0
0

Tea Party corruption and flip-flop watch: senator Rand Paul


 invite response                
2010 Nov 9, 2:13am   14,292 views  51 comments

by justme   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

It took newly elected senator and super-teaparty libertarian Rand Paul of Kentucky all of one week to be corrupted by Washington.

He campaigned (as did all Tea Partiers of note) on being dead against earmarking spending on his home state in federal spending bills. And now, a week after the election, he has already been corrupted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/rand-paul-earmarks-ban_n_780832.html

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

Well, well, well. So the tea party candidates were just a bunch of power-hungry opportunists after all. Who would have thunk?

justme says

The most interesting part of the next two years, spectacle-wise, will be to see how quickly the teabaggers get corrupted by the Republican establishment.

Please add other Tea Part flip-flops to this thread as you see them.

#politics

Comments 1 - 40 of 51       Last »     Search these comments

1   Vicente   2010 Nov 9, 2:44am  

Back in early days of Rand Paul campaign, Social Security, MediCare, and defense were all going to be under a budget axe. After a further consideration of how much money MediCare brought into his practice, it became "cut MediCare spending without cutting doctor payments". Umm yeah let's cut spending as long as it's not MY line of work that has to take any cuts.

Now he's switched mostly to more traditional politician phrases about reform and "cutting waste". I'm surprised he's not waiting a bit longer to start backpedalling.

2   nope   2010 Nov 9, 12:48pm  

Vicente says

Umm yeah let’s cut spending as long as it’s not MY line of work that has to take any cuts.

You have to be a real doctor to get medicare payments.

3   Vicente   2010 Nov 9, 12:57pm  

Eh, what's that sonny? Opthamologists get a cut too.

Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living,”

Rand Paul: Cut spending, except for MediCare doctor payments

4   PeopleUnited   2010 Nov 9, 1:51pm  

It is called: The Right of Recovery

Can Liberty Activists Accept Government Money?
By Michael Cummins

When Americans showed up in droves to accept free money in last summer's 'Cash for Clunkers' program, President Obama pronounced the effort, "successful beyond anybody's imagination." The mainstream media echoed his sentiment, broadly labeling the program "wildly popular."

The president's declaration of success employed a sly and manipulative political marketing technique. Squeezed as they are by the government's financial demands and the poor economy, of course consumers were eager for financial relief. But their acceptance of the Cash for Clunkers benefits hardly constituted a stamp of political approval for the program itself, or, for that matter, evidence that the program was successful in its primary goal, which was (purportedly) to improve the nation's economic health.

But, lately, some economic libertarians appear to have themselves accepted the fallacious equation of participation in a government program with an endorsement of the program itself. They feel that it is not quite right -- and maybe even hypocritical -- for an individual to, for example, collect unemployment benefits while working politically to oppose such handouts.

A related phenomenon has emerged in the wider world of electoral politics. In a late 2009 blog post, Damon Root took Michele Bachmann to task for collecting agricultural subsidies despite her political advocacy of free-market principles. (Ms. Bachmann's family's farm in Wisconsin accepted over $250K in federal subsidies over an eleven-year period.)3

In Washington State, Ron Paul endorsee Clint Didier came under fire during the 2010 senatorial primary for having accepted farm subsidies. In response, he vowed to decline future subsidy opportunities. No doubt, Mr. Didier did the smart thing, from a political perspective. But it is quite disappointing that he felt that this pledge was necessary. In the same vein, it is a shame that a liberty activist might feel uneasy about collecting unemployment benefits, perhaps even to the point of accepting the financial hardship of total loss of income.

From the perspective of economic freedom, the funds designated for these handout programs are ill-gotten gains on the government's balance sheet. Neither the Constitution nor free-market principles permit the federal government to raise money for such purposes. But that does not mean that it is wrong for a person to accept part of the money's dispersal. This is because individual citizens are forced to take on the liabilities that the government imposes in the raising of the funds, whatever their opinion of how the money will be used. And if money is unjustly taken from someone, they have every right to take it back.

For most people laid off of work, their history of sustaining the tax burden alone justifies the collection of a few weeks or months of jobless benefits. Most have endured years of being undercompensated due to the levy of unemployment payroll taxes on their employers. It is not possible to calculate precisely how much a given person has contributed to the funding of a benefit program, especially since government borrowing and inflation habits impose deferred liabilities on the citizenry. But this indeterminacy does not nullify unemployed persons' general right of recovery.

Besides, the government has completely cornered the unemployment 'insurance' market. Workers do not even have the option of purchasing private unemployment insurance, as they would in a free market.

The subsidy checks that farm owners receive are generally much larger than those received by the unemployed. Farm subsidies distort the food production market in America, no matter how evenly they are distributed. But a farm owner who declines a subsidy actually intensifies the program's distorting effect, to his own disadvantage. It is unfair to ask a farmer to allow a competing farm to enjoy a unilateral supplement in operating capital, especially since the farmer himself has, as an American citizen, been forced to help fund the program from which the supplement is provided. Furthermore, his subsidy rejection might make matters worse, politically. If his competitors sense that their receipt of federal money gives them a relative leg-up within the food production market, rather than merely making them a little richer in absolute terms, they will likely become ever more vocal political supporters of the farm subsidy program.

But beyond issues of fairness, there is the sheer impracticality of keeping oneself pure in an increasingly socialized America. If and when the federal government completely monopolizes the health care system, will a good liberty activist be expected to avoid doctors? If a person politically opposes the now-almost-universal government backing of mortgages, is it hypocritical of him to buy a home on credit?

The more government crowds out the private sector, the less practicable a truly free-market way of life becomes. Liberty activists and politicians have a lot of work ahead of them, on the political front. To insist that they also endure the private hardships that come today with the deflection of all government help, while taking on the unavoidable liabilities of funding the government, is to unnecessarily -- and unfairly -- compound their burden.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Don't let the peabrains make you feel guilty for taking back what is rightfully yours Rand Paul. Kentucky citizens pay taxes and deserve to reap the rewards of their labor even if we have to us the big bad Federal Government to redistribute it back to them. GO RAND!

Paul and Paul in 2012!!!. Rand for vice and Ron for President!

5   Vicente   2010 Nov 9, 2:04pm  

AdHominem says

–Don’t let the peabrains make you feel guilty for taking back what is rightfully yours Rand Paul.

I thought all taxation was theft, and we must cut taxes drastically and cut spending RIGHT TO THE BONE. If you decrease inflow, you have to cut outflow and unfortunately that may mean Fed-teat-sucking doctors too. Somewhere in there is talk about deficits, or was, or.... poop now I forget. Unless we subscribe to the theory that some pigs are more equal than others, and my ox shouldn't get gored.

"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.

http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/

6   nope   2010 Nov 9, 3:46pm  

Vicente says

Eh, what’s that sonny? Opthamologists get a cut too.

Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living,”

Rand Paul: Cut spending, except for MediCare doctor payments

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

7   Vicente   2010 Nov 10, 1:18am  

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. A board with a PO Box for mailing address that has only certified 7 people. 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

8   RayAmerica   2010 Nov 10, 1:38am  

More sour grapes from the losers. This is really fun to watch. Thanks for the entertainment. LOL

9   justme   2010 Nov 10, 1:43am  

Kevin says

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

Wow, I had not heard that. How very libertarian of him to skip board certification. He thinks even *private* (AMA) regulation is bad.

10   bob2356   2010 Nov 10, 2:01am  

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.

11   Vicente   2010 Nov 10, 2:10am  

bob2356,

Points taken, thanks for the education on the matter.

12   kentm   2010 Nov 10, 3:48am  

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.

13   Vicente   2010 Nov 10, 4:12am  

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.

14   kentm   2010 Nov 10, 4:15am  

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

15   pkennedy   2010 Nov 10, 5:11am  

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.

16   elliemae   2010 Nov 10, 5:53am  

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.

17   Jeremy   2010 Nov 10, 7:43am  

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. :)

18   Vicente   2010 Nov 10, 7:48am  

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.

19   kentm   2010 Nov 10, 7:52am  

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.

20   Jeremy   2010 Nov 10, 8:10am  

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.

21   Jeremy   2010 Nov 10, 8:14am  

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.

22   kentm   2010 Nov 10, 8:30am  

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.

23   kentm   2010 Nov 10, 8:39am  

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.

24   Jeremy   2010 Nov 10, 9:04am  

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.

25   elliemae   2010 Nov 10, 9:09am  

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.

26   MarkInSF   2010 Nov 10, 10:01am  

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.

27   EBGuy   2010 Nov 10, 10:53am  

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...

29   Paralithodes   2010 Nov 10, 9:45pm  

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.

30   Paralithodes   2010 Nov 10, 9:48pm  

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...

31   Paralithodes   2010 Nov 10, 9:53pm  

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....).

32   marcus   2010 Nov 11, 1:55am  

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 ?

33   Paralithodes   2010 Nov 11, 2:13am  

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?

34   marcus   2010 Nov 11, 2:31am  

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.

35   marcus   2010 Nov 11, 2:45am  

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.

36   RayAmerica   2010 Nov 11, 9:06am  

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.

37   Â¥   2010 Nov 11, 9:37am  

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 : )

38   Vicente   2010 Nov 11, 10:40am  

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.

39   Vicente   2010 Nov 11, 10:48am  

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?

40   Â¥   2010 Nov 11, 11:35am  

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.

Comments 1 - 40 of 51       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions