. However, AFAIK, Obama wasn't running on a certain platform that changed when it involved his finances. When one's platform choices are made based upon how much money one get can out of it then I think there should be a pretty clear concern.
Also, Randall Paul isn't running for the office of President while his predecessor was involved in huge foreign policy boondoggles.
Besides, I have no real voting interest in this race. I'm not one of his possible cons uents. So I'm never really going to have to decide if I like Paul or not. I can just post like this and watch to see how long it takes you to admit one of his platform faults is a platform fault.
Excuses, so you made it a qualifier that it be decisions based on finance that should be cause for concern. You're right to a certain extent. But finance is nothing but money and money is power. The bailout issue with BO in which he helped his freinds and ignored his ideological stance on corporate welfare is just as eggregious, i would say more.
Hmmkay.. i don't know where you're going with that nugget there. If you're tying a predecessors mistakes to a new politician out of the same party, could i do the same for your favorite candidates of the Democrat party who have ties to Larry Summers?Also, Randall Paul isn't running for the office of President while his predecessor was involved in huge foreign policy boondoggles.
Besides, I have no real voting interest in this race. I'm not one of his possible cons uents. So I'm never really going to have to decide if I like Paul or not. I can just post like this and watch to see how long it takes you to admit one of his platform faults is a platform fault.
Incredible.
Because you can't vote in these elections that gives you a right to fling no substance arguments. I'll remember this whenever you try to lecture us lesser beings on the ettiquete of Spurstalk Political Forum discussion.
The CRA was never a part of Paul's platform, but I assume you are referring to his healthcare platform. Taken straight from the man's campaign site, here's where he stands...
I therefore support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
That's not a very convincing argument. You're essentially saying other people are smart enough to keep his dumbass in check, so it doesn't matter how irresponsible he is. What a ringing endorsement.
No, Rand Paul himself would not even bring it to the table in the Senate, it's a non-issue for the session. It's not part of his platform, but some folks are spinning it as if it was something he's been running on and that the actual Tea Party (pre-Palin folk) are propping up some crazy agenda that they want to take to Washington DC. Don't buy the hype.
So you're saying if there is something like an addition to the ADA, Rand Paul will neither oppose nor even debate federal provisions that would apply to private en ies?
obviously i mean down any street in this year we are in right now
I was thinking some more about this today.
We will know nothing until the general election takes place.
This could either go down as a tragic case of a politician who was front page news for all the right reasons one day and front page news for all the wrong reasons the next, finishing his political career before it even truly started.
Or
It could go down as one of the best things to ever happen to him. It's put his name farther out there than him simply winning the primary ever would have. Think about all the stupid hicks who worship every wrinkle on Palin's cougary face. They line up in droves for her book signings and she gets to charge 100k+ to speak to people about how she's a hot mom politician.
This could end up with Paul having a parallel die-hard core of cons uents and supporters.
Just something to throw out there. If we're talking about average joe marriott voters, then some of them have to be sick and tired of any and all in bents. Some of these are probably tea-partiers. And a big chunk of them probably don't give a about reading into details and finding out answers for themselves. They hear and see on TV and either take one side, or the other (Always and only TWO sides to every political argument, the way TV portrays them, even ones they foment and nurture like this paper political argument)
Some of them probably will just see this as a pathetic pathetic attempt by liberal media trying to slander an up-and-comer who only five days ago was just trying to be different than in bents and stand for old school fiscal conservative values, etc.
Not saying I think this way, but people who do could end up becoming vice-grip followers of Rand.
If the mindset of the USA Marriott Public today (maybe cuz of all the ed up going on much more important than painting an aspiring politician a racist) is such that Sarah ing Palin was able to cement herself a loyal following..... by basically being a hot piece of ass that winks all cute-like.....why not Rand?
It will be super interesting to see the results of the upcoming elections. Also interesting to follow Rand if he wins and begins a political career. If this course follows I'll have no choice but to believe this whole episode actually helped him, and if we're all still alive I'll bump my comment for some prized internet blog gloating
Can you point to any recent or upcoming legislative proposal regarding the ADA? It may have gotten buried under all the other "important" stories which is why I don't recall it being an issue.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...entucky_senateA new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.
Paul consistently led Conway prior to winning the Republican primary, but had never earned more than 50% support. Conway has been stuck in the 30s since the first of the year.
As horrendously one-sided as the discussion has been in the media, I can't blame the Democrats for attempting to level the electoral playing field with this issue. We'll see in a week or two if this really has any effect on the Kentucky voters. I'm awaiting the rest of America to be offended if Rand's numbers stay the same or move up to 60% - not because the Democrat is losing, but because Kentucky proved itself smarter than the knee-jerk's trying to rile up outrage (although the same tools will just call the state "racist").
You don't think there will be any issue of federal regulation of private en ies ever again the US Senate?
Don't stop believin'!
In case you didn't know, the ADA was amended just two years ago. If you think it could nevah evah happen again, cool.
Including Sen. McConnell? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't he and the RNC for the other guy?
Isn't it just possible that some scared less GOPers are still rooting against Rand Paul too, just like they did in the primary?
A few of em threw wood on the pile, and suggested the propriety of an apology as I recall.
Even John Cornyn.
"I (Rand Paul) therefore support:
* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
... making medical bills, like for ophthalmology, more affordable. self-serving
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
... for stuff like ophthalmology. self-serving If he were really smartly greedy, he would support a strong public option, Medicare for all, rather than have companies be involved in any way in buying, tax-free, health insurance for their employees.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
... a doctor has any negotiating power with a mega-corp? GMAFB
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
... is redundant with his first point.
Paul is probably making a few $100K/year. I bet he's all for cutting taxes on the "victimized" wealthy, such as himself.
What does McConnell have to do with the polls? I said we'll see if polls have been affected in a week or two...Rand was decently ahead of the Dem the entire time before this was put into the news cycle, I'm interested in new poll numbers.
McConnell and Cornyn = non-issues, those guys don't have backbone. And please don't argue "well, if they have no backbone, what does that say against Rand Paul that they aren't in support of him?" They don't matter.
2008 ADA had nothing to do with elevators, amiright? It dealt with definitions of disability, I think. Either way, it's a non-issue since it's not part of the platform. It's his opinion, until I'm shown where he says he's making it a focus (or even partial focus) of his agenda.
chump got pwned i saiiiiiiddd!!!
You don't think there will be any issue of federal regulation of private en ies ever again the US Senate regarding any kind of discrimination, gtown?
Yes or no.
Ofcourse, anything can happen.
Thanks again.
for what?Thanks again.
That makes it even better.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
