PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul is a Heartless Wooden Man!




AuH20
06-21-2010, 12:12 PM
Read these comments. LIBRULS are not only dangerous to themselves, but to the entire society as well. At some point, an adult has to emerge from the group of sycophants and defiantly say "NO." That's leadership.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/rand-paul-to-unemployed-quit-whining-and-get-back-to-work.php

angelatc
06-21-2010, 12:18 PM
They have no interest in facts. It's all emotion.

AuH20
06-21-2010, 12:21 PM
How does anyone argue with someone like this? I'd simply walk away in disbelief......:


every time he opens his mouth he offers yet more proof that he is a complete and total a**hole with zero understanding of our founding principles and our constitution and no understanding at all of how real people live their real lives.

what part of "promote the general welfare" does rand paul not understand?

he seems to think ayn rand's books are blueprints for running a country. Those books are just fiction mr. Paul. And really poorly written fiction at that.

angelatc
06-21-2010, 12:22 PM
What part of "when you subsidize something, you get more of it!" do the liberals not understand?

TheDriver
06-21-2010, 12:24 PM
How many years will the left pay unemployed workers (already pushing 2)? How much will we borrow (http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/US-Foreign-Holdings/2010/06/15/id/362015) from China to finance it?

Young Paleocon
06-21-2010, 12:39 PM
He most certainly is not a wooden man.....He's a real boy!!!!

dannno
06-21-2010, 12:41 PM
I hate registering.. I made a really good comment though, maybe someone would like to post it?


"Or Rand himself, who has received about $32,615 a year over the last four years for his participation (as a doctor) in the Medicaid program and an unknown amount from Medicare."

Oh my GOD!! Rand provided healthcare to poor people? What a monster!!


Everybody here who is saying that companies need to start hiring first doesn't understand basic economics. A company won't hire someone unless they can turn a profit for them. If you offer a lower wage, then you can more easily turn a profit based on your skill set.

Rand is absolutely correct that the government is hindering any sort of economic recovery by extending these benefits. Of course the root of the problem is our monetary system, but if there is anybody who understands that it is Rand Paul.

TonySutton
06-21-2010, 12:45 PM
If our current welfare state is what the founding fathers envisioned, why did it take over 100 years to get enacted?

That is what you tell an idiot like that!

Elwar
06-21-2010, 12:53 PM
every time he opens his mouth he offers yet more proof that he is a complete and total a**hole with zero understanding of our founding principles and our constitution and no understanding at all of how real people live their real lives.

what part of "promote the general welfare" does rand paul not understand?

he seems to think ayn rand's books are blueprints for running a country. Those books are just fiction mr. Paul. And really poorly written fiction at that.

promote != provide

Bruno
06-21-2010, 01:01 PM
Most people didn't read past the headline, nor actually put some thought into his position before they left their idiotic comments.



He most certainly is not a wooden man.....He's a real boy!!!!

http://i49.tinypic.com/2zqznf9.jpg

sailingaway
06-21-2010, 01:17 PM
What part of the distinction between 'promote' and 'provide for' don't THEY understand?

jct74
06-21-2010, 04:32 PM
If you want to see some real idiotic comments, go here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/21/rand-paul-to-unemployed-t_n_619793.html

dude58677
06-21-2010, 04:33 PM
What part of the distinction between 'promote' and 'provide for' don't THEY understand?

It isn't the issue of "promote vs provide" it is the meaning of the term "welfare". The clause means tax to pay for the excercising of the enumerated powers under articel 1 section 8. Such as the patent office and the roads are the general welfare as well as the post office (not that we can't use free market to run the mailing industry).

AuH20
06-21-2010, 04:55 PM
If you want to see some real idiotic comments, go here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/21/rand-paul-to-unemployed-t_n_619793.html

What part of "we cannot maintain a 14 trillion dollar national debt" do they not understand? These emotionally driven folks want us to extend unemployment until the government crashes and burns. I won't lie that I have a hidden motive to fulfill their wishes, then again, they'll be the first ones to complain when it occurs.;)

sailingaway
06-21-2010, 05:06 PM
It isn't the issue of "promote vs provide" it is the meaning of the term "welfare". The clause means tax to pay for the excercising of the enumerated powers under articel 1 section 8. Such as the patent office and the roads are the general welfare as well as the post office (not that we can't use free market to run the mailing industry).

Actually, it is the fact of a list which in those days was more often considered exclusive than expansive in interpretations, even without the 9th and 10th amendments, which should have ended any question......

ninepointfive
06-21-2010, 05:12 PM
"What part of promote do you not understand?!" Provide and Promote ---> two different words!!

I've encountered this same argument from a librul before. Really quite sickening how utterly shameless and ignorant these people are.

devil21
06-21-2010, 07:44 PM
promote != provide

Not even that. That general welfare clause is regarding services that benefit every last American citizen, such as border security. Never-ending UE benefits only benefits two groups. Unemployed people and the politicians that use it as a campaign platform. The rest just get to pay for it.

(eta: dude above nailed it first)

AminCad
06-21-2010, 08:55 PM
If you want to see some real idiotic comments, go here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_619793.html

I'm infuriated by the stupidity and pettiness of the people commenting.

RonPaulFanInGA
06-21-2010, 09:04 PM
How does anyone argue with someone like this? I'd simply walk away in disbelief......:

The fringe right thinks "right to life" means a mandatory ban on all abortions in the country and the fringe left thinks "promote the general welfare" means government is required to provide universal healthcare and social security. It's ridiculous.

Anyway, no one cares about some lefty blogs pimping an issue that only they care about. They're out of touch.

yatez112
06-21-2010, 09:47 PM
His words:

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," Paul explained. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."

This is no different than anything people have said in the past. This is common sense!

But no...the headline must be dramatic and sensationalist.

I'll be donating more on the 28th. :)

0zzy
06-21-2010, 10:26 PM
His words:

"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," Paul explained. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."

This is no different than anything people have said in the past. This is common sense!

But no...the headline must be dramatic and sensationalist.

I'll be donating more on the 28th. :)

ya these people piss me the hell off. ignorance over there is astounding.

lx43
06-21-2010, 10:52 PM
I would hate to be running for office, they would be calling me far worse. Rand from what I can tell doesn't talk about repealing any welfare programs, I would openly campaign on eliminating food stamps, foreign aid, SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, bring all troops home, and any other welfare programs. lol

AuH20
06-22-2010, 09:51 AM
TPM appears obsessed with Paul and Angle. They're like "how can anyone be so inhumane"? What they can't comprehend is the idea that the private community can pick up the slack for seemingly omniscient federal government.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/st-my-rand-says-pauls-long-history-of-wacky-quotes.php?ref=mp

Badger Paul
06-22-2010, 11:15 AM
"As bad as it sounds, ultimately we do have to sometimes accept a wage that's less than we had at our previous job in order to get back to work and allow the economy to get started again," Paul explained. "Nobody likes that, but it may be one of the tough love things that has to happen."

The problem is Obama probably thinks this way too. After all, who else would benefit if people got off their duffs and applied for minimum wage jobs at the Dollar Store? The man in the White House because the unemployment rate would go down.

If one wishes to "get the economy started" would not supporting policies that reduce debt and reduce money being gobbled up by government and corporate toadies living off of government subsides so that there is a free flow of capital that will go to emerging markets and reduces business costs such as energy and regulation which would create jobs, instead of attacking people who are unemployed because such jobs do not exist right now because of said policies?

What is Rand trying to say here? People are unemployed because they are lazy? For some that's probably true but one would think that's not a majority of the workforce (after all, we're hard-working Kentuckians and Americans right?) If he's right, then it means employers have all these jobs that are going unfilled because they are jobs Americans refuse to do (Quick, find me some Mexicans and Jamaicans who will work for peanuts!). Where have we heard that before? Has that not already been debunked?

Rand says he's not a libertarian and yet he is speaking in manner that can only be described as libertarian dogmatism. It's one thing to say government shouldn't interfere in the market. it's another to appear as a toadie to corporation (a foriegn one at that) which is hurting this country and its citizens. It's one thing to say get the government off our backs and jobs will be created for all. It's another to say you're not working because you're all a bunch of lazy bums and you'll have to accept the fact that your economic future will be determined by a wage scale set by China and Brazil. I would hope he wouldn't say that to an unemployed coal miner or he might get his lights punched out and deservedly so.

You know, Rand's victory speech after the primary was the first time I had ever heard him speak before in an extended manner and there was something about the way he spoke that I found disturbing. There was no joy nor upbeat tone, it was grim and indignant. I don't want to compare him to his father and it may well be Rand is far more polished speaker than Ron is, but Ron, for all his rambling, at least spoke of his views in a way that made them seem beneficial in human terms that connected to people in a way libertarians had never been able to before. Rand, for whatever reason, seems to lack that quality and thus what you get sounds a lot like what Ayn Rand would say in an interview like this. Is Rand running because he thinks the people don't know any better about freedom and he does? You can say "sheeple" all you like on forums like this but you better not be running for office anytime soon.

I would not surprise me now if Rand loses if he keeps talking like this, even in Kentucky. He would be better suited talking about how the unholy alliance between government and big business which is screwing people right now (Remember the "machine" commerical?) instead complaining about their work habits for jobs that even he would agree don't exist. Unless of course he's afraid he might be offending the coal companies, which if so, means he's pretty much lost anyway.

What a disappointment. Well, at least there's Peter Schiff.

low preference guy
06-22-2010, 11:17 AM
What a disappointment. Well, at least there's Peter
Schiff.

Right, Peter "I am talking a pay cut running for Senate" Schiff is an example of sensitivity. What a load of crap. Had I just read the post without knowing the source, I would've guesses it came from Barefoot and Progressive.

Badger Paul
06-22-2010, 11:22 AM
"I am talking a pay cut running for Senate".

It's also the truth. Unlike a lot of politicians, he doesn't need politics to make a living. He's running because he thinks this country is screwed up and he wants to help change it.

low preference guy
06-22-2010, 11:25 AM
"I am talking a pay cut running for Senate".

It's also the truth. Unlike a lot of politicians, he doesn't need politics to make a living. He's running because he thinks this country is screwed up and he wants to help change it.

This is also the true,


People are unemployed because they are lazy?

I personally know people who could be working on the car industry in Detroit but their unemployment benefits pay more so they don't. Plus, Rand never said that, and you just decided to write a Rand bashing post for no good reason.

Badger Paul
06-22-2010, 11:37 AM
"who could be working on the car industry in Detroit but their unemployment benefits pay more so they don't"

So Detroit's hiring but because unemployment pays them more than than say, $25 bucks an hour they don't work.

Gee, maybe I should find a way to lose my job and get that kind of money for nothing.

I've defended Rand in the past. I understand the tough campaign he faces. But I can't do it anymore. I can't support such statements because there's nothing I believe that does. So I said what I said because I'm a man, not a jellyfish. It's my opinion, I have a right to it and that's that. I wish him well and I hope he changes course because he needs to to win. But if he doesn't don't be surprised if he does lose.

low preference guy
06-22-2010, 11:40 AM
I wish him well and I hope he changes course because he needs to to win.

I hope he keeps doing what he is doing. It has put him in the polls lead and it will keep him there.

SolusSLX
06-22-2010, 11:44 AM
What part of ______ don't they understand?

Everything. They're acting based on emotion. No amount of logic will have any effect on them. Here's a procedure/form letter like thing I'm working on, maybe someone can try it out over there? I don't have time right now.


It feels good to win an argument against someone you know is wrong. I know I've tried it many times before. Most people connect their political affiliations and what those are claimed to stand for to their core identity. "*I* am a _________(D/R/G/L)." Emotionally they "feel" that any attack on a party or their beliefs is an ad hominem attack on their self. Emotions react faster than reason and logic, so an emotional response blocks any rational thought. The mind cannot emotionally tell the difference between an imagined attack and a physical attack, so they emotionally respond to a verbal attack just as you would emotionally respond to a physical initiation of force against your body. With a lot of practice and willpower a person can control their emotions. If someone has never taken the time to practice and control their emotions then logic and reason will have no effect on their beliefs. Most people do not know how and have not taken the time to learn how to control their emotions. Therefore most of the time attacking in any way something that people hold as part of their identity will make them emotionally reject any argument, even if it is true.

I now believe the best way to reliably change people's beliefs is by subtly directing their good intentions to new beliefs. Everything everyone does and believes is because they have good intentions, so identify their good intentions and start with agreeing on those.

The general idea is to "pace and lead". Pace, like in a jogging pace, means meeting them at their current pace of ideas so you can talk meaningfully, otherwise you're running too fast for them. When you have paced them and they feel good about talking with you then you are in 'rapport' with them. People feel good when they are in rapport so they will try to be courteous to not break rapport by breaking their pace with you. Then you can try going a little further and they will try to keep their pace with you to keep talking. If they they follow then you are leading them, and you can start leading the way back to liberty. If not then drop back down until you have enough rapport.

Going straight to liberty can be difficult for most people, so you need to go slowly along a path that they can follow. The steps on the path to liberty are:

1. Wanting to Believe: Everybody has good intentions and wants to do things that make them real. So agree that anything that can make those good intentions happen is good. Since everyone wants to do good then we can agree that things that do the least bad and the most good should be done.

2. Becoming Open to Believe: We can agree that since no one knows everything then maybe there are things that we haven't yet thought of that make our good intentions happen with the least bad.

3. Currently Believing: Be aware that beliefs in liberty come into conflict with beliefs that require initiating force, so those beliefs must be let go of to move on to liberty. It is critical to pace people's beliefs that are holding them down so that you can help show them the way to liberty, otherwise you might break your pace with them and lose rapport.

4. Becoming Open to Doubt: Becoming open to doubt a belief can be difficult for someone who has held on to it for a long time and doesn't know that it can be let go of quickly. Find the good intention of the belief, and then recognize that there could be many ways of accomplishing that good intention.

5. The 'Museum of Personal History'- Remembering What We 'Used to' Believe: It's easier to become open to doubt a belief in some emotional states than in others. Getting into a good emotional state before approaching these beliefs is very important. Try remembering the feeling of having old beliefs that you now know are no longer true. Remember jolly old saint Nick and how you felt about him as a child and maybe your beliefs today are in a different part of your heart.

6. Trust: Trust is an essential part of moving forward with your beliefs. Trust is an "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something." "People trust, for instance, that a person will 'be true to his word.' or that 'things will turn out for the best.' ... Emotionally, trust is related to hope. ... The feeling of trust, however, is often stronger than hope. It has to do with the expectation that something will happen, rather than simply the belief that it could happen. Trust, in fact, is often something we must rely on when we have no proof. In this sense, trust extends beyond belief to the level of identity or even spiritual experience. In the natural cycle of belief change, 'trust' is typified by a state that allows us to go beyond our beliefs; to the state from which our beliefs are formed." Maybe ask them that if there were someone that has consistently been dedicated and correct on liberty if they would maybe trust that person. (Maybe find someone they respect that will lead them to the right path. Maybe Gandhi, who was actually pretty close to libertarian.)

(Parts from the book "Sleight of Mouth", on "conversational belief change")

While I haven't empirically tested this yet, I have tried the other way and it has not worked.

AminCad
06-24-2010, 11:58 PM
What is Rand trying to say here? People are unemployed because they are lazy? For some that's probably true but one would think that's not a majority of the workforce (after all, we're hard-working Kentuckians and Americans right?) If he's right, then it means employers have all these jobs that are going unfilled because they are jobs Americans refuse to do (Quick, find me some Mexicans and Jamaicans who will work for peanuts!). Where have we heard that before? Has that not already been debunked?

Paul didn't say all of the unemployed are there by choice, he said a segment of them are, and given the size of the deficit, giving them benefits letting them stay unemployed is something that can't go on.


You know, Rand's victory speech after the primary was the first time I had ever heard him speak before in an extended manner and there was something about the way he spoke that I found disturbing. There was no joy nor upbeat tone, it was grim and indignant. I don't want to compare him to his father and it may well be Rand is far more polished speaker than Ron is, but Ron, for all his rambling, at least spoke of his views in a way that made them seem beneficial in human terms that connected to people in a way libertarians had never been able to before. Rand, for whatever reason, seems to lack that quality and thus what you get sounds a lot like what Ayn Rand would say in an interview like this. Is Rand running because he thinks the people don't know any better about freedom and he does? You can say "sheeple" all you like on forums like this but you better not be running for office anytime soon.

That's because Rand is facing the Democrats now. Ron didn't have to. He's always been supported by the Democrats because they've viewed him as a foil to the Republican mainstream. Now Rand is going up against an entrenched Democrat culture of promoting welfare, attacking any one who calls for austerity as a racist elitist, etc.

Rand has to be more negative and critical, because he has to break down Democrat lies that welfare and benefits can go on forever, the subsidies don't breed sloth, etc.

sailingaway
06-25-2010, 12:02 AM
He actually said the bill should be a priority, but that they should cut spending somewhere else to pay for it, or use stimulus funds. Of course he and we can look at the budget and see ALL SORTS of stuff to cut out, but the Dems in DC think every pig stink study is sacrosanct. And more important than extending unemployment benefits, apparently.