Official Rand Paul For President Thread

[SilentSnow 1]

Who's painting with the broad brush now? Are you blind to the fact that most people are upset with the republican party because they have been acting like the democratic party?

I'd be curious to see what it is you think Democrats and Republicans believe. I think you have things exactly opposite. Liberals are upset with the Democratic party because they rarely oppose the republican party and usually do what republicans want. Republicans are acting like they always have, just more extreme- Support the rich, the military and Christians and screw everyone else. In the last decade Republicans have gotten their way on almost every issue. Since their views of the world tend not to work in reality, then things have not gone well.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Everyone should probably note Silent Snow's location.

[Balloon guy 158]

Way to completely misrepresent what someone says, again. Clearly I am talking about this specific instance, not republicans in general. But as for Fox, they are unbelievably cynical and corrupt. Are they wrong about everything? No. But all they are is a propaganda channel with zero interest in representing the truth. They lie so often it would be difficult to even begin to list them all. Your republican friends should be leery of them since the Republican party has been hijacked by extremists who have zero interest in a factual discussion. I am not a democrat. In general I think that they rarely follow their principles and are fairly incompetent. But given a party that is incompetent vs one actively trying to destroy the country, I am going to tend to side with the incompetent one.

I'd be curious to see what it is you think Democrats and Republicans believe. I think you have things exactly opposite. Liberals are upset with the Democratic party because they rarely oppose the republican party and usually do what republicans want. Republicans are acting like they always have, just more extreme- Support the rich, the military and Christians and screw everyone else. In the last decade Republicans have gotten their way on almost every issue. Since their views of the world tend not to work in reality, then things have not gone well.

I am amazed at how a functioning adult can buy into this complete broad brushing of the right without a single hiccup in their conscience.Fox News is always lying, republicans are always lying, democrats are trying hard but sometimes get misled by republicans.

[SilentSnow 1]

So you disagree with me, but are so arrogant that you think it is enough to name call rather than provide any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong. If you want to have a real discussion, then list a specific point you disagree with and what facts support your opinion. I will avoid generalizations and use specific examples supporting my worldview since it is clear that we are way too far apart for it to be worthwhile making big picture statements.

[El Guapo 8]

So you disagree with me, but are so arrogant that you think it is enough to name call rather than provide any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong. If you want to have a real discussion, then list a specific point you disagree with and what facts support your opinion. I will avoid generalizations and use specific examples supporting my worldview since it is clear that we are way too far apart for it to be worthwhile making big picture statements.

But that is all you have done. All you have said is Repub's bad. Pick and issue, discuss it, and you will get feedback. Coming in here after not having posted in a while and pointing fingers is not going to illicit a serious response from anyone.

[Balloon guy 158]

So you disagree with me, but are so arrogant that you think it is enough to name call rather than provide any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong. If you want to have a real discussion, then list a specific point you disagree with and what facts support your opinion. I will avoid generalizations and use specific examples supporting my worldview since it is clear that we are way too far apart for it to be worthwhile making big picture statements.

? When did I name call? You are the one calling me arrogant.You are the one generalizing, I am merely pointing out how partisan and biased you are.Discussion about what? Taxes? Military spending? Home schooling? Redistricting? Obama's friends being either terrorist or sexual deviants?This discussion was about how Rand Paul is firmly grounded and the left is trying to destroy our country by spending all the money ever printed and then some while trying to prevent the republicans from stopping them. But we can talk about anything if you want.Let's do abortion, that's always one for level headed discussion. you go first.

[Balloon guy 158]

But that is all you have done. All you have said is Repub's bad. Pick and issue, discuss it, and you will get feedback. Coming in here after not having posted in a while and pointing fingers is not going to illicit a serious response from anyone.

YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH YOU FASCISTThis is where SS will tell me that he already knows me and how far right I am and try to make this my problem

[SilentSnow 1]

But that is all you have done. All you have said is Repub's bad. Pick and issue, discuss it, and you will get feedback. Coming in here after not having posted in a while and pointing fingers is not going to illicit a serious response from anyone.

Actually, the first thing I did was state that the Republicans were wildly wrong in blaming the collapse on Barney Frank. No one disputed this. Instead, they went straight to name calling. I would be more than happy to support everything I say with facts, but you guys so far have given me nothing to even argue against.

[Balloon guy 158]

So Barney Franks had nothing to do with the home price collapse?And by name calling..you mean when I called you a functioning adult?I apologize for that.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Instead, they went straight to name calling.

You're an idiot.*

I would be more than happy to support everything I say with facts.

"The Republicans are actively trying to destroy the country." Go!*I didn't want you to be wrong about everything.

[SilentSnow 1]

? When did I name call? You are the one calling me arrogant.You are the one generalizing, I am merely pointing out how partisan and biased you are.This discussion was about how Rand Paul is firmly grounded and the left is trying to destroy our country by spending all the money ever printed and then some while trying to prevent the republicans from stopping them. But we can talk about anything if you want.Let's do abortion, that's always one for level headed discussion. you go first.

"I am amazed at how a functioning adult can buy into this complete broad brushing of the right without a single hiccup in their conscience."I did generalize, but since our opinions are wildly different I have offered to avoid doing that. Although sometimes you have to in order to illustrate the bigger picture. Actually, Abortion is one of the worst things to discuss since it tends to revolve around fundamental differences in worldviews. There is very little potential common ground. I think that in order to be a moral entity then you have to be able to feel pain and have consciousness. Embryos in the first trimester clearly don't meet this standard, so do not have moral rights. Many Christians disagree, and short of completely changing their worldviews I don't know how a common ground can be reached on this.

[Balloon guy 158]

"I am amazed at how a functioning adult can buy into this complete broad brushing of the right without a single hiccup in their conscience."

If that constitutes name calling in your book, you really shouldn't hang in the politics section.

I did generalize, but since our opinions are wildly different I have offered to avoid doing that. Although sometimes you have to in order to illustrate the bigger picture.

So you felt I would be unable to grasp your meaning unless you used severe hyperbole? Okay.

Actually, Abortion is one of the worst things to discuss since it tends to revolve around fundamental differences in worldviews. There is very little potential common ground.

Wouldn't common ground be to reduce the number of abortions? Nobody really wants abortions, one side wants to outlaw it and the other wants to kill as many small children as possible in the minority community. Okay, one side really wants abortion.

I think that in order to be a moral entity then you have to be able to feel pain and have consciousness. Embryos in the first trimester clearly don't meet this standard, so do not have moral rights. Many Christians disagree, and short of completely changing their worldviews I don't know how a common ground can be reached on this.

So all lepers who are asleep are okay to kill? What about 3rd trimester babies? It's perfectly acceptable to kill them one minute before natural labor begins?

[SilentSnow 1]

So all lepers who are asleep are okay to kill? What about 3rd trimester babies? It's perfectly acceptable to kill them one minute before natural labor begins?

No, because there are plenty of conscious lepers out there and their lives would be much worse if they had the expectation that they might be killed at any moment. 3rd trimester is more of a grey area since fetus' start to have some characteristics of people. It doesn't reach the level of murder since I don't think they are fully human yet, but 3rd trimester abortions should be severely restricted. I think they should only be allowed if the life of the mother is at risk. Of course some people might be unhappy with this compromise since risk can be subjective, but it is going too far to require the mother to die for a fetus.I don't know anyone that actually wants more abortions, other than maybe a theoretical extreme racist. Abortions have been going down. But the question is whether they should be avoided or reduced to zero. Sometimes an abortion is the lesser of two evils."Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. "These numbers aren't current, but I'm guessing the ratio is still similar. I think it is worth pointing out that the number of 3rd trimester abortions is completely minuscule. There legitimately might be 100 women each year whose life really is threatened by their pregnancy.

[El Guapo 8]

He didn't really want to discuss aborting. Please don't start that topic here. This thread is for discussing Rand Paul and the budget issues he is trying to solve, I would accept discussion about Paul Ryan here as well.Bob - when you make SJ the sports forums moderator, can I be this forums moderator?-----In regards to Barney Frank. He and that black woman (I cannot remember her name) went leaps and bounds to make sure that every American could afford a home. Then the banks got greedy because they could throw everything back on Fannie and Freddy, or at least that is what they thought. If Fannie and Freddy had not had the power and authority I don't believe this would have ever happened. Now I don't know over the years who had more influence on those entities, but I do know that they private company/government hybrid was a bad idea.

[SilentSnow 1]

He didn't really want to discuss aborting. Please don't start that topic here. This thread is for discussing Rand Paul and the budget issues he is trying to solve, I would accept discussion about Paul Ryan here as well.

I know that. I was humoring him. But the Republicans don't know that. Apparently they think it is an essential part of a budget deal to eliminate Planned Parenthood funding and gut the EPA. So I guess the plan is to do what they can to sabotage an agreement then blame it on the Democrats anyways since a significant portion of the country will literally believe anything they say. As for Ryan, it is laughably unrealistic and nothing more than a Republican fantasy. Here are a couple links about it that I generally agree with. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_wo...e_great_society

[hblask 1]

This seems like a very simplistic argument and it also does not seem to reflect what Rand Paul says. I mean yeah, of course everything would be great if the rules were simple. But they're not, because they have to cover such an enormous amount of possibilities and potentialities.

I know, with murder laws, you have to have a law against murdering someone with a knife in the kitchen, with a knife in the living room, with a toaster cord in the den, with a blender cord in the garden, with a gun from behind while shooting with your left hand, with a gun from behind while shooting with your right hand... otherwise, how could we ever punish people for murder?Do you think that would be an effective strategy, to define every possible murder scenario to cover the "enormous amount of possibilities and potentialities"? Or do you think maybe we could just outlaw the actual crime instead of every possible means of accomplishing it? The Dems seem to think the "write down every possible scenario and hire 100 regulators for each one" method will work best. I see no real world evidence of such a thing. The financial meltdown -- which occurred at the moment of our history with the most regulations and most regulators -- is a classic example of why.

Rand Paul thought people were giving BP too much shit.

, and the host (eventually) does a fine job of explaining why.

OK, those hosts are the most annoying people on earth. Seriously, I want to gouge my ears and eyes out after three seconds.What did you find wrong with Rand Paul's response? I thought he made the host look ridiculous. Those hosts have a combined IQ of about 10. They make up random positions that nobody holds, then argues against them in really annoying tones. Rand's point was that ignoring safety regulations is ALREADY against the law, and nobody opposes those laws. What the hell do you think more laws will do? Pass a law that makes it illegal to ignore the fact that you ignored that last law? And his second point was, do you think the president should have dictatorial powers to arbitrarily punish people who make him look bad? If that clip is the best you got, I'm actually optimistic for America's future, because anyone can see right through that nonsense.

[hblask 1]

This is very disappointing indeed. People that don't seem to know the difference between scientific theory and the layman's definition of theory really have no business discussing the Theory of Evolution, but then again maybe more creationists understand the difference than I give them credit for and choose to try to apply the layman's definition to discredit Evolution anyways.I know that the Pauls may not be part of the creationist movement, but either way, aggressive creationists cause me great distress. Such a large part of the religious population around the world thinking they have a better idea of what should be taught in science classrooms than Biologists and Scientists in general is very concerning. Hopefully understanding and obeying the First Amendment is a greater priority to Ron and Rand Paul and other true libertarians who don't believe in Evolution.

Ron Paul does not believe that the federal government should have a role in education, so he certainly doesn't want federal mandates to teach evolution. His personal views are his personal views; he legislates with his principles.

[hblask 1]

According to who?

According to, oh, C-SPAN's historical video of the hearings.

[hblask 1]

I know that. I was humoring him. As for Ryan, it is laughably unrealistic and nothing more than a Republican fantasy. Here are a couple links about it that I generally agree with. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_wo...e_great_society

LOL at anyone quoting Krugman as if he has an contact with reality. Nice one, we almost believe you were serious there for a second.

[hblask 1]

As for Ryan, it is laughably unrealistic and nothing more than a Republican fantasy. Here are a couple links about it that I generally agree with.

The main thing that is unrealistic about Ryan's plan is that it takes a f-ing 65 years to balance the budget, and that there are so many idiots who call that "radical".If it was me, I'd give it 3 years to balance the budget, then 10 years to pay of the debt, and then get a constitutional amendment that you can only spend as much as you collected in the prior year. And that's my moderate plan.

[SilentSnow 1]

According to, oh, C-SPAN's historical video of the hearings.

You're telling me that -with Bush as president(who ignored Democrats more than any president in history)-both houses controlled by Republicans-the House Committee on Financial Services with a majority of republicans-chaired by a republicanthat they were completely helpless to pass any laws or regulations? Of course this doesn't even take into account that Fannie and Freddie only contributed a tiny fraction towards the collapse since the huge majority of home loans in this country were voluntary and the housing market was only a small part of the collapse in general. Honestly, all I can do is laugh. If you really believe this then there isn't much else to say.

[SilentSnow 1]

LOL at anyone quoting Krugman as if he has an contact with reality. Nice one, we almost believe you were serious there for a second.

You're right. I don't know why I would ever take the word of a Nobel prize winning economist over that of some anonymous internet ideologue who is apparently too busy to bother to glance at what anyone else might say on a subject or even come up with a single sentence in favor of his position.

[brvheart 1,752]

Didn't Obama win a Nobel prize?

[timwakefield 68]

I know, with murder laws, you have to have a law against murdering someone with a knife in the kitchen, with a knife in the living room, with a toaster cord in the den, with a blender cord in the garden, with a gun from behind while shooting with your left hand, with a gun from behind while shooting with your right hand... otherwise, how could we ever punish people for murder?Do you think that would be an effective strategy, to define every possible murder scenario to cover the "enormous amount of possibilities and potentialities"?

Your analogy doesn't make sense. First of all, there are a number of different laws describing different forms and acts of murder. Murder isn't just murder, it's first degree or second degree or third degree, or it's manslaughter in whatever degree. Oh, and each state has it's own unique laws describing murder. Murder isn't just murder.But that's almost beside the point. I don't see how you can equate something as relatively cut-and-dry as murder with something as vague and ever-changing as egregious pollution, or unsafe work conditions, etc. Do you think we can just say, "Hey corporations, don't pollute, or else!" Or that our worker safety laws should be, "Hey businesses, be nice!" No, we have and need in some areas extremely strict, rigorous, comprehensive regulations that cover tons and tons of different practices and specific pieces of equipment. If government regulations had been followed, the BP disaster and the mining disaster that Paul mentions could both have been (quite probably) averted. Paul isn't arguing against more regulatory laws, he is arguing against the current ones. You're pretending otherwise, which is dishonest.Those government regulations, one set for BP and a totally different set for a mining company, are extremely detailed and outline exactly what and how things must be done so that worker safety and environmental safety are met, right down to the specific equipment that is used and that it has to measure up to specific legal standards.

OK, those hosts are the most annoying people on earth. Seriously, I want to gouge my ears and eyes out after three seconds.

I don't disagree, but that was where I found the clip.

What did you find wrong with Rand Paul's response? I thought he made the host look ridiculous. Those hosts have a combined IQ of about 10. They make up random positions that nobody holds, then argues against them in really annoying tones. Rand's point was that ignoring safety regulations is ALREADY against the law, and nobody opposes those laws. What the hell do you think more laws will do? Pass a law that makes it illegal to ignore the fact that you ignored that last law? And his second point was, do you think the president should have dictatorial powers to arbitrarily punish people who make him look bad? If that clip is the best you got, I'm actually optimistic for America's future, because anyone can see right through that nonsense.

You're arguing falsely. Rand Paul is in favor of deregulation in many, if not most areas. You're pretending that he's in favor of leaving things as they are. He thinks environmental protection laws are generally bad. He thinks businesses like BP should be expected to clean up their mistakes and give restitution to those unfairly harmed just out of the goodness of their hearts, and because they will look bad if they don't. That's totally insane. Paul's insistence that, "Accidents happen," is preposterous. Regulations prevent a vast number of potential "accidents," if they are followed. Paul is not arguing against stricter regulations like you imply - his is arguing in favor of less regulations in the first place.

[nutzbuster 7]

Didn't Obama win a Nobel prize?