Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

An insane splitting of hairs

The difference between real life things that actually happen and imaginary action: splitting of hairs

[Red Five 41607]

Rand Paul has acquired himself a pretty nasty case of Resting Chip Brown Face. 

[Anastasis 23703]

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 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!!

Or acknowledge his actions to block arms sales to SA, or reeling in the surveillance state, or criminal justice reform, or dialing down military interventions, or....

oh fuck it, he voted for tax reform, none of that shit matters because spending cuts in DC are fantasy and clearly if you vote for tax reform while advocating for lower spending you are a fraud and cannot contribute anything worthy of consideration to the debate on these topics. 

[Blotto 23975]

11 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

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!!

Sorry man. Anybody that voted for Trumps tax cuts and still maintains they are concerned with the federal deficit is either hypocritical, stupid as fuck, or likely both.

Rand has been around DC long enough to know that the current cast of characters in congress isn't really interested  in cutting spending. Knowing that and still agreeing to cut the revenue  portion of the equation is a SURE FIRE way to accelerate growth of the deficit and aggregate debt. How is that not hypocritical?  

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Sorry man. Anybody that voted for Trumps tax cuts and still maintains they are concerned with the federal deficit is either hypocritical, stupid as fuck, or likely both.

Rand has been around DC long enough to know that the current cast of characters in congress isn't really interested  in cutting spending. Knowing that and still agreeing to cut the revenue  portion of the equation is a SURE FIRE way to accelerate growth of the deficit and aggregate debt. How is that not hypocritical?  

no, blotto, you DON'T GET IT.

rand paul is a principled libertarian and fiscal conservative. that's why he voted for tax cuts and now is blocking this 911 responder bill. it's his principles. he ALWAYS stands by his principles.

[Anastasis 23703]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

no, blotto, you DON'T GET IT.

 rand paul is a principled libertarian and fiscal conservative. that's why he voted for tax cuts and now is blocking this 911 responder bill. it's his principles. he ALWAYS stands by his principles.

This would apply moreso to his father.  Rand is not his father.  I don't think that anybody is really arguing that he is spotless. He plays the politics and make compromises for political pragmatism. He must be the first Senator to ever do so, given the heat he takes here.   

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Yeah, nobody here ever trashes Ted Cruz, or Mitch McConnell, or Marco Rubio, or Jeff Flake.   Other than Rand, GOP Senators are beloved around here. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The old "everybody is corrupt" excuse. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Or acknowledge his actions to block arms sales to SA, or reeling in the surveillance state, or criminal justice reform, or dialing down military interventions, or....

oh fuck it, he voted for tax reform, none of that shit matters because spending cuts in DC are fantasy and clearly if you vote for tax reform while advocating for lower spending you are a fraud and cannot contribute anything worthy of consideration to the debate on these topics. 

What a terrible post.

What do his surveillance state efforts, arms sales efforts, etc. have to do with the discussion of his inaction with respect to the deficit? You are correct that he has done those things, unfortunately for you and Swindle, pointing and yelling squirrel doesn't work around here.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Huckleberry

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The old "everybody is corrupt" excuse. 

Everyone is corrupt: vote straight ticket GOP
#bothsides

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[wildcat09 29562]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Everyone is corrupt: vote straight ticket GOP
#bothsides

This fella gets it.

[Anastasis 23703]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

What a terrible post.

What do his surveillance state efforts, arms sales efforts, etc. have to do with the discussion of his in action with respect to the deficit? You are correct that he has accomplished those things, unfortunately for you and Swindle, pointing and yelling squirrel doesn't work around here.

It was intended to dove tail into the exchange with Bozo, where I asked whether Rand provided a useful perspective in the Senate on a variety of other topics related to foreign policy, American military projection, civil liberties, the surveillance apparatus, etc. I was told that his perspective on those topics was without any value. Do you agree with that or not? Not clear from your response. 

[Anastasis 23703]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Everyone is corrupt: vote straight ticket GOP
#bothsides

Personal strawman arguments make the cloak room great again.

[formermav43 4607]

In an alternate reality where he voted against tax cuts based on shrinking the deficit, he would be getting excoriated as a hypocrite too. “Rand has to know that spending won’t be cut in the current environment. Claiming that he’ll only support tax cuts if they’re tied to spending cuts is a convenient way to pass the buck. Hope you enjoy your pork, Mr. Small Government Libertarian!”

Its just a question of whatever criticism is useful today.

[Huckleberry 34407]

His perspective on other issues is fine, I missed that sidebar.

But he failed when he had a chance to make a real difference in the national dialog. The tax cut had 51 yea votes. Yes, Pence would have been the 51st no matter what. How about this?

"I will vote no on the tax bill unless at least equivalent cuts are made to the our spending in the military's budget (including domestic surveillance), non-SS entitlements, and other areas."

Simple. Even that would have only been grandstanding because of the VP's tiebreaker, but he didn't even have enough spine for that.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

In an alternate reality where he voted against tax cuts based on shrinking the deficit, he would be getting excoriated as a hypocrite too. “Rand has to know that spending won’t be cut in the current environment. Claiming that he’ll only support tax cuts if they’re tied to spending cuts is a convenient way to pass the buck. Hope you enjoy your pork, Mr. Small Government Libertarian!”

Its just a question of whatever criticism is useful today.

In a much cooler alternate reality his neighbor finishes the job after he tackles him. Also you have some sort of brain injury that prevents you from posting on here and the world is a much better place. 

[Anastasis 23703]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

His perspective on other issues is fine, I missed that sidebar.

But he failed when he had a chance to make a real difference in the national dialog. The tax cut had 51 yea votes. Yes, Pence would have been the 51st no matter what. How about this?

 "I will vote no on the tax bill unless at least equivalent cuts are made to the our spending in the military's budget (including domestic surveillance), non-SS entitlements, and other areas."

 Simple. Even that would have only been grandstanding because of the VP's tiebreaker, but he didn't even have enough spine for that.

I would prefer an approach that tied spending cuts up with tax reform over tax reform in isolation.  As I said earlier, I would actually go a totally different direction and tie spending cuts to tax increases to right the course. 

[formermav43 4607]

5 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

In a much cooler alternate reality his neighbor finishes the job after he tackles him. Also you have some sort of brain injury that prevents you from posting on here and the world is a much better place. 

Maybe in that one your bit would still be funny.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would prefer an approach that tied spending cuts up with tax reform over tax reform in isolation.  As I said earlier, I would actually go a totally different direction and tie spending cuts to tax increases to right the course. 

Oh, you would prefer to fund a tax cut instead of calling a wealth transfer from the middle class of the future to top earners of today and calling it "tax reform"? Hot take!

 

The word "approach" is fun here too, since one is actually an "approach" to discipline and the other is an "approach" to the edge of the abyss.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Anastasis 23703]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh, you would prefer to fund a tax cut instead of calling a wealth transfer from the middle class of the future to top earners of today and calling it "tax reform"? Hot take!

I would prefer a balanced budget amendment, or some other form of mandated stability/fiscal order. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

In an alternate reality where he voted against tax cuts based on shrinking the deficit, he would be getting excoriated as a hypocrite too. “Rand has to know that spending won’t be cut in the current environment. Claiming that he’ll only support tax cuts if they’re tied to spending cuts is a convenient way to pass the buck. Hope you enjoy your pork, Mr. Small Government Libertarian!”

Its just a question of whatever criticism is useful today.

Still incorrect. The fact of the matter is that Paul doesn't care even a little bit about the deficit. He votes to lower taxes, he votes no on every single appropriations and spending bill, but he absolutely does not care what the impact on the budget deficit is when he's making those votes. He pretends to care, but he doesn't actually care. All he needs to do is be honest. His actual concerns:

Lowering taxes>>>Lowering spending>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe the deficit a little

Heck, just listen to his words. Tax cut bill doesn't cut enough? Oh well, at least it's something. I'll vote for this thing that adds trillions to our debt. We absolutely need to cut taxes by however much I can get. If lowering spending were as important to him as lowering taxes then he would have held the tax cut bill hostage. He didn't. If the deficit were as important to him as lowering taxes he would have voted no on the tax bill. He didn't.

[formermav43 4607]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Still incorrect. The fact of the matter is that Paul doesn't care even a little bit about the deficit. He votes to lower taxes, he votes no on every single appropriations and spending bill, but he absolutely does not care what the impact on the budget deficit is when he's making those votes. He pretends to care, but he doesn't actually care. All he needs to do is be honest. His actual concerns:

Lowering taxes>>>Lowering spending>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe the deficit a little

Heck, just listen to his words. Tax cut bill doesn't cut enough? Oh well, at least it's something. I'll vote for this thing that adds trillions to our debt. We absolutely need to cut taxes by however much I can get. If lowering spending were as important to him as lowering taxes then he would have held the tax cut bill hostage. He didn't. If the deficit were as important to him as lowering taxes he would have voted no on the tax bill. He didn't.

That’s not an unreasonable take.

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would prefer a balanced budget amendment, or some other form of mandated stability/fiscal order. 

You mean so we would have to maintain austerity at times stimulus is appropriate so Rand Paul will stop voting for it when it's not? Wow. That's some diverse perspective he brings to the Senate. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bozo_Casanova

[Anastasis 23703]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

You mean so we would have to maintain austerity when stimulus is appropriate so Rand Paul will stop voting for it when it's not? Wow. That's some diverse perspective he brings to the Senate. 

I would not be opposed to keeping open some flexibility for appropriate economic stimulus when required.  That need can be balanced with the pressing need to control federal spending.  As you acknowledge, the notion that  Congress will address spending absent an external mandate is a matter of fantasy. The need for some level of flexibility wrt stimulus is just a deflection so you can avoid addressing the real secular problem by implementing controls. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.    

[American Swindle 102]

30 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

What a terrible post.

What do his surveillance state efforts, arms sales efforts, etc. have to do with the discussion of his inaction with respect to the deficit? You are correct that he has done those things, unfortunately for you and Swindle, pointing and yelling squirrel doesn't work around here.

The literal title of the thread has been changed to "Rand Paul was always a piece of shit."

Anastasia's reference to his efforts to block arm sales to a country that hangs little boys in the streets for peacefully protesting the SA government is not really indicative of a piece of shit in my book.  

Blocking arm sales would actually be a benefit to the world, a benefit to American Taxpayers and reduce spending, but Rand has no principles so it matters not. 

 

 

 

[elfenix 34661]

23 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.)"

 

23 hours ago, Js1 said:

The Paul Ryan plan.

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

 

this has been the republican plan for 40 years.  republican fiscal policy is, essentially: 1) explode deficits to try to get democrats to agree to social cuts, and 2) keep shoving the burden of taxation further down the wealth curve. 

[American Swindle 102]

29 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

In a much cooler alternate reality his neighbor finishes the job after he tackles him. Also you have some sort of brain injury that prevents you from posting on here and the world is a much better place. 

violence is cool as long as the victim is______________?

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I would not be opposed to keeping open some flexibility for appropriate economic stimulus when required.  That need can be balanced with the pressing need to control federal spending.  As you acknowledge, the notion that  Congress will address spending absent an external mandate is a matter of fantasy. The need for some level of flexibility wrt stimulus is just a deflection so you can avoid addressing the real secular problem by implementing controls. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.    

No, it's a consistent position that goes back decades that stimulus during recession is appropriate and surplus is appropriate during expansion. See how that works? You're wrong. We do have a revenue problem.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

5 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

violence is cool as long as the victim is______________?

Rand Paul

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think it’s time to play Rand’s greatest hits thus far in the Trump administration.  He caved on the tax cuts, which was bad, but there’s all this other shit:

 

On 7/26/2018 at 11:08 AM, Pig Bellmont said:

Rand Paul: Iraq was a mistake. 

Also Rand Paul: The US can/should use military force against Iran for developing nuclear weapons. 

—————————

Rand Paul: Trump is right to engage in diplomacy and sit down with hostile nations. Dialogue is always preferable to war. 

Also Rand Paul: the US should withdraw from the UN

 

I mean, I could do this all day. 

 

On 7/30/2018 at 6:37 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

And the reach around is complete.

 

 

On 8/6/2018 at 7:06 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

On 8/6/2018 at 5:00 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol

 

On 8/8/2018 at 1:22 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Kompromised 

 

On 8/10/2018 at 4:17 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/euan-macdonald-ukraines-friend-and-foe-of-the-week.html

Ukraine’s Foe of the Week: Rand Paul

Russia invaded and occupied parts of Georgia in August 2008: Fact.

Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine’s Crimea in February-March 2014: Fact.

Russia has sent troops, weapons, ammunition and equipment into the Donbas and fomented a war there: Fact.

Russia has encouraged and supported the rise of right wing populism in the West: Fact.

Russia has interfered in referendums and elections in the West via social media, spreading fake news, setting up fake websites to foster divisions in the electorate, hacking websites to steal information: Fact.

Russian hacking groups have been accused of launching cyberattacks in Estonia, France, and Ukraine, and are believed by U.S. intelligence to be preparing such attacks against the United States: Fact.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul went to Moscow on Aug. 6 to meet with members of Russia’s rubber-stamp legislature and other senior Kremlin officials to promote “dialogue” between the United States and Russia: Fact.

Wait. What?

Why on earth is a U.S. senator going on a one-man mission to fix U.S.-Russian relations after U.S. intelligence has warned that not only did the Kremlin interfere in the U.S. presidential elections in 2018, but that it is also preparing to interfere in the U.S. mid-term elections in November?

The answer is that Paul, a Republican representing Kentucky, is not a man of principle, but a political hack who puts his career before his country. In 2014, after the Kremlin started its military occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea, Paul wrote that the United States should isolate Russia “if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.”

But by 2017 Paul had abandoned this position, even though the Kremlin has not ended its occupation of Crimea, nor halted its war on Ukraine in the Donbas.

In the interim it has intervened in Syria, aiding its murderous client dictator Bashar al-Assad in carrying out barbaric attacks on his country’s civilian population, including the use of chemical weapons.

It has also deployed a chemical weapon in the UK, in a botched assassination attempt on of former Russian spy that resulted in the death of a British woman, the authorities there say. On top of that, the Kremlin has continued its attempts to influence votes in the West and is honing its skills in cyber warfare, according to the intelligence services of several countries.

The Kremlin is delighted to host Paul, and broadcast his calls for dialogue and the easing of sanctions on Russia. Kremlin officials also took the opportunity to ask Paul to intervene on behalf of a jailed Russian suspected spy, Maria Butina. And Paul’s mere presence in Moscow counters the impression that the Kremlin is isolated and shunned by the civilized world.

The reason Paul has flipped his position on Russia 180 degrees is that U.S. President Donald J. Trump is in office. Trump, of course, appears to be a firm supporter of Russia and an admirer of the sinister Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin. So Paul, as a craven toady, has since taken up position as Trump’s “wingman on Russia,” as the New York Times puts it.

Thus, the senator was only one of two to vote against the extension of sanctions against Russia in June 2017 (the other was Bernie Sanders). Paul also blocked a resolution drawn up by Sanders that would have backed the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian election interference and demanded President Trump  speak with special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with the Kremlin during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Paul is Ukraine’s Foe of the Week and a winner of the Order of Lenin for his unwarranted friendless to Ukraine’s Kremlin enemies.

He represents everything that’s wrong with Western politics at this time: politicians putting partisanship ahead of principle, whilst pandering to populism.

The political malaise that is affecting the democratic world at this moment will not ease until the malign influence of the Kremlin is countered.

The voting public in the United States could help reduce that influence by throwing Paul and his ilk out of office at the next available opportunity: Fact.

 

 

On 9/6/2018 at 4:47 PM, Yuk said:

 

 

On 9/10/2018 at 3:30 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Sen. Rand Paul floated the possibility of a dialogue with Russia about keeping NATO from further expanding its umbrella into Eastern Europe.

The Kentucky Republican, who recently returned from a trip to Russia for meetings with Russian lawmakers, suggested that the country’s leaders may have fears of NATO seeking to go as far as expanding into Georgia and Ukraine.

“Sanctions are sort of the stick, and the question is what is the carrot. I would say that one of the carrots might be considering whether or not we continue to insist that Ukraine and Georgia be in NATO,” Paul said. “I think that if you really wanted to influence Russia’s behavior and you were talking in a one-to-one basis with Russia and you were to have some sort of agreement, I think an agreement not to have Ukraine and Georgia in NATO might lead to less conflict in both Ukraine and Georgia.”

Paul was speaking at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S.-Russian relations featuring testimony from both the State Department and the Department of the Treasury.

Paul’s questions and commentary were much different from Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle who took a harder line toward President Vladimir Putin. But Paul asked whether the existing U.S. sanctions regime is working and what an alternative might look like.

“A really important question that we have to ask is: do sanctions change behavior? And so, without the answer to that, I think we can’t really decide whether we want more sanctions,” Paul said. “I think one possibility is that they don’t work, and if they don’t work, what is the result of sanctions?”

The Kentucky Republican suggested the Putin government could become more closely aligned with China as a result of economic pressure by the United States.

“I think there are arguments to be made that perhaps more sanctions aren’t the way to go,” Paul said.

Paul has said previously that he would be bringing up with President Donald Trump the possibility of easing sanctions to allow members of the Russian parliament to come to Washington, D.C., as part of exchanges.

Trump played golf with Paul over the weekend at the president’s country club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

He made a similar statement during his remarks at the Foreign Relations panel on Tuesday morning. The hearing came following revelations by Microsoft about recent Russian-backed hacking efforts.

“Whether or not there’s any element of the sanctions where we would be willing to negotiate lessening of sanctions in exchange for maybe a smaller change of behavior. If we wait for Russia to leave Crimea to lift any sanctions, we may well be waiting ’til the end of time,” Paul said.

 

On 9/26/2018 at 9:45 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

On 10/10/2018 at 9:54 AM, Js1 said:

Oh really Rand?

 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 3:32 PM, lemonlime said:

Someone's gonna have one hell of a hangover tomorrow after the day drinking today.  This whole thread is gold.

 

 

On 3/13/2019 at 5:53 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like clockwork 

 

 

On 4/4/2019 at 4:04 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rand going all in on hypocrisy.

Mr. transparency indeed. 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Rand Paul, American hero.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

18 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

The literal title of the thread has been changed to "Rand Paul was always a piece of shit."

Anastasia's reference to his efforts to block arm sales to a country that hangs little boys in the streets for peacefully protesting the SA government is not really indicative of a piece of shit in my book.  

Blocking arm sales would actually be a benefit to the world, a benefit to American Taxpayers and reduce spending, but Rand has no principles so it matters not. 

 

 

 

Explain that? Do you think the United States pays for the arms we export to the Saudis? 

[Anastasis 23703]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 No, it's a consistent position that goes back decades that stimulus during recession is appropriate and surplus is appropriate during expansion. See how that works? You're wrong. We do have a revenue problem.

Great.  So you would support a form of a BBA that had a mechanism for appropriate stimulus and deficit spending when required based on some objective economic indicators.  This shouldn't be rocket science to scope out. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Rand wears the jackboots well.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[elfenix 34661]

balanced budget amendment would create immediate problems while only solving vague future problems (at best).  it's just another bullshit platitude from republicans who are interested in gutting the welfare state, just like 'personal responsibility' and 'limited government.'

Edited July 18, 2019 by elfenix

[Lagunamadre 1975]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

balanced budget amendment would create immediate problems while only solving vague future problems (at best).  it's just another bullshit platitude from republicans who are interested in gutting the welfare state, just like 'personal responsibility' and 'limited government.'

Not to mention it would absolutely hamstring us the next time we have a recession and require a fiscal stimulus. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 hours ago, American Swindle said:

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!!

That’s a paddlin’

[elguapo 4620]

39 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Explain that? Do you think the United States pays for the arms we export to the Saudis? 

He's probably using the same math that the radical right used when they claimed that the Trump tax cut would pay for itself.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

The literal title of the thread has been changed to "Rand Paul was always a piece of shit."

Anastasia's reference to his efforts to block arm sales to a country that hangs little boys in the streets for peacefully protesting the SA government is not really indicative of a piece of shit in my book.  

Blocking arm sales would actually be a benefit to the world, a benefit to American Taxpayers and reduce spending, but Rand has no principles so it matters not. 

 

 

 

Oh you better believe that’s a paddlin!

[JimmyJames 12271]

Holy shit thanks to our friend American Swindle just noticed the new thread title! Good work Hugo! Your surly powers and influence are not to be denied. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

6 hours 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.

This is such libtard BS!  Its just like that time my wife and I got our first jobs and raking up credit card debt to pay the bills.  The first thing we did was go to our bosses and demand a pay cut.  Then we went on bimonthly expensive vacations and ate out every day.  Somehow that didn’t immediately balance our budget but I did put my foot down when my wife tried to tip 16% instead of 15% cause I am a principled conservative.

[bad_teammate 13482]

Now Hugo needs to change the title of the Nancy Pelosi thread because HOLY SHIT that's embarrassing

I guess he's grown in the last year.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

Also Rand wouldn’t have to be playing big man and trying to de-escalate tensions with Iran if Dotard hadn’t acted like a spurned 12 year old cutting his ex girlfriends face out of pictures, when he trashed the agreement because Obama!

[Gil Bang 26178]

Seriously, what a fucking dick this guy is.  He's a national disgrace.  

Recent example.

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20839]

We already have this thread.  The "Rand Paul Was Always a Piece of Shit"  thread out front should have told you.
 

 

[maninblack 7975]

 

[F250 29180]

I stopped by Black's for some barbecue the other day because it's always been at the top of my list.

I would rate the brisket a 3.5

[RPM 26566]

This Epstein guy is a real piece of shit.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-grows-more-grotesque

[HenryJames 67128]

 

[retread 2951]

Disgusting. Typical DC pol attitude.

Edited July 19, 2019 by retread

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

20 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Paul:  "Watch our propaganda channel so we can give you our version of the truth."