patrick.net

Vicente says

Kevin says

I was making a crack about him not being board certified.

Well that one went right over my head. Fascinating. He doesn’t have any AMA certification, his only certification is from a board that HE founded. Good that he approved himself, and that Kentucky apparently doesn’t require AMA qualifications to hang out the doctor shingle.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/06/14/rand

The AMA has nothing to do with medical schools, residencies, licensing, or board certification. Licensing is a state function, medical schools/residencies have accrediting bodies, and certification boards are professional organizations. The AMA is basically a political lobbying group. Less than 20% of doctors even belong to the AMA. The AMA far from some omnipotent all controlling entity you are describing. Board certification is done voluntarily through a doctor's particular specialties board. Something like 80% of doctors are board certified, but it's a voluntary professional credential. No state requires a board certification to be licensed or to practice. There is nothing sinister in any of this. Many professions have voluntary standards organizations.

None of this doesn't mean that Rand Paul isn't just another lying scumbag politician. I don't believe he was corrupted at all. He was lying from the get go.

bob2356,

Points taken, thanks for the education on the matter.

Vicente says

“I paid those taxes, I deserve them back”…..hmmmm, Kentucky already gets $1.51 in federal outlay for every $1 it tenders. Isn’t there some appropriate phrase for this, perhaps “starve the beast”? It is only by pain of enforced diet, that fat is lost. Yes that seems apt let’s cut outlay to all “fat” states so they immediately get 1:1 if not less.

Its so tempting, isn't it!

I totally see where you're coming from but I just can't agree with you on that... the notion of supporting each other through rough times is the foundation of a 'Union' and the basis of what really holds the country together... though I sure wish there was a public figure with sway who was willing or able to communicate the reality of Kentucky's financial situation to the mouthbreathers, especially the ones with the silly hairdoos...

Up in Canada, Quebec went through a similar contradiction & realization years ago when they were floating a huge push to separate, you may remember it. Far from being the economic powerhouse they felt they were it soon became a key part of the debate that they actually took more money OUT of the federal coffers than they put in, and when they started talking about keeping the Canadian Dollar but removing themselves from the country's debt obligation it just became ludicrous and helped tilt the debate. I think "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" was one of the less charitable lines that made the rounds at the time but lines that sure knocked the balls off the separation effort.

The 'let them starve' argument has been employed in California, to disastrous results, by way of prop 13. One of the things it did was limit funding to schools to what they received from their immediate district tax base (exact terminology may not be correct here, please correct me if not), the result of which in San Francisco we have some schools that are very well funded and some that are abjectly poor, and California has shifted from being one of the top education states before Prop 13 came into play to being one of the lowest. There are good schools here & there - the ones in rich neighborhoods - but overall its been a nightmare for almost everyone.

Its not a philosophy that serves anyone well at all in a union.

kentm says

t… the notion of supporting each other through rough times is the foundation of a ‘Union’ and the basis of what really holds the country together…

My point was just to outline what seems idiocy to me. That anyone "deserves" their share of the tax money back just because... they paid it in. Particularly if they are already getting more back than they put in. And most particularly when it's said by people who otherwise act like all taxes are theft and should be abolished.

I'm familiar with the Quebec separatism, but hadn't thought much about the currency issue for them, good point.

And I absolutely agree with you on that, 100 percent.

Why they don't they have it rubbed in their faces more?

EDIT:

Ever see this? Its one of my FAVORITE political humor rants evar:

Fuck The South
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokethesouth.htm

This system is the exact reason why the US will state the dominant currency while the euro will never get it's day. They don't support each other as apparent with the issues seen this year over there, where they were forcing each other to go fiscally go under, because they didn't want to do anything about it. It took way too long for them to help out Greece and the "help" is only deferring the matter for them.

The system seems unfair, but keeps the currency and country very strong. Although they shouldn't need perpetual help either.

Every politico starts out claiming to end earmarks, and they end up fighting harder for their district to receive them. It's the American way.

Even those who bow to intense pressure and refuse to build their bridges to nowhere keep the money.

I am a public sector civil servant. I make way too much money at taxpayer expense. My union is ridiculous, and the things 'we' ask for and refuse to give up are a joke. I don't live in the very city I serve, so I am literally sucking the taxpayer dry, without contributing. I am an outspoken anti-union employee. I would gladly do my job on a pay for performance basis, and I would like to base my salary on a combination of tax receipts, job performance, and seniority. I am not, however, independently wealthy and so I will continue to take every penny they give me and put it into my family's best interest. I am NOT a hypocrite! The system is completely broken, but why in the world would I sacrifice mine and my kids' future to prove a point that nobody will ever know or care to even hear about? This is a very similar situation that many fiscal conservative politicians face. Why should their constituents suffer so that they can 'prove a point'? This entire post against Rand Paul is asinine, and typical lefty nonsense. Thanks, have a great day. :)

Jeremy says

I am NOT a hypocrite!

You certainly aren't practicing what you preach, otherwise you'd "Go Galt", or at the very least go work in private industry or in consulting.

No, you ARE a hypocrite and if you had dignity and the conviction of your own words you actually would quit your job.

This is typical "righty nonsense" in which you equate 'your and your kids’ future' with nothing more than what you immediately provide and fail to see how you connect to the larger picture. You think of yourself as an island. You take the money and and remain outspoken about and work to undermine the protections and advances that will (or would have, if you get your way) help to secure their and others' future.

This is a funny example of exactly the point that was being made in the 'fuck the south' rant. Good timing on the post Jeremy.

Thanks, and well you have a great day too.

kentm says

if you had dignity and the conviction of your own words you actually would quit your job.

Yeah, that would teach 'em!!! Give me a friggin' break.

kentm says

and work to undermine the protections and advances that will (or would have, if you get your way) help to secure their and others’ future.

I don't work to undermine anything. I have no power to change it. If my quitting could fix the broken system, I might then consider it. But it would do nothing other than destroy my family.

Jeremy says

I don’t work to undermine anything

I quote:
Jeremy says

I am an outspoken anti-union employee

It seems you're practically the textbook definition of hypocrite. My guess is that you fail to see the contradictions shown in the RP post is because you've internalized so many contradictions.

Jeremy says

If my quitting could fix the broken system, I might then consider it.

God, there's actually something macro in this little statement right here... What you really want is some magical solution to whisk your issues away, you're not willing to sacrifice or work toward an actual solution - whatever it may be - and this is exactly what the right wing mind responds to in people like Rand Paul, that they offer simplistic seemingly magical answers to complex problems, that ultimately don't work but sure sound great.

kentm says

you’re not willing to sacrifice or work toward an actual solution

If the union dissolved (it won't), and something like I mentioned above (pay for performance, percentage of tax receipts, seniority) was offered to take its place, I would DEFINITELY accept the sacrifices associated with those changes (big pay cut, less job security). The problem is, 97% of the union membership is happy to keep fighting to suck the taxpayer dry. Any efforts on my part would simply be pissing in the wind. I am outspoken, as most of the people I work with have very conservative political views, but they are simply ignorant when it comes to the destructive nature of public unions.

Jeremy says

I am a public sector civil servant. I make way too much money at taxpayer expense. My union is ridiculous, and the things ‘we’ ask for and refuse to give up are a joke. I don’t live in the very city I serve, so I am literally sucking the taxpayer dry, without contributing. I am an outspoken anti-union employee. I would gladly do my job on a pay for performance basis, and I would like to base my salary on a combination of tax receipts, job performance, and seniority. I am not, however, independently wealthy and so I will continue to take every penny they give me and put it into my family’s best interest. I am NOT a hypocrite! The system is completely broken, but why in the world would I sacrifice mine and my kids’ future to prove a point that nobody will ever know or care to even hear about? This is a very similar situation that many fiscal conservative politicians face. Why should their constituents suffer so that they can ‘prove a point’? This entire post against Rand Paul is asinine, and typical lefty nonsense. Thanks, have a great day.

LMAO!

Ya know the drill. Now that he's voted into office (hasn't taken office, tho), he'll be criticized for following the system. But if he doesn't, he won't be effective in his job nor will he have any chance of re-election. It's not a "lefty" thing, it's an idiot thing.

The guy hasn't served a day and already he's wrong. It's nucking futs.

Conservatives claim to believe people should rise on their own merit.

Somehow I think they entirely miss the irony of electing people that got where they are because of who their daddies are.

One of the things it [Prop 13] did was limit funding to schools to what they received from their immediate district tax base
No. California has the exact opposite policy due to Serrano v. Priest (which begat Prop 13); property tax revenues flow to Sacramento and are then redistributed to local school districts based on per pupil funding formulas. However, local parcel taxes (based on sq. footage) are a way for (presumably) wealthier districts to locally fund schools by dedicating parcel tax revenues for class size reduction, etc...

Looks like this earmark thing has some legs:

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/11/1519617/rift-between-mcconnell-rand-paul.html

Jeremy says

I am NOT a hypocrite!

You are not a hypocrite if you are actually trying to take some steps to try to change things from the inside. If you are not doing anything like that, then you might be a hypocrite.

As far as some of the other folks here calling you a hypocrite right off the bat: Ignore them. Since you are not on the zealous far left, you are a hypocrite about something (it doesn't really matter what), and you are a lot of perjoratives, just because you are not on the same ideological plane.

Vicente says

Looks like this earmark thing has some legs:
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/11/1519617/rift-between-mcconnell-rand-paul.html

Wow, so this means that the whole premise of this thread is just foolish leftist ranting?

BTW, here a link to what Paul *actually* said, in full context....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604680661943738.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecond

I'm sure this won't change any minds among the true believers...

MarkInSF says

Conservatives claim to believe people should rise on their own merit.
Somehow I think they entirely miss the irony of electing people that got where they are because of who their daddies are.

It's a fair point in some individual cases. But if you're going to use it as a general rule, I guess the corollary is that "liberals" do not believe people should rise on their own merit, and that aristocracy is is a fine method of rising in society and for selecting representatives (except for when the aristocrats are conservative, of course....).

Paralithodes says

I guess the corollary is that “liberals” do not believe people should rise on their own merit,

What the...

The republicans are for family values. That never meant that democrats are against family values. One party is for a prosperous economy, the other party... ?

Even if that were reasonable logic, that once one party claimed something the other has to take the opposite view, the opposite of saying one should only raise on their own merit, and not with government support, would be that it's okay for one to receive some support. (rather than that one can not rise on their own).

Nice try though. Dig at the Kennedys I presume ?

marcus says

Paralithodes says

I guess the corollary is that “liberals” do not believe people should rise on their own merit,

What the…
The republicans are for family values. That never meant that democrats are against family values. One party is for a prosperous economy, the other party… ?
Even if that were reasonable logic, that once one party claimed something the other has to take the opposite view, the opposite of saying one should only raise on their own merit, and not with government support, would be that it’s okay for one to receive some support. (rather than that one can not rise on their own).
Nice try though. Dig at the Kennedys I presume ?

Hey, here's an idea for you.... If you're going to quote me, in order to make the exact same point that I was trying to make, perhaps you should include the entire quote!

Paralithodes says

It’s a fair point in some individual cases. But if you’re going to use it as a general rule, I guess the corollary is that “liberals” do not believe people should rise on their own merit, and that aristocracy is is a fine method of rising in society and for selecting representatives (except for when the aristocrats are conservative, of course….).

Mark's claim was simply a lazy hasty generalization for the sole purpose of demeaning conservatives in general because there are some instances of nepotism among Republicans in political leadership. There are also enough occurrences among the Democrats, far beyond the Kennedys, that make pointing out the Republicans in this regard a silly exercise. The unstated premise, coming from someone who is definitely on the left, like Mark, is that it is ironic when the Republicans do it, but not ironic when the Democrats do it. Otherwise, why would he make such an observation regarding the irony in the first place? What else is there to conclude of his assertion?

Meanwhile, now that Vicente has provided an article that contradicts the assertion in the OP, and I have provided a link to the actual text of the interview exchange, I'm wondering... Where's the beef in this thread's claim against Paul?

MarkInSF says

Conservatives claim to believe people should rise on their own merit.

Somehow I think they entirely miss the irony of electing people that got where they are because of who their daddies are.

I thought this was a very clean and specific point, and not a generalization about republicans.

As for my quote being too short, at the time I thought it was sufficient to point out the serious misuse of the word corollary. Here:

Paralithodes says

MarkInSF says

Conservatives claim to believe people should rise on their own merit.
Somehow I think they entirely miss the irony of electing people that got where they are because of who their daddies are.

It’s a fair point in some individual cases. But if you’re going to use it as a general rule, I guess the corollary is that “liberals” do not believe people should rise on their own merit, and that aristocracy is is a fine method of rising in society and for selecting representatives (except for when the aristocrats are conservative, of course….).

You're right. My bad. You saw an opportunity to make a clever remark, and you nailed it.

Speaking of clever.

Nomograph says

Rand Paul should be trying to figure out how to make Kentucky a self-sufficient, productive member of the United States instead of collecting more federal welfare.

Nomograph says

Rand Paul should be trying to figure out how to make Kentucky a self-sufficient, productive member of the United States instead of collecting more federal welfare.

Brilliant statement. Rand Paul was elected U.S. Senator, not Governor of the state.

RayAmerica says

Brilliant statement. Rand Paul was elected U.S. Senator, not Governor of the state.

Hey I kinda agree with Ray again. At this rate I might have to take him off ignore : )

RayAmerica says

Rand Paul was elected U.S. Senator, not Governor of the state.

Some of us were under the impression that Senators were the ones who "bring home the bacon" in terms of Federal programs with components targetted at fattening up their states. Everything from road improvements, to DHS offices, to Coast Guard. Senators & Representatives certainly spend a lot of time saying they have authority in these sorts of things. So the governor actually does this? Hmm.

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, now that Vicente has provided an article that contradicts the assertion in the OP, and I have provided a link to the actual text of the interview exchange, I’m wondering… Where’s the beef in this thread’s claim against Paul?

That his commentary is all over the map? That we don't know if he's just posturing for effect to different audiences? How do you know when a politican is lying?

Vicente says

So the governor actually does this?

A single Senator has very little influence on the business development of a state. His main job is to represent the interests of the state in the Senate.

The Governor can be considered the CEO of the State. To whatever extent they have power over economic development -- trade relations, tax policy stuff -- the guv's got the staff and the mandate to work in this area.

Vicente says

How do you know when a politican is lying?

His. Mouth. Is. Moving.

Vicente says

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, now that Vicente has provided an article that contradicts the assertion in the OP, and I have provided a link to the actual text of the interview exchange, I’m wondering… Where’s the beef in this thread’s claim against Paul?

That his commentary is all over the map? That we don’t know if he’s just posturing for effect to different audiences? How do you know when a politican is lying?

I disagree that his commentary is all over the map, at least as it concerns earmarks. Not living in KY, I have not heard all of his commentary, but his actual comments from the interview seem to be consistent with his stated stance on earmarks: Want something? Put it in committee and have it prioritized... No more just adding some pet project's funding as a rider to some bill, with no scrutiny. Do you live in KY?

And certainly your point in this thread is NOT that you "don't know if he's just posturing..." The initial points in this thread are quite clear in that you DO know that he is just posturing. Yet even you provide evidence to the contrary. Your claim now is simply begging the question. Or are you really "backpedalling?"

Vicente says

RayAmerica says

Rand Paul was elected U.S. Senator, not Governor of the state.

Some of us were under the impression that Senators were the ones who “bring home the bacon” in terms of Federal programs with components targetted at fattening up their states. Everything from road improvements, to DHS offices, to Coast Guard. Senators & Representatives certainly spend a lot of time saying they have authority in these sorts of things. So the governor actually does this? Hmm.

Yes, this does happen. Since you mention the Coast Guard. There is a specific reason why the Coast Guard's pay and personnel center is in KS. There is a specific reason why its operations systems center is in WV. And these specific reasons were not likely due to objective business cases determining where the best locations would be for the organization.

Nomograph says

progressive economic powerhouse states like California

Are you slightly mixed up (I’m being kind)? California is a bankrupt loony bin that is collapsing like a pancake due to all the liberal/socialist programs and high taxation. The sane people have left in droves. The only thing preventing more of an exodus is the fact that the high flying real estate market has also collapsed to such a degree that people can't sell their homes for what they owe. Gov. Moonbeam will only make matters worse. I predict a default in his first term and CA bonds heading towards junk status.

RayAmerica says

Nomograph says

progressive economic powerhouse states like California

Are you slightly mixed up (I’m being kind)? California is a bankrupt loony bin that is collapsing like a pancake due to all the liberal/socialist programs and high taxation. The sane people have left in droves. The only thing preventing more of an exodus is the fact that the high flying real estate market has also collapsed to such a degree that people can’t sell their homes for what they owe. Gov. Moonbeam will only make matters worse. I predict a default in his first term and CA bonds heading towards junk status.

Despite current debt problems, ca is by far the richest state in the union. The us also has a huge debt problem, but that doesn't make it poor either.

Please don't confuse macro and micro economics.

RayAmerica says

Nomograph says

progressive economic powerhouse states like California

Are you slightly mixed up (I’m being kind)? California is a bankrupt loony bin that is collapsing like a pancake due to all the liberal/socialist programs and high taxation. The sane people have left in droves. The only thing preventing more of an exodus is the fact that the high flying real estate market has also collapsed to such a degree that people can’t sell their homes for what they owe. Gov. Moonbeam will only make matters worse. I predict a default in his first term and CA bonds heading towards junk status.

No, California is an INCREDIBLY RICH loony bin that is collapsing like a pancake due to horrible structural governance problems.

bdrasin says

No, California is an INCREDIBLY RICH loony bin that is collapsing like a pancake due to horrible structural governance problems.

Not to worry, we'll all be sorted out into our Heaven/Hell bins anyhow when Lex Luthor causes California to slide into the ocean in order to expose his new beachfront property. Or any of a number of other fantasy ways in which people want to see California destroyed rolls around. I find it hilarious that the prospect of bankruptcy makes people salivate. It's so .... dull. John Cusack in a small plane narrowly escaping bankruptcy will be a hard sell. I guess it's like with Capone though, they'll take whatever they can get if it will bring low the target.

RayAmerica says

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Isn't that what that total fake bald-headed guy on PBS says in one of his now-that-I'm-old-I have-suddenly-decided-to-become-a-good-person SHOWS.

He is sort of the Dr. Phil of PBS. Everybody (?) knows that Dr. Phil is just a pretentious asshole, but what about the PBS guy?