Gene Frenkle Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 Isn't this debate proof that you're wrong? The big-government people cornered the "ignoring consequences" market. By the time the consequences kick in, there's not much you can do about their existence. The question becomes what to do about them. The anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore them.
drnykterstein Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 Is this strange man going to be the typical teabagger candidate? http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010...-fallout-begins I don't mind Rand Paul. Maddow just ruthlessly grilled him over and over on that topic for 20 minutes, but I think he held up well. He even said at the end "I enjoy being on your show". I think that showed some real character on his part. Far more character than the mindless drones we currently have in Washington. I can't see most of them sitting through such a grilling and coming out with a smile on.
Magox Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 rand paul-1 big government liberals-zero ummm actually more like rand paul-1 establishment republicans-0
WisconsinBillzFan Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 ummm actually more like rand paul-1 establishment republicans-0 I mean how he's made the liberals looks stupid over this.
Booster4324 Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 rand paul-1 big government liberals-zero Guess that answers the question of whether Rand Paul is racist.
Fastback Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 Sing with me Hedd- He's a Supercreep, Supercreep, He's Supercreepy, Yow!
Alaska Darin Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 ummm actually more like rand paul-1 establishment republicans-0 There isn't a difference between big government liberals and establishment republicans.
Alaska Darin Posted May 20, 2010 Posted May 20, 2010 The anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore them. Ridiculous.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 He is alittle niave if he actually believes that not outlawing discrimination in private accodations is fine. I guess he is just so much a white anti-government fanatic he can't understand why its so important for black people to be allowed to have the right to food, shelter and other accomodations when they are traveling. I doubt he is a racist, but I think he just is about as niave as any libertarian on this issue. The 1964 Civil Rights act is one of the greatest accmplishments of an activist Federal government. Things have improved in race relations tremendously since the Federal government began imposing its will on the racists. I'm very interested to see how this libertarian presents his views on marijana and other drugs to the state electorate. Will the marijuana lobby get behind his campaign in the hopes of having a pro-decriminalization Senator in Washington? Just on that issue alone his winning and pushing that issue would be a real change on that issue. And as a libertarian shouldn't he want to end medicare? Does he agree with his dad about 9-11? Does he want Fort Campbell closed and Federal troops withdrawn from the state? Will he bring the Federal pork home to Kentucky? Seems like he is off to a rocky start, and he should not be doing interviews on NPR and Rachael Maddow show. Conservative Kentuckians will not like that. Does he have national abitions or something? He is an interesting candiadte though
murra Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I noticed two things from this video. 1) It was hardly "epic", as described on the linked website. 2) This isn't an issue. I watched the hour-long Kentucky republican senate debate for fun last week, and at no point was this brought up. Clearly when this was brought to him on NPR it was a ridiculous non-issue based question, and the fact that Maddow was pressing him using some ridiculous high-cholesterol analogy made her appear to be grabbing at straws as opposed to asking the tough questions her supposed remarkable journalist-superhero persona would lead you to expect. I was not satisfied with this thread, because I thought I would get to see a meltdown, and republican, liberal, libertarian alike, I'm in for a a good meltdown. This was a run-of-the-mill interview, actually below average, and it holds no basis whatsoever being posted. It's basically the definition of not-newsworthy.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 By the time the consequences kick in, there's not much you can do about their existence. The question becomes what to do about them. The anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore them. Retarded. 1. When unintended consequences kick in that were caused by big government....how much do you want to believe Gene's solution is....even more big government? Boy at this rate, we will have soooo much "good" big government, all our problems will be solved....just like the USSR! 2. The REAL problem is: a. there ARE problems only government can solve b. big government does not provide specific solutions to specific problems, because by definition it is...big c. massive, permanent, and mostly useless agencies(um, TSA?) are created who sole purpose in life is their own continuance, with actually solving the problems they were intended to solve as a distant 2nd priority. d. in this way, government is exactly like the pharma companies, they never cure the problem, they just keep taxing us for "treatment" of the symptoms e. every time I argue b-d, some fool comes along and tells me either I don't understand a., or, that I don't agree with a., or, would prefer to ignore the problems only government can solve, and therefore I am an idiot/evil f. Reality: there ARE problems only government can solve, but, government is not the best solution to most problems Kinda like Gene here...he is trying to tell us that the reason we don't like b-d is because we want to ignore a., or, that we are "evil" because we don't agree with a. The existence of a. doesn't negate b-d. In most cases, abuse of a. causes b-d. Gene: People(Tea Party, etc.) aren't pissed because we can't ignore a. People are pissed because you won't deal with the reality that is b-d, and that you keep trying to tell us that b-d doesn't exist. Or, that we should gleefully accept b-d, for no other reason than: because you/Hollywood idiots/people that have never run a business in their life say so.
IDBillzFan Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 It's basically the definition of not-newsworthy. Which is basically the definition of a Bishop thread.
pBills Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 All of this Tea Party stuff is just nonsense... just a way to rebrand the Republican party.
Magox Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 All of this Tea Party stuff is just nonsense... just a way to rebrand the Republican party. Yup, which is why in the first two primaries, Bob Bennet from Utah and Trey Grayson, two establishment Republicans were ousted by the Tea Party. Seriously PBills, before you say anything, you should check your facts first and see if they align with the truth, because it makes you look, well......
pBills Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Yup, which is why in the first two primaries, Bob Bennet from Utah and Trey Grayson, two establishment Republicans were ousted by the Tea Party. Seriously PBills, before you say anything, you should check your facts first and see if they align with the truth, because it makes you look, well...... What is that little letter next Rand Pauls name? Is it an R?
stuckincincy Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 By the time the consequences kick in, there's not much you can do about their existence. The question becomes what to do about them. The anti-big-government stance is to simply ignore them. Please. Racist, exclusively-black fraternity/soroity at a public university. Racist, exclusively-black fraternity/soroity at a private university. Tell me why these obviously racist organizations exist... The government has no business sticking their noses into the workings of the private sector, regarding who or who they do not hire. Unless you despise our Constitution, and the right of the people to conduct their affairs without some regime controlling their activities. Here's some more food for you to munch on, since you play racist politics: http://www.wfaa.com/news/national/94274079.html
Magox Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 What is that little letter next Rand Pauls name? Is it an R? He ran as a tea party candidate, and the establishment republican Trey Grayson, who was endorsed by Mitch McConnell (the highest ranking republican in the galaxy) lost. Bob Bennett, who is a life time Republican was ousted in the primaries by the tea party movement. These are facts... The facts don't align with your previous statement.
pBills Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 He ran as a tea party candidate, and the establishment republican Trey Grayson, who was endorsed by Mitch McConnell (the highest ranking republican in the galaxy) lost. Bob Bennett, who is a life time Republican was ousted in the primaries by the tea party movement. These are facts... The facts don't align with your previous statement. I know who won and lost. Not a surprise by that... and when the dust settles he's still a Republican.
Recommended Posts