Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

Motherfucker. 

[Chooky 13,338]

Nice perm, cunt.

[hayden_horn 11,402]

On 7/13/2019 at 7:36 PM, Mojo Hand said:

It's sad what a fraud he turned out to be. 

 

 

hey, everyone look!

strict constitutionalist libertarian over here!

another day of republican complicity with our horror show of a president. 

JFC

[Anastasis 23,703]

42 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Didn’t this fuck faced loser vote FOR the tax cuts? 

 

Heaven forbid that the Senate debate bills, allow amendments, and a vote.  Off with his curly haired head!

[Js1 86,963]

I mean, I know such a strict bothsiderism dork as yourself who loves to BURN IT ALL DOWN, could find the irony in Paul bitching about the debt for 9/11 victims fund after voting for the tax cuts that didn't pay for themselves?

Oh hell, who am I kidding? Just send me your snappy gif, girlfriend, bitch about the Democrats and decorum and let's move on. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,081]

What an utterly complete piece of shit:

 

[Anastasis 23,703]

58 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, I know such a strict bothsiderism dork as yourself who loves to BURN IT ALL DOWN, could find the irony in Paul bitching about the debt for 9/11 victims fund after voting for the tax cuts that didn't pay for themselves?

Oh hell, who am I kidding? Just send me your snappy gif, girlfriend, bitch about the Democrats and decorum and let's move on. 

You are surprised that I am aligned with a critical posture towards federal government spending? OK. 

 

Paul blocked a unanimous consent motion to force debate and allow for amendments related to spending to  offset from other areas. Clutch your pearls more.  

"It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in the country," he said. "And therefore any new spending …  should be offset by cutting spending that's less valuable. We need to at the very least have this debate."

 

He added that if the House bill was brought up for a vote in the Senate he is planning to offer an amendment "but until then I will object." 

[wildcat09 29,562]

Peak Anastasis here.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,839]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Peak Anastasis here.

Holy SHIT no kidding.  I'm all for reducing the outrageous deficits that Rand and the Republicans have inflicted on us and our children,  and I'm not convinced that 9/11 responders deserve special consideration.  But to use the DEBT as your excuse to block it and to suggest that the spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere when you voted for the measure that increased the debt by TRILLIONS of dollars when the CBO projected that it would do exactly that .... well, that  is just fucking evil and craven. 

 

[wildcat09 29,562]

GOP: "We should add over a trillion dollars to the deficit to give Donald Trump Jr. and the Walton heirs more money." 

Rand: "Sign me the fuck up! No we don't need to cut anything else to pay for this!"

Dems: "We should use the money we found in the government's couch cushions to pay for health care for 9/11 first responders."

Rand: "WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD THE FUCK UP! Look, I'm not saying it isn't a worthy cause, but if we're going to do this the only responsible thing to do is to starve some children in Detroit to pay for it."

 

Anastasis: "Fuck yeah, Rand!"

 

 

[Brisketexan 106,651]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

GOP: "We should add over a trillion dollars to the deficit to give Donald Trump Jr. and the Walton heirs more money." 

Rand: "Sign me the fuck up! No we don't need to cut anything else to pay for this!"

Dems: "We should use the money we found in the government's couch cushions to pay for health care for 9/11 first responders."

Rand: "WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD THE FUCK UP! Look, I'm not saying it isn't a worthy cause, but if we're going to do this the only responsible thing to do is to starve some children in Detroit to pay for it."

 

Anastasis: "Fuck yeah, Rand!"

 

 

So.  Much.  THIS.

Rand Paul's cock-slobbering vote to slash revenue with NO meaningful counter-cuts to spending disqualifies him from discussing deficits and debts. Ever.  For all time.  And if you give him any credibility on that front, you are one gullible-ass dumb motherfucker.

[Hornius Emeritus 12,781]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So.  Much.  THIS.

Rand Paul's cock-slobbering vote to slash revenue with NO meaningful counter-cuts to spending disqualifies him from discussing deficits and debts. Ever.  For all time.  And if you give him any credibility on that front, you are one gullible-ass dumb motherfucker.

 

I wonder who paid for Senator Paul's golf outing with the President this past weekend? 

[Anastasis 23,703]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Rand Paul's cock-slobbering vote to slash revenue with NO meaningful counter-cuts to spending disqualifies him from discussing deficits and debts. Ever.  For all time.  And if you give him any credibility on that front, you are one gullible-ass dumb motherfucker.

Paul has offered numerous bills and budgets that reduce spending by trillions of dollars aiming to balance the budget, against bipartisan opposition. He has been pretty consistent wrt spending. It is not inconsistent to believe that both taxes and spending should be lower.  But I will grant that the way that he framed his rhetoric allows an easy angle of attack.  Maybe he was trying to distract from his hair.  

Edited July 17, 2019 by Anastasis

[lemonlime 5,503]

So the party that spent billions (trillions?) on wars against brown people in the name of 9/11 despite Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, are now trying to not pay for 9/11 responders' healthcare.   In the name of fiscal responsibility.  Seems about right.

And good job dividing us all.  Because, the next time a tornado hits Kentucky or there's flooding in Louisiana, I say we don't send FEMA.  We don't have the money for it.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

I think it's a great idea to offset this new spending.   Let's tack on a total repeal of the Trump tax bill, which will easily pay for the 9/11 responders and much more!   Can I get an amen, deficit hawks? 

[retread 2,951]

But what will happen to the trickle down?

[Pig Bellmont 8,870]

Rand Paul: spending money on 9/11 first responders is irresponsible 

Also Rand Paul: I have nothing to say about the President spending over $100million of taxpayer money at his own properties. In fact, let me pose for this Twitter pic on his golf course... I have principles 

[Brisketexan 106,651]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It is not inconsistent to believe that both taxes and spending should be lower. 

It's not inconsistent to BELIEVE that.  But to slash revenue without cutting spending....well, you don't get to bitch about a deficit THAT YOU HELPED FUCKING CREATE.  He literally helped juice up the deficit, and now Dr. Frankenstein wants to bitch about the monster he animated?  Fuck that fucking fuck.

[retread 2,951]

Is it a) Look at me and how great a senator I am or b) 9/11 victims elicit a lot of emotion from voters, so inflicting pain on them will bring overspending issues to the fore?

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 minute ago, retread said:

Is it a) Look at me and how great a senator I am or b) 9/11 victims elicit a lot of emotion from voters, so inflicting pain on them will bring overspending issues to the fore?

Yeah, but 9/11 victims live in a blue state, so trump will love this fu to them.

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

He has been pretty consistent wrt spending.

By being a total hypocritical piece of shit? Yeah, you're spot on about that. That YES vote on Trump's tax plan is totally consistent with this.

Jesus fuck you're obtuse.

[DixonHur 11,943]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Heaven forbid that the Senate debate bills, allow amendments, and a vote.  Off with his curly haired head!

You do know that 9/11 was almost 20 years ago, right? 

Yet you're trying to claim that there simply hasn't been enough time to debate the issue?

[wildcat09 29,562]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You do know that 9/11 was almost 20 years ago, right? 

Yet you're trying to claim that there simply hasn't been enough time to debate the issue?

No, we must allow Republicans to tack on bills to fund the perverted arts.

[Chad Fuck 18,094]

On 7/13/2019 at 9:05 PM, F250 said:

This is off topic but Slacker despite being a few years before my time represents the Austin that I remember and cherish. It's crazy how much the place has changed.

[Chad Fuck 18,094]

Rand's play is exactly what the tax repeal was about on the right.  Take away the money, explode the deficit, then say, "Whelp, we better cut out all this shit we don't like social programs (but the stuff we do, like bombs and shit, more of that please.)"

[Js1 86,963]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Rand's play is exactly what the tax repeal was about on the right.  Take away the money, explode the deficit, then say, "Whelp, we better cut out all this shit we don't like social programs (but the stuff we do, like bombs and shit, more of that please.)"

The Paul Ryan plan.

The only part that backfired was getting his majority ceremoniously kicked to the curb. 

[Chad Fuck 18,094]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

The Paul Ryan plan.

The only part that backfired was getting his majority ceremoniously kicked to the curb. 

It sure did.  But that deficit still 'splodin.  

 

 

[DixonHur 11,943]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

It sure did.  But that deficit still 'splodin.  

 

 

Don't worry, they'll start caring about the deficit again around January 20, 2021 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

He's a typical borrow-and-spend Republican, only more self-righteous than most.

[Biff Tannen 46,063]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Don't worry, they'll start caring about the deficit again around January 20, 2021 

Seriously, when this happens the only response by the Dems should be a sharp SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Chad Fuck 18,094]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Seriously, when this happens the only response by the Dems should be a sharp SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I tried that in the both Bush admins.  Didn't really make a difference.  Hell, I talked about it during the Reagan admin before I was out of elementary and didn't really understand shit.  It won't make much difference post-Dotard.  

 

[DixonHur 11,943]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Seriously, when this happens the only response by the Dems should be a sharp SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sadly the Dems won't say shit, because they are terrible at marketing.  They try to play nice too often. 

I mean, if you can't successfully go on the offensive against Trump....ugh

[Blotto 23,975]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Paul has offered numerous bills and budgets that reduce spending by trillions of dollars aiming to balance the budget, against bipartisan opposition. He has been pretty consistent wrt spending. It is not inconsistent to believe that both taxes and spending should be lower.  But I will grant that the way that he framed his rhetoric allows an easy angle of attack.  Maybe he was trying to distract from his hair.  

Huffing all those GOP farts has our very own Betty Both Sides in a tailspin. How about we not approve the tax cuts until after the spending cuts are in place.....that way we don't make the fucking problem worse.

[Js1 86,963]

lmao stealing Betty Both Sides

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

Could also go with Both Sides Becky.

[DDD Dad 14,575]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Rand Paul: spending money on 9/11 first responders is irresponsible 

Also Rand Paul: I have nothing to say about the President spending over $100million of taxpayer money at his own properties. In fact, let me pose for this Twitter pic on his golf course... I have principles 

With a Pine Valley hat.

Truly a man of the people.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Paul has offered numerous bills and budgets that reduce spending by trillions of dollars aiming to balance the budget, against bipartisan opposition. He has been pretty consistent wrt spending. It is not inconsistent to believe that both taxes and spending should be lower.  But I will grant that the way that he framed his rhetoric allows an easy angle of attack.  Maybe he was trying to distract from his hair.  

Did he vote for the republican tax cut (scam) or not. 

[Revolution512 1,512]

2 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Rand's play is exactly what the tax repeal was about on the right.  Take away the money, explode the deficit, then say, "Whelp, we better cut out all this shit we don't like social programs (but the stuff we do, like bombs and shit, more of that please.)"

Yeah most business owners can’t wait for Democratic tax reform and stopping the deregulation put in place. It’s been soooooo terrible for them and the economy.  

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

49 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Yeah most business owners can’t wait for Democratic tax reform and stopping the deregulation put in place. It’s been soooooo terrible for them and the economy.  

Obama received an economy in the dumps and turned it around without cutting taxes on the rich and without making it legal to dump coal waste in the water supply. That guy must have been some kind of wizard. 

[retread 2,951]

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I was waiting for John Stewart to open Rand a new asshole.

Didn’t take long.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,773]

Paul has offered numerous bills and budgets that reduce spending by trillions of dollars aiming to balance the budget, against bipartisan opposition. He has been pretty consistent wrt spending. It is not inconsistent to believe that both taxes and spending should be lower.  But I will grant that the way that he framed his rhetoric allows an easy angle of attack.  Maybe he was trying to distract from his hair.  

No he has never been consistent at anything other than catering to the #bothsides edgelords with small potatoes bullshit while consistently voting to add to structural deficit and debt when it suited the GOP party line.

 

[Anastasis 23,703]

LOL at all the crocodile tears over an objection to general consent with the expressed intent of offering amendments to offset spending with cuts to other areas.  If you want to bag on rand for hypocrisy wrt spending bills, there are much better targets. Namely his about face on military spending a few years back.

5 hours ago, Blotto said:

How about we not approve the tax cuts until after the spending cuts are in place.....that way we don't make the fucking problem worse.

Completely agree. I would go a step further. I would support tax increases if tied to a comprehensive plan to control spending.

[Anastasis 23,703]

55 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No he has never been consistent at anything other than catering to the #bothsides edgelords with small potatoes bullshit while consistently voting to add to structural deficit and debt when it suited the GOP party line.

 

Whether you like his particular positions or not, I hope that we would agree that a diversity of political perspective is a good thing in the Senate. Rand provides a measure of that. As do others from various extremes. 

[HenryJames 67,128]

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

LOL at all the crocodile tears over an objection to general consent with the expressed intent of offering amendments to offset spending with cuts to other areas.  If you want to bag on rand for hypocrisy wrt spending bills, there are much better targets. Namely his about face on military spending a few years back.

Completely agree. I would go a step further. I would support tax increases if tied to a comprehensive plan to control spending.

I don’t get it. Explain how it’s funny again? 

Also why would we bag on Rand for something that happened years ago when we have this bullshit going on right now? 

Edited July 18, 2019 by JimmyJames

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,710]

I’m not a rand Paul fan but I don’t exactly see how his stance should be compared to spitting on the 9/11 first responders.

• the 9/11 compensation fund is not out of money.  Paul didn’t prevent anyone from getting the assistance they need.
• I gather this will give the 9/11 fund as much money as it needs until 2090. This could end up being hundreds of billions if not more.  We will be taking care of any illness of any person NYC area around that time for the remainder of their life.
• to repeat it’s not just first responders it’s anyone.
• this fund will get abused.  Google 9/11 fund.  Guess what comes up first?  Lawyers willing to fight for you to get the money you deserve.  Fund this open ended forever...
• if Americans want this so bad, why not fund it correctly.  Put a line item on every 1040 with $100 hardcoded.  Then see what the support level is at.

this bill is simultaneously an easy patriotic win by voting for it, while also perhaps being one of the worst fiscal-responsible bills ever.  And the last part is saying a lot based on our Govts history.  

Edited July 18, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Stringer 1,487]

It's important to remember that Rand Paul's state takes the second highest rate of net federal funding.  

But you know, fuck everyone else.

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

21 minutes ago, Stringer said:

It's important to remember that Rand Paul's state takes the second highest rate of net federal funding.  

But you know, fuck everyone else.

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Cite your sources. 

WalletHub has them ranked third:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

I heard on Morning Joe that for every $1 they pay into the federal coffers they receive $1.50 back. I haven't done anymore research than that.