Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

[Nice Guy Eddie 13711]

If the wallet hub data is accurate maybe a 9/11 victim fund is fair method to channel more federal funds into NY, CT and NJ.  Easy to order more printed $ from the fed. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

If an American needs financial assistance due to health complications from the attacks on 9/11, we should absolutely pay for that and they should have a reasonable way to apply for and get that assistance.

Of course, if we had a single payer healthcare system, all of this is irrelevant. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13711]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If an American needs financial assistance due to health complications from the attacks on 9/11, we should absolutely pay for that and they should have a reasonable way to apply for and get that assistance.

Of course, if we had a single payer healthcare system, all of this is irrelevant. 

How do we know what is and isn’t related to 9/11.  Or do we err on the side of caution and say any illness in the DC and NYC area for the next 71 years?

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How do we know what is and isn’t related to 9/11.  Or do we err on the side of caution and say any illness in the DC and NYC area for the next 71 years?

That's not a genuine argument, and you know it. 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8870]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How do we know what is and isn’t related to 9/11.  Or do we err on the side of caution and say any illness in the DC and NYC area for the next 71 years?

Can you at least read the bill so you can stop sounding so ignorant?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-111hr847enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr847enr.pdf

[wildcat09 29562]

Shitty troll is shitty.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

How do we know what is and isn’t related to 9/11.  Or do we err on the side of caution and say any illness in the DC and NYC area for the next 71 years?

This is a lot like people that claim widespread voter fraud when there’s not much evidence to support it.  

Will there be some fraudulent claims?  Probably but the benefit of doing the right thing to help those folks we failed to protect when we were attacked outweighs a nominal amount of speculative and specious claims.

I don’t think this is a hard call. 

Again, single payer healthcare makes this easier. 

[Chad Fuck 18094]

Has this come up here yet?

Quote

Trump agrees to let Rand Paul meet with Iran in bid to reduce tensions: report

https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/453516-trump-agrees-to-let-rand-paul-meet-with-iran-in

Remind me, I can't recall.  Was Rand wrapped up in the Russia deal? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13711]

You don’t think we should pre-fund open ended bills with an expiration date of 2090?   I’m cool with taking care of people but I think Americans should have the responsibility to put their wallet where their hearts are.  Wave the flags and let someone else pick up the check.  That’s the new American way  

 this is throwing a huge financial burden on the next 4-5 generations as it will get rolled into debt completely  paid off around 2120 or so.   I think we should raise taxes to pay for this .  In 2019, let’s fund it over the next few years to cover the next 70 years.  What are the expected costs?  How much does the average tax payer need to pay to reach a trillion?

FYI, I read the bill and nothing I said was wrong.  

 

[Anastasis 23703]

16 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Has this come up here yet?

https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/453516-trump-agrees-to-let-rand-paul-meet-with-iran-in

Remind me, I can't recall.  Was Rand wrapped up in the Russia deal? 

So the purpose of the golf outing is clear now.  What a complicit declining anti-war asshole, clashing with the peace loving John Bolton and Mike Pompeo over a march to another war in the Middle East, and trying to position to mediate a de-escalation between Iran and the Trump administration. I am outraged at this complicit curly haired motherfucker. 

"Paul proposed sitting down with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during a golf outing with Trump this past weekend, four U.S. officials told Politico. The meeting’s goal would be to discuss with Zarif on the president’s behalf the potential to calm an escalating situation between the U.S. and Iran.

...

But the prospect of Paul, a staunch anti-war Republican, meeting with him reportedly rankled some administration officials who think his dovish strategy could impede the White House’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

...

“Iran better be careful. They're treading on very dangerous territory. Iran, if you're listening, you better be careful,” Trump told reporters last week.

Paul has criticized of the administration’s sanctions regimen, saying it could be interpreted as an act of war, and has clashed with some of the president’s more hawkish advisers, including national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo."

Edited July 18, 2019 by Anastasis

[lemonlime 5503]

20 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You don’t think we should pre-fund open ended bills with an expiration date of 2090?   I’m cool with taking care of people but I think Americans should have the responsibility to put their wallet where their hearts are.  Wave the flags and let someone else pick up the check.  That’s the new American way  

 this is throwing a huge financial burden on the next 4-5 generations as it will get rolled into debt completely  paid off around 2120 or so.   I think we should raise taxes to pay for this .  In 2019, let’s fund it over the next few years to cover the next 70 years.  What are the expected costs?  How much does the average tax payer need to pay to reach a trillion?

FYI, I read the bill and nothing I said was wrong.  

 

So assuming all of that is true, where the fuck is Rand Paul's (or anyone in the GOP's) proposed bill to provide for 9/11 victims that also addresses these issue and fixes the problems with the pending legislation?  Oh, right.  It doesn't exist.  

[American Swindle 102]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So the purpose of the golf outing is clear now.  What a complicit declining anti-war asshole, clashing with the peace loving John Bolton and Mike Pompeo over a march to another war in the Middle East, and trying to position to mediate a de-escalation between Iran and the Trump administration. I am outraged at this complicit curly haired motherfucker. 

"Paul proposed sitting down with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during a golf outing with Trump this past weekend, four U.S. officials told Politico. The meeting’s goal would be to discuss with Zarif on the president’s behalf the potential to calm an escalating situation between the U.S. and Iran.

...

But the prospect of Paul, a staunch anti-war Republican, meeting with him reportedly rankled some administration officials who think his dovish strategy could impede the White House’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

...

“Iran better be careful. They're treading on very dangerous territory. Iran, if you're listening, you better be careful,” Trump told reporters last week.

Paul has criticized of the administration’s sanctions regimen, saying it could be interpreted as an act of war, and has clashed with some of the president’s more hawkish advisers, including national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo."

The idea of playing the political game to stop war seems to be unpopular these days.

[American Swindle 102]

 

[Brisketexan 106651]

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

Which makes it FASCINATING that he voted FOR a tax bill that everyone knew would cause -- and in fact has caused -- the deficit to explode.  

Truly fascinating.  When it comes to pennies, he's principled.  When it comes to truckloads of cash, he's a pandering whore.  Keep your eye on the truckloads of cash, not the little copper disks.  The truckloads matter.

[retread 2951]

16 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

So assuming all of that is true, where the fuck is Rand Paul's (or anyone in the GOP's) proposed bill to provide for 9/11 victims that also addresses these issue and fixes the problems with the pending legislation?  Oh, right.  It doesn't exist.  

Amen. This shit ain't rocket science. It's 20 years since 9/11. We know how much it's going to cost to support fellow Americans who stood up when America needed them. Allocate $100M per year +5% or whatever the average cost has been. Allow for inflation and provide opportunities for reappraisal each year. Dammit.

[Anastasis 23703]

13 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

 

 

"And while it's true that Paul voted for a deficit-increasing tax cut, he has also consistently introduced legislation to cut spending across the board. Just last month, the Senate rejected a budget plan authored by Paul that would have cut federal spending by $183 billion in the coming fiscal year.

Libertarian-leaning folks like Paul want less spending, lower taxes, and smaller deficits. The senator has a record of supporting all three policies, even though the rest of Congress seems only able to muster support for one."

 

Another complicit asshole.

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Anastasis
quote tags on this forum suck; extending quote

[Mojo Hand 4580]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which makes it FASCINATING that he voted FOR a tax bill that everyone knew would cause -- and in fact has caused -- the deficit to explode.  

Truly fascinating.  When it comes to pennies, he's principled.  When it comes to truckloads of cash, he's a pandering whore.  Keep your eye on the truckloads of cash, not the little copper disks.  The truckloads matter.

Like those supporting him on this thread, Rand's only "principle" here is not spending money on things he doesn't like.   It certainly isn't about fiscal responsibility, as shown by his vote for the tax bill.   His actions here aren't even about the merits of the 9/11 bill, but rather using the 9/11 victims as political pawns to force cuts to unrelated spending: 

So this whole notion that the bill itself is unwise is bullshit post hoc rationalization.  He's just posturing on a problem that he helped make significantly worse with his tax bill vote. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Anastasis 23703]

Keep your eyes on the truckloads of cash people. The truckloads matter.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/austere-budget-plan-paul-goes-senate

The Senate blocked consideration Monday of a bill by Sen. Rand Paul that would require trillions of dollars in spending cuts over the coming decade to bring about a balanced budget.

On a procedural vote of 22-69, the Senate refused to advance a budget plan that the Kentucky Republican said would reverse a trajectory of ever-rising deficits in coming years. “Today, the U.S. Senate can vote to put a stop to it and change course,” Paul said in a statement.

But the plan, which is similar to ones he has offered in previous years, has triggered bipartisan opposition because of the severity of spending cuts required to reach a balanced budget within five years, as the bill promises. Democrats oppose cuts to many domestic programs, while Republicans want to increase military spending.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13711]

I don't see it as unreasonable to discuss/debate a 70 year expenditure bill along with how we're paying for it.  From my reading on the subject no one is currently missing out on treatment so when is it better to rush something to understand the impact.

[retread 2951]

7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Like those supporting him on this thread, Rand's only "principle" here is not spending money on things he doesn't like.   It certainly isn't about fiscal responsibility, as shown by his vote for the tax bill.   His actions here aren't even about the merits of the 9/11 bill, but rather using the 9/11 victims as political pawns to force cuts to unrelated spending.

He's learned well from his master. Cruelty to subordinates is fun and profitable for Rs.

[Huckleberry 34407]

Perhaps when you have been in the Senate for 8 years and you've had plenty of time to realize that your efforts to reduce spending, while not wrong at all in and of themselves, have been completely fruitless and a total failure, you shouldn't vote to massively reduce revenue if you claim to care about the deficit.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't see it as unreasonable to discuss/debate a 70 year expenditure bill along with how we're paying for it.  From my reading on the subject no one is currently missing out on treatment so when is it better to rush something to understand the impact.

The "rush" is providing security and finality to desperate people who are sick and dying.  One of the first responders who was at the hearing with Jon Stewart a few weeks back is already dead.  He literally spent his final few days on this planet begging for the security that you consider no big deal. 

And the notion that this is rushed, after nearly 20 years of various bills and testimony and debate, is a complete joke.   There is nothing up in the air on this.  The only reason this hasn't sailed through is that the desperation of 9/11 victims is politically useful to certain Republicans. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13711]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The "rush" is providing security and finality to desperate people who are sick and dying.  One of the first responders who was at the hearing with Jon Stewart a few weeks back is already dead.  He literally spent his final few days on this planet begging for the security that you consider no big deal. 

And the notion that this is rushed, after nearly 20 years of various bills and testimony and debate, is a complete joke.   There is nothing up in the air on this.  The only reason this hasn't sailed through is that the desperation of 9/11 victims is politically useful to certain Republicans. 

You're twisting my words. I'm all for taking care of people but I think it's also fair that the American public understand how we're paying for it. I'm for us paying for the entire 70 years right now. Send us all a bill for, and then we can be done with it next April. Then the responders and NYC residents can all be assured the plan and money is sitting there for them. Why is that a problem for you?

[formermav43 4607]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Perhaps when you have been in the Senate for 8 years and you've had plenty of time to realize that your efforts to reduce spending, while not wrong at all in and of themselves, have been completely fruitless and a total failure, you shouldn't vote to massively reduce revenue if you claim to care about the deficit.

So if you claim to care about 1) reducing spending, 2) cutting taxes and 3) the deficit as the Reason article opines, you’re just supposed to throw up your hands and say screw it when you can’t muster enough support for 1? What criteria determines that 3 is more important than 2? And if you vote not to cut taxes, how are you not susceptible to the same criticism of inconsistency, given those 3 priorities? 

[Huckleberry 34407]

Just now, formermav43 said:

So if you claim to care about 1) reducing spending, 2) cutting taxes and 3) the deficit as the Reason article opines, you’re just supposed to throw up your hands and say screw it when you can’t muster enough support for 1? What criteria determines that 3 is more important than 2? And if you vote not to cut taxes, how are you not susceptible to the same criticism of inconsistency, given those 3 priorities? 

I'm assuming that all three are relatively equally important to someone who claims them as his three principles.

If you vote to cut revenue without decreasing spending then you are sacrificing two of your three principles to achieve the third.

It's also simple logic. If your budget is in a deficit position and you want to tackle all three of those things, reducing spending has to be the first thing to happen. You don't take the lower paying job before you reduce your expenses to get out of debt.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You're twisting my words. I'm all for taking care of people but I think it's also fair that the American public understand how we're paying for it. I'm for us paying for the entire 70 years right now. Send us all a bill for, and then we can be done with it next April. Then the responders and NYC residents can all be assured the plan and money is sitting there for them. Why is that a problem for you?

What do Americans not understand about how we are paying for it?  We are paying for it the same way we pay for everything else that gets approved all the time.   The only reason this specific spending issue continues to drag on after nearly 20 years is that the victims make great political pawns. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Nice Guy Eddie 13711]

I would assume that the NYFD or NYPD have good health care benefits for their retirees and/or disabled personnel. Did both of those organizations tells the first responders to f-off when they got sick?  If they're not getting the help they need, why isn't that a scandal?

[formermav43 4607]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm assuming that all three are relatively equally important to someone who claims them as his three principles.

If you vote to cut revenue without decreasing spending then you are sacrificing two of your three principles to achieve the third.

It's also simple logic. If your budget is in a deficit position and you want to tackle all three of those things, reducing spending has to be the first thing to happen. You don't take the lower paying job before you reduce your expenses to get out of debt.

But if you vote against a tax cut without cutting spending, you’ve also sacrificed two of your principles to achieve a third.

You already acknowledged his efforts to cut spending have been fruitless. Your logic dictates he should therefore not act on his other principles, despite them being equally important. He will never cut spending, so he must do nothing.

Edited July 18, 2019 by formermav43

[Brisketexan 106651]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Keep your eyes on the truckloads of cash people. The truckloads matter.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/austere-budget-plan-paul-goes-senate

The Senate blocked consideration Monday of a bill by Sen. Rand Paul that would require trillions of dollars in spending cuts over the coming decade to bring about a balanced budget.

On a procedural vote of 22-69, the Senate refused to advance a budget plan that the Kentucky Republican said would reverse a trajectory of ever-rising deficits in coming years. “Today, the U.S. Senate can vote to put a stop to it and change course,” Paul said in a statement.

But the plan, which is similar to ones he has offered in previous years, has triggered bipartisan opposition because of the severity of spending cuts required to reach a balanced budget within five years, as the bill promises. Democrats oppose cuts to many domestic programs, while Republicans want to increase military spending.

Sounds nifty.  Until you re-enter the real world, which dictates the following:

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Perhaps when you have been in the Senate for 8 years and you've had plenty of time to realize that your efforts to reduce spending, while not wrong at all in and of themselves, have been completely fruitless and a total failure, you shouldn't vote to massively reduce revenue if you claim to care about the deficit.

Here's what a principled deficit hawk would do: 1) not vote to slash revenues without having major spending cuts tied to it, and maybe even  2) not vote for major spending cuts without obtaining some tax cuts.

Instead, he voted for slashing revenues.... KNOWING THAT HE WOULDN'T GET ANY SPENDING CUTS.  Even arguing/pretending otherwise insults the intelligence if anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

[Brisketexan 106651]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

He will never cut spending, so he must do nothing.

No.  He must vote -- and lose, over and over again.  Vote against the tax cut, because it will explode the deficit.  State that his reason is that it will explode the deficit, and he demands cuts in spending. And he will lose.  Introduce bills to cut spending.  Which will be defeated.

Be willing to lose.

But when you have a king principle -- DEFICIT HAWK! -- never, ever vote for a bill that is guaranteed not just to contribute some incremental amount to the deficit, but will cause it to skyrocket.  That doesn't seem like too much to ask.  Except, obviously, it is.  Because Rand doesn't actually have any fucking principles except Rand, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

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. 

It's cute you either believe that or pretend to. Rand Paul is what he has always been: a toupee balanced atop empty suit that makes libertarian mouth noises and takes symbolic action because that's enough for the #bothsiders.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[formermav43 4607]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

No.  He must vote -- and lose, over and over again.  Vote against the tax cut, because it will explode the deficit.  State that his reason is that it will explode the deficit, and he demands cuts in spending. And he will lose.  Introduce bills to cut spending.  Which will be defeated.

Be willing to lose.

But when you have a king principle -- DEFICIT HAWK! -- never, ever vote for a bill that is guaranteed not just to contribute some incremental amount to the deficit, but will cause it to skyrocket.  That doesn't seem like too much to ask.  Except, obviously, it is.  Because Rand doesn't actually have any fucking principles except Rand, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. 

I’m extrapolating from the 3 principles laid out in the Reason article. I’m still unclear what criteria has determined the deficit is his “king principle.” If, as Huck said, they’re all equally important, you just want him to act inconsistently in a different way.

[Huckleberry 34407]

8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

But if you vote against a tax cut without cutting spending, you’ve also sacrificed two of your principles to achieve a third.

You already acknowledged his efforts to cut spending have been fruitless. Your logic dictates he should therefore not act on his other principles, despite them being equally important. He will never cut spending, so he must do nothing.

No, he must admit that he doesn't actually care about the deficit. When discussing his vote for the tax cut his only stated problems with the bill were that it didn't cut enough. He did not mention that spending must be cut even more in order to help pay for the tax cuts. The deficit was not even a concern. He did not attempt to tie the cuts to any reduction in spending anywhere.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

44 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Keep your eyes on the truckloads of cash people. The truckloads matter.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/austere-budget-plan-paul-goes-senate

The Senate blocked consideration Monday of a bill by Sen. Rand Paul that would require trillions of dollars in spending cuts over the coming decade to bring about a balanced budget.

On a procedural vote of 22-69, the Senate refused to advance a budget plan that the Kentucky Republican said would reverse a trajectory of ever-rising deficits in coming years. “Today, the U.S. Senate can vote to put a stop to it and change course,” Paul said in a statement.

But the plan, which is similar to ones he has offered in previous years, has triggered bipartisan opposition because of the severity of spending cuts required to reach a balanced budget within five years, as the bill promises. Democrats oppose cuts to many domestic programs, while Republicans want to increase military spending.

The truckloads matter? I would say the $1.5T truckload he voted for that happened in real life matters more than a totally imaginary truckload that he knew in advance would fail.

But, you know, you do you. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 106651]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

The truckloads matter? I would say the $1.5T he voted for that happened in real life matters more than a totally symbolic DOA bill.

But, you know, you do you. 

Truckloads matter.  What Anastasis hasn't grasped is that the REAL truckloads matter infinitely more than the IMAGINARY ones.  The real ones being the ones he shipped off with the tax cuts.  The imaginary ones being the ones he pointlessly suggests in his doomed spending cuts.

But maybe we should cut him some slack.  We're a country of morons, and the difference between the + sign and the - sign are really, really hard.  Maybe he just doesn't have a handle on them yet.  I mean, he's from Kentucky.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just dropping in to state once again this is the worst titled thread on Surly because it implies that Rand has declined when he’s just as big a piece of crap bullshit artist as he’s always been. Thanks Hugo. 

As for the bullshit latest Rand suck ups “90 year or 70 year” talking point, a later congress can always cut the spending if its discovered that compensating 911 responders is gonna actually bankrupt the country. Lol at that. 

It’s just the republicans playing politics with 911 responders so they can leverage something with the dems. The poodle is acting like a good soldier because his position is safe. Nothing more.

[Anastasis 23703]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's cute you either believe that or pretend to. Rand Paul is what he has always been: a toupee balanced atop empty suit that makes libertarian mouth noises and takes symbolic action because that's enough for the #bothsiders.

You don't think that Rand offers a useful perspective in the political debates related to foreign policy, American military projection, civil liberties, the surveillance apparatus, federal spending, etc.?

I mean ok.  You don't have to agree with his perspective to recognize that a diversity of thought in the Senate is a good thing.  And I mean, his hair is terrible, so maybe you are right.  

[Brisketexan 106651]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You don't think that Rand offers a useful perspective in the political debates related to foreign policy, American military projection, civil liberties, the surveillance apparatus, federal spending, etc.?

I mean ok.  You don't have to agree with his perspective to recognize that a diversity of thought in the Senate is a good thing.  And I mean, his hair is terrible, so maybe you are right.  

When that diversity of thought is just self-serving bullshit from a hypocritical lying piece of shit, he can get fucked.

But I don't know, maybe we really SHOULD give credibility to the king of deficit hawks who proudly voted to send the deficit into the stratosphere.  That sounds like a truly principled man!

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You don’t think we should pre-fund open ended bills with an expiration date of 2090?   I’m cool with taking care of people but I think Americans should have the responsibility to put their wallet where their hearts are.  Wave the flags and let someone else pick up the check.  That’s the new American way  

 this is throwing a huge financial burden on the next 4-5 generations as it will get rolled into debt completely  paid off around 2120 or so.   I think we should raise taxes to pay for this .  In 2019, let’s fund it over the next few years to cover the next 70 years.  What are the expected costs?  How much does the average tax payer need to pay to reach a trillion?

FYI, I read the bill and nothing I said was wrong.  

  

I was going to disagree with you but then I read the last sentence and it turns out I can't. 

[Fozzz 152]

38 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You're twisting my words. I'm all for taking care of people but I think it's also fair that the American public understand how we're paying for it. I'm for us paying for the entire 70 years right now. Send us all a bill for, and then we can be done with it next April. Then the responders and NYC residents can all be assured the plan and money is sitting there for them. Why is that a problem for you?

What do you mean "pay for it"?  It's paid for by the government authorizing the expenditure.  

[wildcat09 29562]

58 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Like those supporting him on this thread, Rand's only "principle" here is not spending money on things he doesn't like.   It certainly isn't about fiscal responsibility, as shown by his vote for the tax bill.   His actions here aren't even about the merits of the 9/11 bill, but rather using the 9/11 victims as political pawns to force cuts to unrelated spending: 

So this whole notion that the bill itself is unwise is bullshit post hoc rationalization.  He's just posturing on a problem that he helped make significantly worse with his tax bill vote. 

This. Giving billionaires more money, or giving money to groups that will reward him with a lucrative lobbying gig when he's done in the Senate, don't need to be offset. Spending money that might benefit regular people who can't reward him with a cushy lobbying gig is the only kind of spending that must be offset, preferably by taking money from hungry children so as not to reduce the amount of money he can give to billionaires.

[Fozzz 152]

Imagine being troubled by the 9/11 bill when we live in a world where there are countries with 200%+ debt/GDP ratios having problems fighting off deflation.  Insanity.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I was going to disagree with you but then I read the last sentence and it turns out I can't. 

FYI. Everything I’ve ever written on this board is right, correct and true. Please keep that fact in mind while posting. Thank you. 

[retread 2951]

People with terrible and terminal 9/11 illnesses should not have to travel hat in hand to Congress to beg for money. Assholes in DC.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, retread said:

People with terrible and terminal 9/11 illnesses should not have to travel hat in hand to Congress to beg for money. Assholes in DC.

Maybe Trump can have his goons beat the shit out of them on the steps of the Capitol like with what happened to the Bonus Army.  That would make for some good tv. 

[Brisketexan 106651]

Just now, Fozzz said:

Maybe Trump can have his goons beat the shit out of them on the steps of the Capitol like with what happened to the Bonus Army.  That would make for some good tv. 

He'll just do what he did when a group of pastors tried to protest in Lafayette Park -- he'll get the feds to close the Capitol. Dotard can't handle up-close and personal criticism, so he'll just prevent it from happening in the first place.

Remember, the most indisputable fact on the planet is that Dotard is a fucking gutless coward.

[Fozzz 152]

It would be interesting to see how they would try to deal with the spectacle of 9/11 victims protesting at the capitol.  Maybe go with the old tried and true "they are being paid by (((Soros)))" bit while at the same time blithely accusing half the dem house caucus of being raging anti-semites.  

[Chooky 13338]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You don't think that Rand offers a useful perspective in the political debates related to foreign policy, American military projection, civil liberties, the surveillance apparatus, federal spending, etc.?

I mean ok.  You don't have to agree with his perspective to recognize that a diversity of thought in the Senate is a good thing.  And I mean, his hair is terrible, so maybe you are right.  

No, I don't, because his perspective, as it were, is defended with as all the strength and conviction of Scott Derry's run gap. 

[American Swindle 102]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

No.  He must vote -- and lose, over and over again.  Vote against the tax cut, because it will explode the deficit.  State that his reason is that it will explode the deficit, and he demands cuts in spending. And he will lose.  Introduce bills to cut spending.  Which will be defeated.

Be willing to lose.

But when you have a king principle -- DEFICIT HAWK! -- never, ever vote for a bill that is guaranteed not just to contribute some incremental amount to the deficit, but will cause it to skyrocket.  That doesn't seem like too much to ask.  Except, obviously, it is.  Because Rand doesn't actually have any fucking principles except Rand, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. 

An insane splitting of hairs just to come to some gotcha moment to rally the rabid left's lock step smearing of Rand as unprincipled and hypocritical.  I'm impressed. 

How about conceding to the fact he's trying to get Trump to de-escalate tensions with Iran and Russia to, you know, save human life?  ALL RAND CARES ABOUT IS RAND THO SwInDle!!