« prev   random   next »

0
1

Sen. Rand Paul Kicks Warmonger Butt On Sunday Talk Shows

By indigenous follow indigenous   2014 Jun 23, 5:24am 17,008 views   58 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bravo-sen-rand-paul-kicks-warmonger-butt-on-sunday-talk-shows/

The artificial attraction of massive capital and trading leverage (through options) into rank speculation like the PCLN/OPEN deal here does not stimulate sustainable economic growth or a true rise in capitalist prosperity. It simply generates unearned rents for the 1% who have the financial assets and access to play in the Fed’s casino….

« First    « Previous    Comments 12 - 51 of 51    Last »

19   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 24, 3:18am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

That is your problem, you are conflating Rand Paul with someone like Bush

You do have a point. There is indeed a difference between the two. Bush was barely capable of speaking complete sentences, let alone explain even simple economic plans. Paul on the other hand is good at rather eloquently describing in lurid detail his plans, which nonetheless are examples of outright disaster- albeit verbally described in detail, which IMHO is better because at least we can see right away how bad they are beforehand and fully understand the extent of their "awfulness".

20   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 3:28am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

rather eloquently describing in lurid detail his plans, which nonetheless are examples of outright disaster

How so?

21   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 24, 4:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

How so?

1: He has proposed a flat tax. This in turn would be worse than Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and would further and dramatically erode the country's total income which in turn would starve the national infrastructure, education, defense, and other essentials of funds. A Flat tax is one of those things that sounds nice but in turn is economically unfeasible, especially given the lopsided economic strata of the US as of late.

2:Has proposed eliminating the department of education. The Dept. of education happens to also be in charge of student loans, which in turn means the interest rates are a lot lower than if they were to be privatized. College is already becoming a luxury that the middle and working classes can barely afford. Doing away with low interest rates would accelerate the expense of college. A country with low access to higher education means a country with less of an economic future.

3: Also proposed cutting many social welfare programs, which isn't surprising given the GOP's eagerness to cut anything that resembles help to lower income Americans. This is just simply bad on a moral basis.

22   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 4:24am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

A Flat tax is one of those things that sounds nice but in turn is economically unfeasible, especially given the lopsided economic strata of the US as of late.

I like the idea but the reality is that it would turn into a VAT so not a good idea. As far as it taking in less, I don't think so as there would be fewer loopholes. Since the wealthy don't consume but a fraction of what they make it would not be much different than what we have now. Buffet for example. It would encourage saving and discourage consumption so that would be a good thing and a cultural sea change from what we have now.

edvard2 says

The Dept. of education happens to also be in charge of student loans, which in turn means the interest rates are a lot lower than if they were to be privatized.

Not True, anytime the gov't gets involved the price goes up this goes for house s and healthcare and student loans and education and defense and farm products that are subsidized and and and

edvard2 says

Also proposed cutting many social welfare programs, which isn't surprising given the GOP's eagerness to cut anything that resembles help to lower income Americans. This is just simply bad on a moral basis.

11 million people have been added to the ranks of the permanently disabled. What was there a sudden upturn in disabling causes? No it is a sudden increase in the government handing out welfare. The main objection to welfare is not handing it out but the agencies and the expenses that are created in it's name.

23   bob2356   ignore (4)   2014 Jun 24, 6:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

That is odd coming from a democrat? Libertarians are secular. Which is what the Rs will not like.

indigenous says

If a liberal bitch like you can see the value of a Rand Paul I'm hopeful more will see the value of his principles and that maybe a libertarian minded candidate could win?

That's the problem with you being politically to the right of hitller and franco, everyone else up to and including dick cheney is a liberal bitch. For the record I was a registered republican for 28 years and independent for 14. But don't let simple facts interfere with your ideological rants.

24   bob2356   ignore (4)   2014 Jun 24, 6:33am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

1: He has proposed a flat tax. This in turn would be worse than Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and would further and dramatically erode the country's total income which in turn would starve the national infrastructure, education, defense, and other essentials of funds. A Flat tax is one of those things that sounds nice but in turn is economically unfeasible, especially given the lopsided economic strata of the US as of late.

It would really depend on the tax rate and the level of standard deductions and personal exemptions whether it be worse or not. How can you say without any numbers on the table? Be interesting to see who fights a flat tax once there is actually a proposal on the table to see who is benefiting. The current tax mess is certainly not very workable. Only the truly wealthy and truly poor like it.

edvard2 says

2:Has proposed eliminating the department of education. The Dept. of education happens to also be in charge of student loans, which in turn means the interest rates are a lot lower than if they were to be privatized. College is already becoming a luxury that the middle and working classes can barely afford. Doing away with low interest rates would accelerate the expense of college. A country with low access to higher education means a country with less of an economic future.

Sorry but the DOE has driven up the cost of college dramatically. I worked in the industry for 10 years in the 80's and saw it happen. Student loans and federal grants are driving the cost increases. Don't believe me, look up the cost of education vs the increase in federal funding. Increases in tuitions are lockstep with increases in student loans and grants. DOE should have been gone 20 years ago at least.

edvard2 says

3: Also proposed cutting many social welfare programs, which isn't surprising given the GOP's eagerness to cut anything that resembles help to lower income Americans. This is just simply bad on a moral basis.

This I disagree with Paul on this. Cleaning them up and getting out corruption yes. Social welfare other than medicaid is a small part of the budget. This is just libertarian ideology speaking.

25   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 24, 6:41am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

I like the idea but the reality is that it would turn into a VAT so not a good idea. As far as it taking in less, I don't think so as there would be fewer loopholes. Since the wealthy don't consume but a fraction of what they make it would not be much different than what we have now.

What the "wealthy consume" isn't a valid point. The reason is that if you're say- someone who works at a burger flipping joint- then you are going to spend most, if not all of your income on rent and living expenses. The "wealthy" in question are at the very, very top of the scale, making billions of dollars a year. Of course they spend a smaller portion of their incomes because if you're making billions of dollars then your income level is basically on another planet and back in the real world all of the consumable goods are priced for the 99.99% of the population who buy them.

In comparison that would be like if suddenly cars to me cost a penny each. In other words- the cost of even some of the more expensive items the average person might buy costs barely anything for those who are at the top of the upper crust. So naturally they aren't going to spend even close to the same percentage of their incomes on things versus the fast food worker who by necessity has to spend most of their income.

And thus therein lies the basic math: The US government- actually any government - requires a income to run. Yes- taxes is a dirty word but that's what it is. These taxes are meant to be collected to be used for things like public projects, schools, national defense, and so on. As such that income is supposed to be representative of the nation's actual income. But as of now we have a situation where the nation's true income isn't accurately represented since the largest income sources are not taxed at levels in conjunction with their values. And so we have a lopsided situation.

indigenous says

Not True, anytime the gov't gets involved the price goes up this goes for house s and healthcare and student loans and education and defense and farm products that are subsidized and and and

Yes- true. A perfect example would be post WW2 America: The US government handed out VA loans in the form of college and mortgage loans at very cheap rates. As a result the US had one of the biggest economic booms in history, record numbers of people went to college, record numbers of people bought houses, the US economy was running at a huge surplus, and the middle class was at its strongest levels in US history. Why? Because the government was able to lower the overall costs of living for the general public. The real question needs to be how can the US government get back to a situation where such actions are beneficial? IMHO the real reason that government has become inefficient is due to the total control of basically any and all legislative action in the form of outside interest groups- aka- lobbys, industrial groups, and so on. These merely poke politicians to vote their way to help fill their pockets at the expense of the average person.

Want to make government more efficient? Get rid of outside interests..indigenous says

11 million people have been added to the ranks of the permanently disabled. What was there a sudden upturn in disabling causes? No it is a sudden increase in the government handing out welfare.

The reason was and is because not only did we experience the single worst economic disaster in over 80 years but the economy that has replaced it is different. 40,000 US factories have shut down since the early 2000's. The country's largest employers are all big box stores and fast food- most whom pay such low wages and work their employees such low hours that guess what? A huge percentage of those workers are actually on welfare. That's the reason reason.

26   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 7:33am     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

The US government handed out VA loans in the form of college and mortgage loans at very cheap rates. As a result the US had one of the biggest economic booms in history, record numbers of people went to college, record numbers of people bought houses, the US economy was running at a huge surplus, and the middle class was at its strongest levels in US history. Why?

You are economically illiterate. The cause was simply that FDR quit holding the economy back with his hubris. Instead he did everyone a favor by dying.

edvard2 says

The reason was and is because not only did we experience the single worst economic disaster in over 80 years but the economy that has replaced it is different.

Bullshit there would not have been a problem if we did not bailout the TBTF

27   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 24, 8:24am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

You are economically illiterate. The cause was simply that FDR quit holding the economy back with his hubris. Instead he did everyone a favor by dying.

Crack open a history book sometime. FDR oversaw a period in the US with the worst economic calamity in its history. I can tell you that a number of people in my family basically avoided going hungry as result of some of his programs. Interesting now how history revisionists try and make that period fit in with their whole economic ideology.

You failed to counter what I said. Simply put, the VA loan system was perhaps the single largest jump-starter economically in the history of the country. It makes sense: What are the two most expensive things that a typical American purchases? Its education and real estate. Once those two items are obtained therein lies the foundation for a healthy middle class because once all of those college students graduate they tend to get better jobs and when they buy houses they tend to spend more. In making access to real estate and education easier, the us enjoyed a steady 25-30 year run with a healthy middle class.

indigenous says

Bullshit there would not have been a problem if we did not bailout the TBTF

Wrong. The collapse of the middle class and the growth of the low-paying job didn't happen overnight. Ever since the mid-70's wages for the middle class have been falling slowly. At the same time the growth in lower income sector jobs has increased dramatically. This shift has had a number of causes: Cheap overseas manufacturing, improper taxation, lax regulations tied to minimum wage requirements, and so on.

Perhaps the single biggest reason for the loss of the typical middle class manufacturing-related job was ironically the big box stores whom are now our largest employers: In demanding that prices on goods continually get pushed lower this in turn drove a huge chunk of the US manufacturing industry overseas. This has had the effect of shrinking the middle class and at the same time making Americans entirely dependent on mostly shoddily-built products.

All of this happened well before the recession. But the recession basically finished the job and hence why the economy that we had at least some level of before bit the dust. So if you want to know why we have record numbers of people on welfare its because most of the country now works at crappy big box stores making incredibly low, barely livable wages selling crappy, poorly made products. That's totally why. Trying to whine about these numbers somehow being the "government's fault" is coming to an incorrect conclusion that helps nobody.

28   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 9:00am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

FDR oversaw a period in the US with the worst economic calamity in its history.

He were the poison he were not the cure.

edvard2 says

Simply put, the VA loan system was perhaps the single largest jump-starter economically in the history of the country. It makes sense: What are the two most expensive things that a typical American purchases? Its education and real estate.

Not really the thing that creates sustained growth is business investment.

edvard2 says

Perhaps the single biggest reason for the loss of the typical middle class manufacturing-related job was ironically the big box stores whom are now our largest employers: In demanding that prices on goods continually get pushed lower this in turn drove a huge chunk of the US manufacturing industry overseas.

Not really the cause of the job loss was because of mercantilism.

29   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 10:52am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

I wanted to show this graph. It does not go back to 1900 and was hard to find but it illustrates a correlation between capital investment and economic growth.

A real problem is we have been eating the seed corn.

30   StillLooking   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 1:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I want someone to explain the logic behind the thinking that eliminating student loans will make college more expensive.

Obviously, the easier to borrow, the more students will borrow. This will bid up the price of any resource this borrowing is aimed at.

In what bizarro world are things more expensive when the thing's price is lower?

31   Vicente   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 1:36pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

I wanted to show this graph.

Which is illegible and unsourced. Par!

32   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 1:45pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

Vicente says

Which is illegible and unsourced. Par!

read the post above it dumb shit. If you need to have it's source before you will look at it then don't look at it.

33   Y   ignore (3)   2014 Jun 24, 1:47pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

How the fuck do you think obama got elected twice?
It was everything you state below.

edvard2 says

It also doesn't matter if someone is a "good guy". Presidential quality doesn't mean someone who you could have a beer with or even relate to.

34   bob2356   ignore (4)   2014 Jun 24, 9:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

He were the poison he were not the cure.

You do know that hoover was president for the first 40% of the great depression don't you?

35   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 24, 11:29pm     ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says

You do know that hoover was president for the first 40% of the great depression don't you?

He was no prize either. He mucked up the economy as well. You are going to say he was an R, but he was as liberal as anyone, and jacked up the economy big time. He was really the architect for the new deal.

FDR was worse. With endless meddling in the market and stopping the banks from using script to alleviate the bank runs, which was the usual method to deal with the problem.

36   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 25, 1:25am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

He were the poison he were not the cure.

My Grandmother's entire generation would totally disagree with you. BTW, she is a staunch GOP supporter. Its amazingly and stunningly shortsighted to call FDR "Poison" when the man got us through the worst depression in US history as well as got us through the most calamitous war in human history. Simply put... you're wrong. No ifs or buts about it.indigenous says

Not really the thing that creates sustained growth is business investment.

Oh they don't? Ok... so try to explain how these aren't? Banks- including investment firms- get as much as 75% of their income from the combined mortgage, car, and student loans they oversee and administer. The VA loan system still utilized the banking and investment system in order to oversee the aforementioned loans. So in other words you are trying to argue that the single largest creator of capital is not something that creates " Sustained growth?" You are also suggesting that the time period from the 50's-70's was not in fact a period of sustained growth when its been well documented as such? Either way, just as predictably as the first incorrect answer you gave, this answer is equally faulty...indigenous says

Not really the cause of the job loss was because of mercantilism.

So far this is the third what I would call lazy answer. What you are suggesting is that job losses was the result of government intervention when the causes ranging from overseas competition, the lack of regulation in minimum wages, the growth of the big box empires- all of the largest reasons for the loss in good paying jobs- were ironically caused in part by a total lack of government intervention. The US has one of the least protectionist economies in the world: We have operated on a free market principle system for generations meaning that any country making any number of goods in any industry can walk in, setup shop, and sell their wares at whatever price they want. There have been endless examples of countries selling items in the US at prices lower than they cost to manufacture- a practice known as dumping. But on the other hand its amazing how many countries- many of whom are the ones making the cheap crappy products- have grossly over-protective trade barriers to our goods which makes the prohibitively expensive. Other countries also grossly manipulate their currencies in an effort to drive down the cost of their goods on out shores. And yet we do nothing about it. Instead we've basically allowed entire industries to be put out of business at the expensive of free and open trade. Sure- I'm all for open trade. If everyone played the game as we did the system would work. But since we're one of the only countries that does we're the ones that lost millions upon millions of jobs... all in the name of an ideology that might sound good to the ears but in reality doesn't really work.

Here's the thing: From your answers you seem to be suggesting that any and all things that the government gets involved in is bound for failure. ( please correct me if I am wrong for making that assumption) This sort of thinking seems to have been an evergreen belief by GOP supporters. But yet that notion is totally unrealistic. You simply cannot have an economy that functions without some level of government: A perfect example? The US currency system. Without government involvement we would not have a military. Those ships, missiles, jet planes and so on are all built by private firms contracted by the government.

The real answer is somewhere in between: Too much and too little government intervention and involvement is an equally negative outcome. There is a reasonable answer and reasonable solutions to the issues we face.

37   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 25, 1:48am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

My Grandmother's entire generation would totally disagree with you. BTW, she is a staunch GOP supporter.

With all due respect to your relatives, they have been duped, don't feel bad most of the country is still to this day.

edvard2 says

Oh they don't? Ok... so try to explain how these aren't?

They control the money that is loaned but that does not create real value. Real value is the computer, the internet, the cell phone, etc. It is not making so much money available that RE, Student loans, Stocks go to the moon. Real value is created by business investment which is the graph I showed.

edvard2 says

What you are suggesting is that job losses was the result of government intervention when the causes ranging from overseas competition, the lack of regulation in minimum wages, the growth of the big box empires- all of the largest reasons for the loss in good paying jobs- were ironically caused in part by a total lack of government intervention.

Yes, government intervention creates the problem as it disguises values and props up companies that should be gone. Which does not allow start ups to grow.

edvard2 says

Those ships, missiles, jet planes and so on are all built by private firms contracted by the government.

That is my point what is the value on spending 2 TRILLION dollars on a country that is now being taken over by terrorists. Is that real value?

You will not hear one word I say so i'm reluctant to spend a lot of time on this.

38   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 25, 1:55am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

The Professor says

Translation: In order for a few to make bigger profits many manufacturing jobs were sent overseas.

Exactly. I suppose this outcome should be something that some on the right who praise a sort of "purist" capitalist economy with zero government intervention should pay attention to: Sure- pure, raw, unhindered capitalist economics can and often does create an enormous amount of wealth. But the very nature of capitalism works in such a way where success is measured via increasing gains and profits, and of those profits, more importantly to the owners, initial investors and board members of the originating income device.

Now- some could easily read that statement and claim that any and all thoughts other than a pure and uninhibited capitalist economy must surely be a communist line of thought. Not at all. The reality is that capitalism is in fact the single best means in which to create and maintain wealth but its more or less like driving a sports car: Sure, you can go really fast in a sports car but a wrong move could send it hurdling over a cliff. The handling of capitalism is the same. Too little control and the entire system will eventually fail- just like it did in 1929, 2008, and all of the other times in between. In other words- just because an idea might sound good on paper- aka- the state of pure capitalism- but when the outcome shows a situation as mentioned above- where jobs were sent overseas to generate more wealth for a select few which in turn benefits less of the population, then there should be open debate about how and if there are ways to keep a hand on the throttle in some way so that the system works in a more balanced way.

39   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 25, 2:01am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

With all due respect to your relatives, they have been duped, don't feel bad most of the country is still to this day.

My relatives would simply laugh you out of the room as would most anyone old enough to know better than to make uneducated remarks about a period in which none of us actually lived in. You're wrong. End of the story here as I have nothing further to say on the matter.indigenous says

They control the money that is loaned but that does not create real value. Real value is the computer, the internet, the cell phone, etc. It is not making so much money available that RE, Student loans, Stocks go to the moon. Real value is created by business investment which is the graph I showed.

Please re-read my previous post. I already stated the largest creators of income in the country, which is not- as you say- the cell phone, internet ect etc. No- any economist who knows even the slightest and most elementary basics of economics would easily know that most income in the US is generated via debt. I will repeat this once more in hopes that it is easier to comprehend: The largest generators of debt income comes from loans in the form of mortgage, automotive, and student loans. After WW2 the government enabled the average US citizen easier access to what? Loans. What sort of loans? Mortgage and student loans. What creates the most income for the economy in the US? Loans. Done. Simple. Hope that makes it glaringly obvious...

Your third comment was so over the top it doesn't deserve a response.

40   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 25, 2:01am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

The Professor says

Translation: In order for a few to make bigger profits many manufacturing jobs were sent overseas.

Actually the bigger cause was mercantilism. This because of Friedman talking Nixon into a floating exchange rate with a 3% target inflation. This gave the US lots of dollars to buy Chinese rubbish for super cheap. Manufacturing was forced to accommodate this trend or go out of business. This is no doubt a big part of the reason for the graph I posted. But none the less here we sit decades later woefully under-invested in capital goods.

41   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 25, 2:04am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

Please re-read my previous post. I already stated the largest creators of income in the country, which is not- as you say- the cell phone, internet ect etc. No- any economist who knows even the slightest and most elementary basics of economics would easily know that most income in the US is generated via debt. I will repeat this once more in hopes that it is easier to comprehend: The largest generators of debt income comes from loans in the form of mortgage, automotive, and student loans. After WW2 the government enabled the average US citizen easier access to what? Loans. What sort of loans? Mortgage and student loans. What creates the most income for the economy in the US? Loans. Done. Simple. Hope that makes it glaringly obvious...

Your third comment was so over the top it doesn't deserve a response.

Look up Says law to understand why debt does not drive the economy. As I said you are not hearing anything I'm saying.

I Agree to Disagree

42   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 25, 2:24am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

I Agree to Disagree

That is all there is to say as should have been said earlier. That is fine as I disagree and clearly you disagree.

43   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 25, 2:38am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

That is all there is to say as should have been said earlier. That is fine as I disagree and clearly you disagree.

I realize what I'm saying goes against the conventional wisdom. It is incumbent on a few of us to disagree with the status quo to wake up whose who are awake enough to hear what we are saying.

44   bob2356   ignore (4)   2014 Jun 25, 2:38am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

He was no prize either. He mucked up the economy as well. You are going to say he was an R, but he was as liberal as anyone, and jacked up the economy big time. He was really the architect for the new deal.

FDR was worse. With endless meddling in the market and stopping the banks from using script to alleviate the bank runs, which was the usual method to deal with the problem

So why did you skip over him? Just couldn't stop salivating at the chance to put in a dig at FDR could you?

The terms Republican, Democrat, conservative, and liberal as used today have almost no relevance to the same terms 100 years ago.

Blind mindless ideology is certainly your forte.

45   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 25, 2:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

I realize what I'm saying goes against the conventional wisdom. It is incumbent on a few of us to disagree with the status quo to wake up whose who are awake enough to hear what we are saying.

No. Simply put I firmly believe that what you were saying was wrong. I do not "need" to hear what you are saying. Frankly what you were mentioning doesn't stray at all from conventional GOP economics beliefs so its not like I was exactly blown away by the originality. If anything I'd say those statements were somewhat predictable- no offense.

But I digress. We agree to disagree and I am happy with that conclusion.

46   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 25, 2:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

bob2356 says

Just couldn't stop salivating at the chance to put in a dig at FDR could you?

He does deserve most of the blame, if nothing else 60%?

bob2356 says

The terms Republican, Democrat, conservative, and liberal as used today have almost no relevance to the same terms 100 years ago.

Blind mindless ideology is certainly your forte.

Are you saying I have a blind spot? What is it? I said that Hoover was almost as bad as FDR.

OTOH Coolidge, Harding were rock stars.

47   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 25, 2:55am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

edvard2 says

Simply put I firmly believe

Exactly my point, belief has nothing to do with it.

48   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2014 Jun 25, 4:52am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

thomaswong.1986 says

FortWayne says

Rand Paul is a good guy. I still prefer his father though.

If he runs this year, it'll be interesting.

Would be interesting in a debate with Hilary...

It would be if they actually debated openly. Realistically I expect every one of them to stand around and pander with some generic slogans until the camera stops rolling.

I think I don't have much faith in any politician being open and honest.

49   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jun 26, 12:40am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

indigenous says

Exactly my point, belief has nothing to do with it

Oh yeah. You're correct. Facts have more to do with it. So if you had actually stated some facts maybe I would have agreed.

50   mell   ignore (6)   2014 Jun 26, 1:50am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Great video. He knows and respects the constitution and the history how we got there and is actually telling the truth, going against quite a few warmongers in his own party.

51   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 26, 3:12am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Mell gets it, Eddy not so much.

« First    « Previous    Comments 12 - 51 of 51    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions