Senator Rand Paul proposes $500B in cuts
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0B8--qw1ws
He wants to end both wars.
He wants term limits for ALL.
He wants to end ALL foreign aid, aid like the $3 BILLION that the US sends to Israel each year.
Them wacky TEA Party folks.
He wants to end both wars.
He wants term limits for ALL.
He wants to end ALL foreign aid, aid like the $3 BILLION that the US sends to Israel each year.
Them wacky TEA Party folks.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
On May 19, 2010, Paul stated that he favors 9 out of 10 titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but had he been a senator during 1960s, he would have raised some questions on the constitutionality of Title II of the Act, which prohibits private businesses who provide public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, or national origin against their customers, arguing that it infringes upon constitutional freedoms.
Paul's comments on Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964 stirred controversy[73][74][75] and brought concern among Republican party insiders about his viability in the general election.[74][75] Paul later released a statement declaring that he would have voted for the Act and stated "unequivocally ... that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964".
Amid a flurry of controversy, Paul became the first American politician to cancel an appearance on Meet the Press in their 64-year history.[79] Additionally, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, publicly denounced him, saying that Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is a "misplaced" philosophy for the 21st Century.
On May 21, 2010, Paul appeared on The Situation Room and told host Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.
On June 14, 2010 the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Paul, who described himself as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, was not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology.[82] From 1995 through 2005 Paul had an AMA-recognized certification until it lapsed.[83] Paul is currently certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, a rival organization founded by Paul himself in 1999 with Paul as president and his wife as vice-president.
The National Board of Ophthalmology's mailing address is a UPS Store in Bowling Green, Kentucky; the organization lacks a website, and is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS).[82] A spokesperson for the ABMS stated: "He [Paul] is not board-certified."[82] Neither Paul's National Board of Ophthalmology nor the American Board of Ophthalmology has anything to do with medical licensure, which is handled by state boards.
In interviews before the May 2010 Republican Senatorial primary, Paul stated that he was certified by both boards.[82] When first questioned on his certifications, Paul responded, "I'm not going to go through all that right now... What does this have to do with our election?"[82] He subsequently described such questions as "a personal assault on my ability to make a living"[89] and that "you vilify me and make it out to sound, 'Oh, ... there's something wrong with him as a physician because he chose not to register (with the American Board of Ophthalmology).'"[85] Paul's spokesperson stated that Paul's earlier claim of dual board certification was misspoken in response to an unclear question.
Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.[119][120][121] He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest.
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
what are the true issues?
what topics should not be discussed?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
obama's birth certificate has nothing to do with being against the 14th amendment
or lying about being certified to do his job
or being against abortion regarding rape and incest
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
don't you want to know what the person you vote for believes in?
or is it just about the budget?
he lied about his job
he told us how he wants to allow people to be judged by the color of their skin
and then his people told him he could not say that
and then he said he WOULD HAVE voted in support of the 14th amendment
typical polititian
and as long as your taxes go down
you would vote for him
typical american
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
against the 14th amendment? or do you mean against Jus soli? because that is the proposed amendment. so adding stipulations to birth right citizenship is wrong? you should go to all the countries who have made such amendments and tell them how awful they are...like bascially ALL of Europe and 80% of the world governments. But you are right, it is a racist policy that proves that Rand Paul cannot make budget cuts. Seriously, why the strawman argument? Either you think these are good cuts or not.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i think rand paul is a racist piece of shit
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Care to provide some proof that your current president is a racist?
The whole ordeal with the Boston Police Department and "acting stupidly" when they arrested a black man. Also when he instantly fired a member of the FDA when he speech was edited and spliced to make her sound racist.
I agree with him. However as he also stated that club or business should be prepared to face the consequences.
Bottom line is he wants $500,000,000,000 in spending cuts. Show me another politician who has taken that stand.
Typical? The only thing that is typical is certain people here that can't discuss the topic at hand.
i think what people need to realize is that governing is more than 3 or 4 points or issues ... elected representatives make decisions on a plethora of issues and points ...
conservatives and those on the right are great at focusing on the issues key to their voters which ultimately are taxes and "freedom" ... but they also vote on things like prop 8 in california and other issues ... that's when their ideologue plays a factor ...
as a socialist - i believe in many aspects of the libetarian system however, there are many things that i don't believe in ...
like i've been saying - life is a team sport ... the societies that will work best will always be ones that put team goals ahead of personal goals ... it's not that socialism wants to limite freedoms - just simply, that ones desires for personal desires should never outweigh those of the people ...
Why does being in favor of private property rights for people's businesses as well as freedom of speech (no matter how ugly it is) have to automatically equate to Dr. Paul being a racist? I can't stand the Westboro Baptist Church and what they do, but if they're on a public sidewalk-- I'm not about calling the cops on them until they get violent-- and I sure as hell don't think that "GOD HATES FAGS" nor do I "THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS." I do recognize their right to exist and be as moronic as they want to be-- and I also reserve the right to call them assholes for being that way.
If ending racism were as easy as outlawing it, everyone would be in favor of laws doing exactly that and it would happen tomorrow. But it doesn't work that way. Certain people are either ignorant, easily influenced, or faultily wired, and because of that, racism and prejudice will never truly die. It can however find itself in a comatose so long as it is not being FORCED down people's throats through the will of the state. Any business in 2011 America that puts a sign on the door that reads "NIGGERS NOT SERVED HERE" is going to fail, OR, it's going to have to rely on the 4 or 5 incredibly loyal and ignorant clients to survive, and they can have their private hate-filled bitching sessions, as long as nobody gets hurt. I see it as a more natural checks and balance system to make sure that the hateful people in this world do not profit off of the people they claim to hate, or anyone else for that matter. Laws restricting free speech actually dupe you into helping out some truly huge jerk-offs, because hey, they gotta serve everyone, and they are NOT allowed to wear their ignorance on their sleeve.
To call Rand a "racist piece of shit" without having any evidence of him actually saying or doing anything racist proves that you do not understand his side of this argument. You don't have to agree with him-- call his solution uptopian or unrealistic maybe, but you have no foundation to call him a racist.
But again, this argument is best left where it will always be-- it will be debated purely intellecutally and will never see the light of day as legislation-- that is, repealing that one part of the Civil Rights Act. It's over, and you've got nothing to fear.
You could move beyond this, and realize that you may disagree with some of Rand's points on the economy and social issues, but join him in ENDING 2 VERY VIOLENT WARS WHERE PEOPLE OF ALL COLORS ARE BEING KILLED AND MAIMED EVERYDAY. Who else is speaking out against this but both Dr. Pauls, and a select few libertarian minded Republicans and probably a few more Democrats?
Now this IS a real issue, worth talking about, and worth doing something about. To get wrapped up in Dr. Paul's view of the Civil Rights Act or his Board Certification status is the equivalent of challenging Obama's Birth Status. It's partsian bullshit, and it's got nothing to do with anything aside from supporting the false 2-party paradigm that continually divides us.
I will admit as someone who has been following him a long time that Rand IS more of a "politician" than his dad, and is more beholden to his party than his father. But, overall he's got some great ideas and far more in favor of true liberty than 99% of everyone else out there.
He wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education. True. The States have their own, and another level of it is not necessary. I agree with this move.
Libertarianism is rooted in classical Liberalism, which sounds exactly like what you are talking about-- that their IS a responsibility to your fellow man in your dealings. Everyone has a role, and is free to choose that role, but bears the responsibility of doing that role honestly and without harm to anyone else, and assumes no right to anyone else's life or property. In this way, libertarians are just like socialists.
However, we do not believe the state serves any real efficiency in making sure that society plays like a team outside of providing common defense, enforcing contracts between consenting parties by acting as a just third party, and protecting life, liberty, and property.
Same goal, different implementation if you ask me.
yeah ... i know the individual rights of the states are important to you guys however, i believe education should be mandated and regulated at the national level ... that is should be free or at least heavily subsidized ...
as for the philosophies ... i think what it boils down to is what would work best in society ... knowing full well what most people would do without regulations, mainly corporations, i have no faith that this society would do what's best for all as opposed to just looking out for themselves ...
if anything socialism recognizes human dynamics ... hence the need for government and regulations ... i'm not sure where i've said greed does not exist and that socialism equates to slavery ...
uhhhh ... a large reason for socialism is in fact greed ... i'm not sure what your ideas of socialism are and from where you got it but i am pretty sure socialism acknowledges the existence of greed ...
socialists place greater value on the wants and needs of the masses vs. the individual ... modern day socialism recognizes that given free reign and without restrictions - people would act strictly on their own self interests and that although the majority of people are not selfish or greedy ... the few that are would wreak a significant impact to those who are not ...
socialists believe in government and the need to regulate things like health care and education and the environment ... given free reign - socialists do not believe that corporations will act in the best interests of society but for themselves ... so, if that means dumping toxic waste into a watershed - that is what a corporation will do ...
care to explain why you think socialists do not acknowledge greed?
haven't we been thru this? ... it's no more a theory than capitalism is ... every theory has to be tweaked but there needs to be a foundation ...
if you look at any index or study of the best countries in the world to live ... they all employ a socialist foundation to governance and society ...
http://www.newsweek.com/feature/2010/th ... tries.html