The folly of Rand Paul

The folly of Rand Paul (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomYngBlk -> The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 7:50:12 AM)
In another incredible move Mr. Paul seems to want to do away with the income tax and replace it with a 23% National Sales tax. Or does he? Flip flopping like a catfish just yanked out of the river Mr. Paul is showing why he and is tea party brethern are not prepared to try and govern this land. This race was once a run away for Mr. Paul but now has tightened considerably. Can only hope the people of Kentucky do the right thing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/rand-paul-refuses-to-addr_n_762361.html

EternalHoH -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 8:10:57 AM)
The problem with Rand Paul is he failed to follow in the footsteps of his dad's movement, and instead hooked up with the tea baggers, which adds the negrophobe and other silly elements that his dad's movement did not have. He is tainted like hot water is after its been dipped with a tea bag. I liked his dad, albeit Ron was a bit scatterbrained, too, but Rand is off the charts scatterbrained. And how come both Ron and Rand are in medicine? Out of all the professions to be in when expressing the libertarian view, medicine and its 50% socialist funding is not the place to be drawing a paycheck from when you stump the libertarian viewpoint.

rulemylife -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 8:13:01 AM)
Nothing new. He can't seem to take a stand on any issue: Campaign Watchdog "It's hard to go around campaigning on that, it's about as unpopular of an issue as there is, but it probably has to happen," Paul said at the time. "We moved it to 67 gradually. Probably that's what you need to do again to 70." When asked this week on the campaign trail if the AFL-CIO mailer was accurate and if he supports privatizing Social Security and raising the age to receive benefits, Paul responded by saying "there are a lot of solutions out there to try to fix it". "All I've said is that a lot of these solutions will have to be discussed and difficult decisions will have to be made," he said. "The exact policy decisions are best done through a bipartisan commission."

RacerJim -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 8:51:42 AM)
I'll take Mr. Paul's supposed flip-flopping over Mr. Obama's proven lies any day.

rulemylife -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:04:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim I'll take Mr. Paul's supposed flip-flopping over Mr. Obama's proven lies any day. I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to go there. Without even rehashing that debate, the problem is Paul never takes a firm stand. Isn't that what you guys complained about Kerry? Yet you are defending Paul.

Moonhead -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:04:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Nothing new. He can't seem to take a stand on any issue: Campaign Watchdog "It's hard to go around campaigning on that, it's about as unpopular of an issue as there is, but it probably has to happen," Paul said at the time. "We moved it to 67 gradually. Probably that's what you need to do again to 70." When asked this week on the campaign trail if the AFL-CIO mailer was accurate and if he supports privatizing Social Security and raising the age to receive benefits, Paul responded by saying "there are a lot of solutions out there to try to fix it". "All I've said is that a lot of these solutions will have to be discussed and difficult decisions will have to be made," he said. "The exact policy decisions are best done through a bipartisan commission." Well he certainly can't cut social security or medicaid given the amount of lardy white scroungers in the tea party massive. A lot of them are old farts, of course, but most of those have already retired.

DomYngBlk -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:06:05 AM)
No, he has a firm stand on the state he is trying to win election in.....that is....he has no clue of its history. http://wonkette.com/417123/comedy-legend-rand-paul-doesnt-want-coal-miners-going-soft

slvemike4u -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim I'll take Mr. Paul's supposed flip-flopping over Mr. Obama's proven lies any day. Well let's stop the presses and order a re-write ,RJ has made a startleing pronouncement. Here's a question for you ..why is young Mr Paul against all sorts og Gov't entitlements yet has no problem with the specific programs that benifit his chosen profession?

DomYngBlk -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:17:37 AM)
Or even better. Why is Mr. Paul only liscenced to do Opthamology through his own Opthamology association?

slvemike4u -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:21:54 AM)
Nor has he ever rejected govt checks ...entitlement programs can be so convenient at times.....So can principles,as long as they are selective and of convenience.

rulemylife -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:24:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Well he certainly can't cut social security or medicaid given the amount of lardy white scroungers in the tea party massive. A lot of them are old farts, of course, but most of those have already retired. More brain-exploding economic reasoning from the Tea Party [image]http://www.sott.net/image/image/s2/44909/medium/6a00e551f0800388340133f50a90cf.jpg[/image]

Moonhead -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 9:29:02 AM)
Oh dear. They haven't thought this through, have they?

slvemike4u -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 10:42:23 AM)
What made you think they had?

MrRodgers -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 1:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Nothing new. He can't seem to take a stand on any issue: Campaign Watchdog "It's hard to go around campaigning on that, it's about as unpopular of an issue as there is, but it probably has to happen," Paul said at the time. "We moved it to 67 gradually. Probably that's what you need to do again to 70." When asked this week on the campaign trail if the AFL-CIO mailer was accurate and if he supports privatizing Social Security and raising the age to receive benefits, Paul responded by saying "there are a lot of solutions out there to try to fix it". "All I've said is that a lot of these solutions will have to be discussed and difficult decisions will have to be made," he said. "The exact policy decisions are best done through a bipartisan commission." Well he certainly can't cut social security or medicaid given the amount of lardy white scroungers in the tea party massive. A lot of them are old farts, of course, but most of those have already retired. You mean those old farts that say no to govt.-run health care but don't dare touch my Medicare ? The ones who cash farm subsidy checks while bitch'n about welfare moms ? They are the TV party (Fox) and nothing much more. Oh and BTW, Rand is a another radical, right-wing, nut case.

Nnytheangel -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/16/2010 1:54:33 PM)
All politicians change their stances for political expediency. The ones who don't stay the same because their current stance keeps them in their position, which is really what any of it is about. The getting and retaining of political office. I have a hard time thinking of any politician who was selfless enough to honestly put their constituents at the forefront of their interests. The only times I see that happening is, as I've said, when it keeps them in the position they've enjoyed.

thishereboi -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/17/2010 8:24:28 AM)
quote: I have a hard time thinking of any politician who was selfless enough to honestly put their constituents at the forefront of their interests. That is so not true. I see it happening all the time. The run for office because they truly care about the people and want to make this country a better place for all to live. The spend their whole lives fighting for those who can't fight for themselves and passing law to make this a more just place to live.....Oh wait, your not talking about tv shows are you? Never mind.

slvemike4u -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/17/2010 8:31:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I have a hard time thinking of any politician who was selfless enough to honestly put their constituents at the forefront of their interests. That is so not true. I see it happening all the time. The run for office because they truly care about the people and want to make this country a better place for all to live. The spend their whole lives fighting for those who can't fight for themselves and passing law to make this a more just place to live.....Oh wait, your not talking about tv shows are you? Never mind. IMO the shame is that many probably enter the politicol arena with such lofty ambitions....but it seems only those that are willing to "play ball" rise to prominence.What really troubles me is that there doesn't seem to be much that can be done to address that sad state of affairs.

DomYngBlk -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/17/2010 10:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnytheangel All politicians change their stances for political expediency. The ones who don't stay the same because their current stance keeps them in their position, which is really what any of it is about. The getting and retaining of political office. I have a hard time thinking of any politician who was selfless enough to honestly put their constituents at the forefront of their interests. The only times I see that happening is, as I've said, when it keeps them in the position they've enjoyed. I don't think that is true at all. Politicians do exactly what we tell them to do. They mirror us in every way depending on the party they are from. I actually can't think of one that doesn't.

Nnytheangel -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/17/2010 4:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I don't think that is true at all. Politicians do exactly what we tell them to do. I am stopping the quote at that point for a specific reason. It highlights what I was saying to an extent. Politicians, the smart ones, will do what the people want. The issue is less them working against the public good and more a matter of them doing so because it is what is required for them to retain their 'lofty position'. I have decided that there is most certainly a way for a politician to prove altruism, however. One is elected to office, does what work they can for the people, then steps down and does not run again. And yes, I can hear the question/statement now "What good can they do in such a short time?" Very little, themselves. But the next candidate up can continue forward and so on. That is a way that one can be certain they have the will of their constituents in mind, instead of trying to accomplish things individually for personal glory. Will this idea ever happen? Quite doubtful. Is it realistic? Of course not. I do not expect any politician to actually cede power on the whim of one person, or even one hundred or one thousand. We are speaking mostly of things abstract and unquantifiable. It is mostly a purely philosophical thought experiment on my part. However, I do still hold fast on my opinion.

brokedickdog -> RE: The folly of Rand Paul (10/17/2010 4:23:58 PM)
Rasmussen poll on 9-30-2010 put Paul at 49% and Conway at 38%. Don't kill the messenger.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02