Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In the case of Israel it will be hanging them out to dry. They are surrounded by eight nations that want to destroy them and you Branch Paulinians know it.?No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.Nope, I read the whole thing. It says Rand said the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING he said in this democrat hit piece. I don't give a shit if you can point to some ass hole bloggers that think Rand Paul hung Israel out to dry. It's complete BULLSHIT. Rand did and said quite the opposite.Read the whole thing, dipshit. Damn, you fell off the stupid truck.You dumb ass, your link says the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS.
At best you can argue that Rand proposed at one point eliminating all funding for foreign aid. But that is not the same as HANGING PEOPLE OUT TO DRY. You beggars with your hands out are trying to make out that if we don't give people billions in cash every year we are hanging those people out to dry. What a stupid statement to make.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
He just stated that eliminating funding to all foreign entities does not equate to haining them out to dry. You literally said he didn't read the piece because of X right after he referred to the exact same thing.
You can, of course, debate weather or not that is 'hanging them out to dry' but you cant claim that he didn't read the relevant points.
Eliminating foreign aid is not hanging people out to dry. Quite the contrary. Why don't you put your hat back on and get a frigging job ya moron.No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.Nope, I read the whole thing. It says Rand said the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING he said in this democrat hit piece. I don't give a shit if you can point to some ass hole bloggers that think Rand Paul hung Israel out to dry. It's complete BULLSHIT. Rand did and said quite the opposite.Read the whole thing, dipshit. Damn, you fell off the stupid truck.You dumb ass, your link says the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS.Yes he did.You and matthew are both lying pieces of shit. Rand never said he wants to hang israel out to dry you lying piece of shit.
Did Rand Paul propose cutting off aid to Israel PolitiFact
At best you can argue that Rand proposed at one point eliminating all funding for foreign aid. But that is not the same as HANGING PEOPLE OUT TO DRY. You beggars with your hands out are trying to make out that if we don't give people billions in cash every year we are hanging those people out to dry. What a stupid statement to make.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
I have a job. I'm a conservative, not a Leftist like you.Eliminating foreign aid is not hanging people out to dry. Quite the contrary. Why don't you put your hat back on and get a frigging job ya moron.No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.Nope, I read the whole thing. It says Rand said the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING he said in this democrat hit piece. I don't give a shit if you can point to some ass hole bloggers that think Rand Paul hung Israel out to dry. It's complete BULLSHIT. Rand did and said quite the opposite.Read the whole thing, dipshit. Damn, you fell off the stupid truck.You dumb ass, your link says the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS.
At best you can argue that Rand proposed at one point eliminating all funding for foreign aid. But that is not the same as HANGING PEOPLE OUT TO DRY. You beggars with your hands out are trying to make out that if we don't give people billions in cash every year we are hanging those people out to dry. What a stupid statement to make.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
Then why do you insist we provide welfare for Israel? And no, I'm not a leftist.I have a job. I'm a conservative, not a Leftist like you.Eliminating foreign aid is not hanging people out to dry. Quite the contrary. Why don't you put your hat back on and get a frigging job ya moron.No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.Nope, I read the whole thing. It says Rand said the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING he said in this democrat hit piece. I don't give a shit if you can point to some ass hole bloggers that think Rand Paul hung Israel out to dry. It's complete BULLSHIT. Rand did and said quite the opposite.Read the whole thing, dipshit. Damn, you fell off the stupid truck.You dumb ass, your link says the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS.
At best you can argue that Rand proposed at one point eliminating all funding for foreign aid. But that is not the same as HANGING PEOPLE OUT TO DRY. You beggars with your hands out are trying to make out that if we don't give people billions in cash every year we are hanging those people out to dry. What a stupid statement to make.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
Military aid is not welfare, Leftist.Then why do you insist we provide welfare for Israel? And no, I'm not a leftist.I have a job. I'm a conservative, not a Leftist like you.Eliminating foreign aid is not hanging people out to dry. Quite the contrary. Why don't you put your hat back on and get a frigging job ya moron.No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.Nope, I read the whole thing. It says Rand said the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING he said in this democrat hit piece. I don't give a shit if you can point to some ass hole bloggers that think Rand Paul hung Israel out to dry. It's complete BULLSHIT. Rand did and said quite the opposite.Read the whole thing, dipshit. Damn, you fell off the stupid truck.
At best you can argue that Rand proposed at one point eliminating all funding for foreign aid. But that is not the same as HANGING PEOPLE OUT TO DRY. You beggars with your hands out are trying to make out that if we don't give people billions in cash every year we are hanging those people out to dry. What a stupid statement to make.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
Yes, it is. Ya piece of shit.Military aid is not welfare, Leftist.Then why do you insist we provide welfare for Israel? And no, I'm not a leftist.I have a job. I'm a conservative, not a Leftist like you.Eliminating foreign aid is not hanging people out to dry. Quite the contrary. Why don't you put your hat back on and get a frigging job ya moron.No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.Nope, I read the whole thing. It says Rand said the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING he said in this democrat hit piece. I don't give a shit if you can point to some ass hole bloggers that think Rand Paul hung Israel out to dry. It's complete BULLSHIT. Rand did and said quite the opposite.
At best you can argue that Rand proposed at one point eliminating all funding for foreign aid. But that is not the same as HANGING PEOPLE OUT TO DRY. You beggars with your hands out are trying to make out that if we don't give people billions in cash every year we are hanging those people out to dry. What a stupid statement to make.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
That's why you Branch Paulinian kooks will never be in power.Yes, it is. Ya piece of shit.Military aid is not welfare, Leftist.Then why do you insist we provide welfare for Israel? And no, I'm not a leftist.I have a job. I'm a conservative, not a Leftist like you.Eliminating foreign aid is not hanging people out to dry. Quite the contrary. Why don't you put your hat back on and get a frigging job ya moron.No you didn't read the whole thing or you have the reading comprehension of a slug. It says Paul introduced budget proposals that eliminates foreign aid including to Israel.
This is the problem with you bat shit crazy Branch Paulinians. Even when you're proven wrong you still think you're right. That's why the only recourse to proving what nutbags you are is lost elections. Paul will lose for the same reason Daddy did, because nearly all Americans reject crazy every time it's on the ballot.
You are the only one changing the goal posts from your initial claim murder spiked in the 90s when that isn't the case to a claim murder was higher in the 80's compared to other decades. What your graphs show is a steep decline in the murder rate since the 90s, as incarceration rates have continued to increase.Thats nice. You didn't state just rape though - you directly stated rape AND murder. Guess what - murder Was huge in the 80's and 90's.There was no spike in rape in the 90s.What were the incarceration rates in the4 90's when crime spiked DRAMATICALLY?This is the real world, not some study. Society shouldn't have to suffer because some cleversillies like yourself don't have the common sense to see the connection between higher incarceration rates and lower murder and rape rates.correlation does not equate to causation.The War on Drugs has put a significant dent in violent crimes like rape and murder. Murder and rape rates are down since the 70s and the advent of the War on Drugs. But I suppose he is willing to trade off stiff drug sentencing for higher murder rates in order to be "fair". Maybe he can explain this "fairness" to the next rape victim who was assaulted by a "non-violent" offender out on the street due to lighter sentencing for crack possession or theft.
You lack the common sense to understand that causation is NOT correlation, period. Your assumption that incarcerating people for petty drug crimes somehow helps lower the murder and rape rates is not only completely unfounded but based on absolutely nothing. If you look at the actual data you will find that one simply does not follow from the other. In Washington and Colorado weed has been legalized. Is there a dramatic raise in crime rates there? I would bet that over the next 5 years you will not see a damn thing change.
FBI Homicide rates show the same for homicides.
Homicide Rate per 100 000 1950 2012
Also, we aren't talking about marijuana legalization, we are talking about decriminalization or reduced sentences for all "non-violent" offenses where blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. That includes robbery and hard drug possession as well. Let's just do a thought exercise, who is more likely to commit a violent crime, someone who has committed a non-violent crime or someone who has committed no crime? That's an easy answer. Therefore, the more individuals you have locked up for non-violent offenses, the lower the violent crime rate will be.
So not only do you lack common sense because you are autistic, but you don't know the numbers and are deceitful as well. You should stop wasting people's time here and stop posting.
So, yes crime was very high in the 90's. Guess what though -
Murder (and violent crimes in general) increased in the 80's right when incarceration rates went through the roof. We see that simply incarcerating people does NOT lower crime rates. Incarcerating VIOLENT offenders certainly does but we are not talking about that.
All this time you have been demanding that I have been autistic without information and here we are catching you trying to move the goalposts and lying about reality. Perhaps you should take you own damn advice and stop posting bullshit here.
No, its quite simple. You claimed that there is a direct relationship. Incarceration rate increases and crime decreases (specifically murder and rape). In actuality, incarceration rates increased and murder increased for 20 years. Then it decreased for 20 years. Both while the incarceration continued to increase at a rather steady pace. IOW, there is no correlation between increasing or decreasing incarceration rates and murder or even violent crime in general. Incarcerating people that are not violent criminals does not decrease violent crime. That should be common sense. I have not moved any goalposts at all - that was the supposition I started out with.You are the only one changing the goal posts from your initial claim murder spiked in the 90s when that isn't the case to a claim murder was higher in the 80's compared to other decades. What your graphs show is a steep decline in the murder rate since the 90s, as incarceration rates have continued to increase.Thats nice. You didn't state just rape though - you directly stated rape AND murder. Guess what - murder Was huge in the 80's and 90's.There was no spike in rape in the 90s.What were the incarceration rates in the4 90's when crime spiked DRAMATICALLY?This is the real world, not some study. Society shouldn't have to suffer because some cleversillies like yourself don't have the common sense to see the connection between higher incarceration rates and lower murder and rape rates.correlation does not equate to causation.
You lack the common sense to understand that causation is NOT correlation, period. Your assumption that incarcerating people for petty drug crimes somehow helps lower the murder and rape rates is not only completely unfounded but based on absolutely nothing. If you look at the actual data you will find that one simply does not follow from the other. In Washington and Colorado weed has been legalized. Is there a dramatic raise in crime rates there? I would bet that over the next 5 years you will not see a damn thing change.
FBI Homicide rates show the same for homicides.
Homicide Rate per 100 000 1950 2012
Also, we aren't talking about marijuana legalization, we are talking about decriminalization or reduced sentences for all "non-violent" offenses where blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. That includes robbery and hard drug possession as well. Let's just do a thought exercise, who is more likely to commit a violent crime, someone who has committed a non-violent crime or someone who has committed no crime? That's an easy answer. Therefore, the more individuals you have locked up for non-violent offenses, the lower the violent crime rate will be.
So not only do you lack common sense because you are autistic, but you don't know the numbers and are deceitful as well. You should stop wasting people's time here and stop posting.
So, yes crime was very high in the 90's. Guess what though -
Murder (and violent crimes in general) increased in the 80's right when incarceration rates went through the roof. We see that simply incarcerating people does NOT lower crime rates. Incarcerating VIOLENT offenders certainly does but we are not talking about that.
All this time you have been demanding that I have been autistic without information and here we are catching you trying to move the goalposts and lying about reality. Perhaps you should take you own damn advice and stop posting bullshit here.
Now you are moving the goal posts again, going from a "crime spike in the 90s" to high crimes in the 80s to a crime spike through the 80s, none of this has any basis in fact. Your own charts show there was no spike in crime in the 80s. Initially in the 80s, it went down, then it the late 80s it went back towards what it was at the beginning of the decade. So there was no "spike". By the end of the 80s, the murder rate was around what is was at the beginning, a bit lower than it was at the beginning of the decade, only to continue a very steep decline that persists to this day. So the reality is, since the late 70s, and decade to decade, murder rate has declined sharply as incarceration has continued to rise. So there is absolutely a correlation, and it became stronger as the data shows as more people were incarcerated.No, its quite simple. You claimed that there is a direct relationship. Incarceration rate increases and crime decreases (specifically murder and rape). In actuality, incarceration rates increased and murder increased for 20 years. Then it decreased for 20 years. Both while the incarceration continued to increase at a rather steady pace. IOW, there is no correlation between increasing or decreasing incarceration rates and murder or even violent crime in general. Incarcerating people that are not violent criminals does not decrease violent crime. That should be common sense. I have not moved any goalposts at all - that was the supposition I started out with.You are the only one changing the goal posts from your initial claim murder spiked in the 90s when that isn't the case to a claim murder was higher in the 80's compared to other decades. What your graphs show is a steep decline in the murder rate since the 90s, as incarceration rates have continued to increase.Thats nice. You didn't state just rape though - you directly stated rape AND murder. Guess what - murder Was huge in the 80's and 90's.There was no spike in rape in the 90s.What were the incarceration rates in the4 90's when crime spiked DRAMATICALLY?This is the real world, not some study. Society shouldn't have to suffer because some cleversillies like yourself don't have the common sense to see the connection between higher incarceration rates and lower murder and rape rates.
You lack the common sense to understand that causation is NOT correlation, period. Your assumption that incarcerating people for petty drug crimes somehow helps lower the murder and rape rates is not only completely unfounded but based on absolutely nothing. If you look at the actual data you will find that one simply does not follow from the other. In Washington and Colorado weed has been legalized. Is there a dramatic raise in crime rates there? I would bet that over the next 5 years you will not see a damn thing change.
FBI Homicide rates show the same for homicides.
Homicide Rate per 100 000 1950 2012
Also, we aren't talking about marijuana legalization, we are talking about decriminalization or reduced sentences for all "non-violent" offenses where blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. That includes robbery and hard drug possession as well. Let's just do a thought exercise, who is more likely to commit a violent crime, someone who has committed a non-violent crime or someone who has committed no crime? That's an easy answer. Therefore, the more individuals you have locked up for non-violent offenses, the lower the violent crime rate will be.
So not only do you lack common sense because you are autistic, but you don't know the numbers and are deceitful as well. You should stop wasting people's time here and stop posting.
So, yes crime was very high in the 90's. Guess what though -
Murder (and violent crimes in general) increased in the 80's right when incarceration rates went through the roof. We see that simply incarcerating people does NOT lower crime rates. Incarcerating VIOLENT offenders certainly does but we are not talking about that.
All this time you have been demanding that I have been autistic without information and here we are catching you trying to move the goalposts and lying about reality. Perhaps you should take you own damn advice and stop posting bullshit here.
So, you are going to ignore the data.Now you are moving the goal posts again, going from a "crime spike in the 90s" to high crimes in the 80s to a crime spike through the 80s, none of this has any basis in fact. Your own charts show there was no spike in crime in the 80s. Initially in the 80s, it went down, then it the late 80s it went back towards what it was at the beginning of the decade. So there was no "spike". By the end of the 80s, the murder rate was around what is was at the beginning, a bit lower than it was at the beginning of the decade, only to continue a very steep decline that persists to this day. So the reality is, since the late 70s, and decade to decade, murder rate has declined sharply as incarceration has continued to rise. So there is absolutely a correlation, and it became stronger as the data shows as more people were incarcerated.No, its quite simple. You claimed that there is a direct relationship. Incarceration rate increases and crime decreases (specifically murder and rape). In actuality, incarceration rates increased and murder increased for 20 years. Then it decreased for 20 years. Both while the incarceration continued to increase at a rather steady pace. IOW, there is no correlation between increasing or decreasing incarceration rates and murder or even violent crime in general. Incarcerating people that are not violent criminals does not decrease violent crime. That should be common sense. I have not moved any goalposts at all - that was the supposition I started out with.You are the only one changing the goal posts from your initial claim murder spiked in the 90s when that isn't the case to a claim murder was higher in the 80's compared to other decades. What your graphs show is a steep decline in the murder rate since the 90s, as incarceration rates have continued to increase.Thats nice. You didn't state just rape though - you directly stated rape AND murder. Guess what - murder Was huge in the 80's and 90's.There was no spike in rape in the 90s.What were the incarceration rates in the4 90's when crime spiked DRAMATICALLY?
You lack the common sense to understand that causation is NOT correlation, period. Your assumption that incarcerating people for petty drug crimes somehow helps lower the murder and rape rates is not only completely unfounded but based on absolutely nothing. If you look at the actual data you will find that one simply does not follow from the other. In Washington and Colorado weed has been legalized. Is there a dramatic raise in crime rates there? I would bet that over the next 5 years you will not see a damn thing change.
FBI Homicide rates show the same for homicides.
Homicide Rate per 100 000 1950 2012
Also, we aren't talking about marijuana legalization, we are talking about decriminalization or reduced sentences for all "non-violent" offenses where blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. That includes robbery and hard drug possession as well. Let's just do a thought exercise, who is more likely to commit a violent crime, someone who has committed a non-violent crime or someone who has committed no crime? That's an easy answer. Therefore, the more individuals you have locked up for non-violent offenses, the lower the violent crime rate will be.
So not only do you lack common sense because you are autistic, but you don't know the numbers and are deceitful as well. You should stop wasting people's time here and stop posting.
So, yes crime was very high in the 90's. Guess what though -
Murder (and violent crimes in general) increased in the 80's right when incarceration rates went through the roof. We see that simply incarcerating people does NOT lower crime rates. Incarcerating VIOLENT offenders certainly does but we are not talking about that.
All this time you have been demanding that I have been autistic without information and here we are catching you trying to move the goalposts and lying about reality. Perhaps you should take you own damn advice and stop posting bullshit here.
You have no common sense, or you would understand that "non-violent criminals", those who commit thefts for example, are far more likely than those who haven't committed any crimes to commit a violent crime.
